Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hardener's Up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Hardener's Up? Speed reduced by 50%.
You call that less broken?
How about when a heavy is being repaired, he has his movement speed reduced by 50%?
Another "suggestion" by someone that doesn't use vehicles.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter. If your PS3 is in a box, how can you possibly comment on the state of anything?
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter.
Your suggestions never mattered because they lacked critical thought and you were unwilling to compromise so that both sides could have fun.
I'm not surprised that you ate the forum ban you did, you're a raving psychopath.
Some people are actually concerned with getting vehicles and av into healthy places for both, and this current build is healthy for neither.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Varoth Drac
Dead Man's Game
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tanks aren't too difficult to destroy with AV, large blasters are too good at killing infantry. The dispersion needs a large increase.
Now, you should be able to murder infantry in a tank, but only with a second crew member. Therefore, with large blaster anti infantry nerfed, the small blaster should get a large buff to both dispersion (reduce it) and damage.
Gunning as a passenger in a tank should net you way more kills than running around with a rifle. Currently this is far from the case. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 21:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Varoth Drac wrote:Tanks aren't too difficult to destroy with AV, large blasters are too good at killing infantry. The dispersion needs a large increase.
Now, you should be able to murder infantry in a tank, but only with a second crew member. Therefore, with large blaster anti infantry nerfed, the small blaster should get a large buff to both dispersion (reduce it) and damage.
Gunning as a passenger in a tank should net you way more kills than running around with a rifle. Currently this is far from the case.
I agree with this statement to a point. I indeed think that the primary focus on the HAV's main gun should primarily be related to the destruction of Turrets, Battlefield Assets, and other vehicles or all sizes while secondary gunners primarily cover the roles of anti-infantry protection.
Where I draw the line is that HAV turrets should be limited solely to the above roles. Range, Power, and Explosive Charge all need to be accounted for with HAV turrets. We are talking about baleful energies so devastatingly powerful their use is fiercely prohibited on high population worlds.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Cross Atu
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 15:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one).
Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis.
0.02 ISK
EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
CPM 1, reelection platform here.
|
JARREL THOMAS
Dead Man's Game
837
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 16:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Hardener's Up? Speed reduced by 50%.
You call that less broken? How about when a heavy is being repaired, he has his movement speed reduced by 50%? Another "suggestion" by someone that doesn't use vehicles. HE RETURNS \o/
Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) No.
|
|
JARREL THOMAS
Dead Man's Game
837
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 16:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one). Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis. 0.02 ISK EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive. Must reduce hardeners my reps are all I have
Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) No.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
351
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 17:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Idea, change from a regen-based skirmish system to a buffer based siege system
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
|
Mina Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 21:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one). Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis. 0.02 ISK EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Cross that doesn't really change anything. Also right now it's the double hardener, plate, rep fit that's king of meta.
It allows you to shoot up to 10000~ armor ehp and when repping, you rep for ~500 ehp / second. Making the repairer an active module does nothing to stop the tank from being nigh invincible, or from repping through far too much damage before it just retreats.
Honestly I really think tanks need (yet another *sigh*) redesign. They're currently treated like temporary powerups in terms of ISK cost, yet their sp costs prevent people from having a 'good' tank without 15-20m sp investment, which makes both their costs and their survivability massive problems.
If isk costs stay so high, everyone needs to have access to them and they should be survivable because risk vs reward (I fundamentally disagree with this one). If sp costs stay so high, isk costs and survivability should come down.
Unfortunately if we redesign tanks we also need to redesign av a bit (because swarm launchers are INSANELY easy to use, plasma cannons are insanely hard to use, and the difference between basic and proto av can be as much as ~40-50% damage)
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 23:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mina Longstrike wrote:Cross Atu wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one). Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis. 0.02 ISK EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive. Cross that doesn't really change anything. Also right now it's the double hardener, plate, rep fit that's king of meta. It allows you to shoot up to 10000~ armor ehp and when repping, you rep for ~500 ehp / second. Making the repairer an active module does nothing to stop the tank from being nigh invincible, or from repping through far too much damage before it just retreats. Honestly I really think tanks need (yet another *sigh*) redesign. They're currently treated like temporary powerups in terms of ISK cost, yet their sp costs prevent people from having a 'good' tank without 15-20m sp investment, which makes both their costs and their survivability massive problems. If isk costs stay so high, everyone needs to have access to them and they should be survivable because risk vs reward (I fundamentally disagree with this one). If sp costs stay so high, isk costs and survivability should come down. Unfortunately if we redesign tanks we also need to redesign av a bit (because swarm launchers are INSANELY easy to use, plasma cannons are insanely hard to use, and the difference between basic and proto av can be as much as ~40-50% damage)
Fundamentally disagree with you on this one Malleus. Considering where tank balance was arguably the best and most enjoyed by the general community the consensus generally comes down to 'more raw hp focused with modules that apply small yet meaningful damage mitigation, less examples of prolific ehp based tanks.'
I think it would be more interesting to have vehicle HP to be something you manage actively rather than as something to are simply trying to prevent the loss of.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 01:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Fundamentally disagree with you on this one Malleus. Considering where tank balance was arguably the best and most enjoyed by the general community the consensus generally comes down to 'more raw hp focused with modules that apply small yet meaningful damage mitigation, less examples of prolific ehp based tanks.'
I think it would be more interesting to have vehicle HP to be something you manage actively rather than as something to are simply trying to prevent the loss of.
True enough, I think we started to see a decline in the overall enjoyability of both tanking and AVing when they shifted away from more raw HP and more into stronger passive reps and higher movement speed. The thing is that the effective resistance of hardeners is not that different from what we used to have (though I've said this before) if you account for the passive resistance skills which were 10% if recall. The huge difference of course is that they didn't last as long and they cooled down faster so you ended up managing them on the fly for short bursts
Pokey Dravon for CPM2
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
420
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 17:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
I've had an idea rolling around in my head, admittedly it's probably a terrible idea; What if flux weapons temporarily disabled certain modules?
Flux grenades and Flux strikes already destroy equipment and terminate clones, the latter by (I assume) shorting out/shutting down a Dropsuit's life support systems while a clone bleeds out while the former likely comes from frying the equipments' control circuits.
Primary Hav systems, such as movement, would remain online but modules like Armour Hardeners, MCru etc would go offline for a few seconds.
I assume that an Armour Hardener works by polarising the HAVs hull plating, a flux attack could depolarise the hull (if unshielded) for a second or two, giving AV an opening and making flux strikes more of a threat.
Purifier. First Class.
|
Sylwester Dziewiecki
491
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 20:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active.
G Speed Scout. MM Logi/Assault.
EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
422
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 20:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active. I think that was discussed as being the ideal way , so Dropships don't get screwed over.
Purifier. First Class.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 21:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active. I think that was discussed as being the ideal way , so Dropships don't get screwed over.
Hmmm not as I see it though I take admittedly a more hard line stance on what an ideal functionality would be. Though I've seen a beautiful proposal that introduced passive reactive vehicle plates.
Ideally alongside with these changes to armour repairers you would also see reductions in resistance provided by all hardener units (including shield ones), and a new tier of armour plates with adjustments to the PG and CPU fitting requirements so that 120mm plates become more accessible to dropship pilots.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
422
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active. I think that was discussed as being the ideal way , so Dropships don't get screwed over. Hmmm not as I see it though I take admittedly a more hard line stance on what an ideal functionality would be. Though I've seen a beautiful proposal that introduced passive reactive vehicle plates. Ideally alongside with these changes to armour repairers you would also see reductions in resistance provided by all hardener units (including shield ones), and a new tier of armour plates with adjustments to the PG and CPU fitting requirements so that 120mm plates become more accessible to dropship pilots.
Reactive armour plates sound like a good idea. There really should be a Dropsuit and vehicle version of most of the modules.
Purifier. First Class.
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:47:00 -
[21] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter. If your PS3 is in a box, how can you possibly comment accurately on the state of anything? Because this will never change. Infantry cries, vehicles get nerfed, wash rinse repeat. We tell you how to take us down, then whine that it shouldn't be that way, that you should be able to throw a rock and blow us up. It's always the same thing, and will never end until the time the servers are shut down.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Mina Longstrike wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter. Your suggestions never mattered because they lacked critical thought and you were unwilling to compromise so that both sides could have fun. I'm not surprised that you ate the forum ban you did, you're a raving psychopath. Some people are actually concerned with getting vehicles and av into healthy places for both, and this current build is healthy for neither. I actually have quite good critical thinking skills, but it's not my problem that everybody completely glossed over what I had to say. Why should I compromise when there was nothing left to compromise? All infantry does is take from us. What compromise is there? That's a dictatorship, not a discussion.
Again, I wasn't banned, I just chose not to bother on here because every time I checked it, it was always the same thing. Broken matchmaking, tryhards, buff this, nerf that, and always complaining about vehicles.
And no, people really don't care about getting vehicles and AV into a healthy place. They care about AV being akin to an asteroid on the battlefield, while tanks are nothing more than Hot Wheels with a water gun. Of course it isn't balanced or healthy, because pilots present valid arguments, and infantry covers their ears while yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Chromosome had it best: tanks countered tanks. The turret damage did need a nerf, but it was indeed the best time. AV was supplementary damage, and tanks were usually left alone to whack the hell out of each other.
I really don't see how that's a problem. Let vehicles counter vehicles. AV should not be the be-all end-all solution.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Varoth Drac wrote:Tanks aren't too difficult to destroy with AV, large blasters are too good at killing infantry. The dispersion needs a large increase.
Now, you should be able to murder infantry in a tank, but only with a second crew member. Therefore, with large blaster anti infantry nerfed, the small blaster should get a large buff to both dispersion (reduce it) and damage.
Gunning as a passenger in a tank should net you way more kills than running around with a rifle. Currently this is far from the case. It already requires luck to kill infantry with a blaster, why should it be made even more difficult?
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one). Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis. 0.02 ISK EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive. See, thing is, we find a fit and stick with it. Because we had our options reduced to next to nothing in 1.7, and barely got anything back at the beginning of the year, we experiment, find a few fits that work, and that's all there is to it. There's still nowhere near enough variety.
Since you want to limit vehicle fittings, how about limit infantry fittings? That's fair to me.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Fundamentally disagree with you on this one Malleus. Considering where tank balance was arguably the best and most enjoyed by the general community the consensus generally comes down to 'more raw hp focused with modules that apply small yet meaningful damage mitigation, less examples of prolific ehp based tanks.'
I think it would be more interesting to have vehicle HP to be something you manage actively rather than as something to are simply trying to prevent the loss of.
True enough, I think we started to see a decline in the overall enjoyability of both tanking and AVing when they shifted away from more raw HP and more into stronger passive reps and higher movement speed. The thing is that the effective resistance of hardeners is not that different from what we used to have (though I've said this before) if you account for the passive resistance skills which were 10% if recall. The huge difference of course is that they didn't last as long and they cooled down faster so you ended up managing them on the fly for short bursts There was a decline in enjoyability when we realized our PG skill was nerfed into the ground. That was the beginning of the end for vehicles.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 02:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active. I think that was discussed as being the ideal way , so Dropships don't get screwed over. Pretty much, it's pretty difficult to make an argument against the passive Small Repairers...they simply don't do enough, even when stacked, to be problematic.
Perhaps instead of Light and Heavy repairs we simply have "Armor Repairer" (Heavy & Active) and "Stable Armor Repairer" (Light & Passive).
Pokey Dravon for CPM2
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 03:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Fundamentally disagree with you on this one Malleus. Considering where tank balance was arguably the best and most enjoyed by the general community the consensus generally comes down to 'more raw hp focused with modules that apply small yet meaningful damage mitigation, less examples of prolific ehp based tanks.'
I think it would be more interesting to have vehicle HP to be something you manage actively rather than as something to are simply trying to prevent the loss of.
True enough, I think we started to see a decline in the overall enjoyability of both tanking and AVing when they shifted away from more raw HP and more into stronger passive reps and higher movement speed. The thing is that the effective resistance of hardeners is not that different from what we used to have (though I've said this before) if you account for the passive resistance skills which were 10% if recall. The huge difference of course is that they didn't last as long and they cooled down faster so you ended up managing them on the fly for short bursts There was a decline in enjoyability when we realized our PG skill was nerfed into the ground. That was the beginning of the end for vehicles. Meh I saw 1.7 as the beginning of the end......passive repairers and 40% active resists killed it for me.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Megaman Trigger
Ready to Play
422
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 11:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Megaman Trigger wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Cross Atu wrote: EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
Maybe we could have Small one passive and Large one Active. I think that was discussed as being the ideal way , so Dropships don't get screwed over. Pretty much, it's pretty difficult to make an argument against the passive Small Repairers...they simply don't do enough, even when stacked, to be problematic. Perhaps instead of Light and Heavy repairs we simply have "Armor Repairer" (Heavy & Active) and "Stable Armor Repairer" (Light & Passive).
Dropships, and LAVS too, would benefit from a form of Reactive Plate as well.
Purifier. First Class.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |