DUST Search - For peer review:

All Channels

General Discussions

For peer review:

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:09:00 - [1] - Quote AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. To the usual offenders, I really am not going to entertain your comments. For those who actually enjoy constructive debate and discussion: Have an proposal for vehicle/AV balance that may or may not be an elaborate rickroll. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 370	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:35:00 - [2] - Quote I feel most of your methodology is sound, and I've voiced most of my concerns to you (or seen other people voicing their concerns during the inception of the document). The only other thing I could add is rebalancing STD and ADV weapons off of proto, to narrow the gap. As an interim solution, I could see a hardener limit, but I don't like things heavy handed unless a glitch is involved (such as what happened with the myofibs)...I am not in support of a hardener limit, but as a stop-gap until Armor Reps can be fixed. other parts of V/AV that needs to be addressed is that Light Modules (in General) need to be un-sucked...and the gap between STD and PRO needs to be narrowed as well. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Operative 1174 Uuali True Companion Planetary Requisitions 1	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:38:00 - [3] - Quote All I care about is the level of fun. Make tanks gods for a short time then vulnerable and have to retreat. That along with my proposal in my CPM platform to have greater contrast between an offensive and defensive tank would make for more dynamic gameplay and leave vehicles open to infantry attack while still being balanced against each other. So, even though tanks would have to retreat from infantry, they could still battle it out between each other. A standard turret can fit complex defense mods while a proto turret can fit only fit basic mods wih advanced stuff being closer in power to basic stuff. Therefore, they cancel each other out enough to allow for balanced tank battles. AV would be powerful against a tank wih no hardener or repper going. Hardeners and reppers would be active and run longer with longer cooldown. MY CPM2 PLATFORM
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:56:00 - [4] - Quote I'm of the opinion that the costs would have to come down, and to compensate for the loss of durability the actual ability to fight infantry would need an uptick. How much of an uptick I'm not sure. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Sicerly Yaw Corrosive Synergy No Context 839	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:57:00 - [5] - Quote overall I like the proposal, everything seems to be in line and be more or less balanced I don't have any major concerns or discrepancies, some of the numbers may need to be worked on slightly but the ones suggested seem fine on paper not sure about how they would perform in practice tho something else to consider is the assault Swarm Launcher as that is a variant that tends to be overlooked and could be changed to be in line as an alternate AV or AV/AI weapon click here if you are making a new account and want some free BPO's
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.16 00:08:00 - [6] - Quote Sicerly Yaw wrote: I don't have any major concerns or discrepancies, some of the numbers may need to be worked on slightly but the ones suggested seem fine on paper not sure about how they would perform in practice tho I deliberately tried to arrange the numbers so that if something turns out OP/UP you can just tune the entire set of weapons up or down as needed without having to play guessing games with end performance. I try to write things with the idea that yes, it might actually turn out too effective or not effective enough. But I figure the more consistent and streamlined I make my numbers, the easier it will be to adjust them. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 938	Posted - 2015.08.16 00:46:00 - [7] - Quote My general opinion on this is thank you and good job. Now I can say that Forge guns are good where they are since I noticed infantry use prototype or officer weapons to fight back tankers. I do propose a very slight nerf on plasma cannon heat up in the ways of increasing the heat up time and to drop the damage against shields. Also as a note Lai Dai packed AV grenades must have a slight nerf in carrying capacity and should require more nanites when restocking from Nanohives. Drop the carrying capacity from 3 to 2 for all packed AV grenades. Now moving on to tanks, we must consider the fact of a small module reworking. The amount of damage blocked by hardeners should reflect it's meta level. Small armor repair modules should remain passive and large armor repair modules should be active but should also have a slight PG decrease and a slight CPU increase based on meta level. Armor plates should do more to penalize movement speed but should take up less PG and CPU. It should serve as a buffer and a weight holding tanks down thus making a tank actually a tank. For those that choose to NOT add armor plates movement speed and general movement should be unhindered unless in a specific area that does hinder movement. Shield boosters should be given a incentive for tankers to use them as by lowering CPU requirements and changing it to Shield recovered per pulse. Shield regulators also require a buff in strength to those that are interested in running dedicated shield tank fits. As for shield hardeners, they should have a almost instant activation OR base health of shield tanks in general should be higher. Armor tanks in general have a higher base health and top speed than shield tanks. Moving on to turrets and/or AV weapons; New turrets or AV weaponry should NOT be introduced. Instead, variation of existing turrets should be reimplemented like the compressed particle cannon and fragmented missile launcher as to have more options to combat enemy AV forces and to work better as a force multiplier and not be too dependant on teammates to kill off enemy AV infantry. Racially aligned tanks should be a lesser priority and racially aligned turrets too. Balancing and tweaking should be a bigger priority than introducing new content. In conclusion, dedicated AV should be a fighting force. A mercenary with Lai Dai packed AV grenades as his only AV measures should not be a standing threat as it is now. Tank versus tank is already well done. Any inputs? ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 309	Posted - 2015.08.16 04:56:00 - [8] - Quote We already talked about this, but I want to put my thoughts out on the forum for posterity. First, and most important is that the vehicle AV relationship contains choices for BOTH sides. An AV'er should have the option of a longer range, slower TTK setup that reduces their risk, while also being able to fit a close up, very high damage option that requires them to get within get roasted range. The vehicle pilot must also have choices to make regarding standing and fighting or hauling butt to escape the threat. On the face of it, your numbers look good, as the engagement times look very servicable, and the options for tuning are easy to adjust. Now, we already talked about my personal pessimism regarding porting/new content, so I don't think we should expect new weapons or turrets, or anything of that sort, and as long as we don't all move forward with that expectation, I think the community can provide meaningful feedback on this idea. One thing I didn't mention that you brought up briefly in our discussion is that if we are going to be buffing AV and readjusting tanks, I want tanks to be able to massacre infantry as they properly should. I have no qualms with a single AV player being able to junk my tank, so long as I have an equal chance of turning him to biomass if I get a chance. Finally, even though it doesn't fit in with your proposal specifically, AV nades will need to be carefully watched if a system like this goes into effect. There is a fairly high potential for AV nades to get out of hand if tanks are a little on the weak side, and I agree with Maximus that AV nades should not be a primary AV weapon on their own. If we approach a point where an infantry person can mop a tank up with just a nanohive and four nades, they will need to get hit with the nerf bat. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 940	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:16:00 - [9] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: We already talked about this, but I want to put my thoughts out on the forum for posterity. First, and most important is that the vehicle AV relationship contains choices for BOTH sides. An AV'er should have the option of a longer range, slower TTK setup that reduces their risk, while also being able to fit a close up, very high damage option that requires them to get within get roasted range. The vehicle pilot must also have choices to make regarding standing and fighting or hauling butt to escape the threat. On the face of it, your numbers look good, as the engagement times look very servicable, and the options for tuning are easy to adjust. Now, we already talked about my personal pessimism regarding porting/new content, so I don't think we should expect new weapons or turrets, or anything of that sort, and as long as we don't all move forward with that expectation, I think the community can provide meaningful feedback on this idea. One thing I didn't mention that you brought up briefly in our discussion is that if we are going to be buffing AV and readjusting tanks, I want tanks to be able to massacre infantry as they properly should. I have no qualms with a single AV player being able to junk my tank, so long as I have an equal chance of turning him to biomass if I get a chance. Finally, even though it doesn't fit in with your proposal specifically, AV nades will need to be carefully watched if a system like this goes into effect. There is a fairly high potential for AV nades to get out of hand if tanks are a little on the weak side, and I agree with Maximus that AV nades should not be a primary AV weapon on their own. If we approach a point where an infantry person can mop a tank up with just a nanohive and four nades, they will need to get hit with the nerf bat. I agree that AV grenades should be nerfed but not in damage but in other means. Reduce the range thrown and magnestism by 3 meters and 1 meter respectively, slightly increase PG cost, decrease Packed AV grenades from 3 to 2 and make them be heavier on Nanohives since grenade spam seems to be first and last resorts for anyone with a formidable opponent. Other than that, introduction of new content is the least productive thing to occur within the AV & Vehicle communities respectively. ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 310	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:22:00 - [10] - Quote Maximus Mobius wrote: I agree that AV grenades should be nerfed but not in damage but in other means. Reduce the range thrown and magnestism by 3 meters and 1 meter respectively, slightly increase PG cost, decrease Packed AV grenades from 3 to 2 and make them be heavier on Nanohives since grenade spam seems to be first and last resorts for anyone with a formidable opponent. Other than that, introduction of new content is the least productive thing to occur within the AV & Vehicle communities respectively. Reducing range means AVers have to get right next to the tank, which is kind of crap. If this type of proposal gets enacted, leave them as they are at first, then adjust as necessary. AV nades still need to be a threat to tankers who think that driving within a few metres of a bunch of infantry is a good idea. With the current tanks, AV nades are fine, so I would be patient before I start slamming nerfs around. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu

Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 940	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:23:00 - [11] - Quote Tl;dr No new content. Rework Tanks & essential modules. Nerf AV grenades (specifically Packed AV nades). ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 940	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:24:00 - [12] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Maximus Mobius wrote: I agree that AV grenades should be nerfed but not in damage but in other means. Reduce the range thrown and magnestism by 3 meters and 1 meter respectively, slightly increase PG cost, decrease Packed AV grenades from 3 to 2 and make them be heavier on Nanohives since grenade spam seems to be first and last resorts for anyone with a formidable opponent. Other than that, introduction of new content is the least productive thing to occur within the AV & Vehicle communities respectively. Reducing range means AVers have to get right next to the tank, which is kind of crap. If this type of proposal gets enacted, leave them as they are at first, then adjust as necessary. AV nades still need to be a threat to tankers who think that driving within a few metres of a bunch of infantry is a good idea. With the current tanks, AV nades are fine, so I would be patient before I start slamming nerfs around. Increases in nanite cost and carrying capacity is still a necessary action though. ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 310	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:28:00 - [13] - Quote Maximus Mobius wrote: Increases in nanite cost and carrying capacity is still a necessary action though. Nanite cost sure, but carrying capacity for right now is fine. No one is getting wiped out by just three nades right now. Any tanker with a bit of a brain would be hard pressed to get killed by AV nades alone right now. In any situation where two guys get six off, well, you got outnumbered, and everyone dies in a fire eventually. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 943	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:40:00 - [14] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Maximus Mobius wrote: Increases in nanite cost and carrying capacity is still a necessary action though. Nanite cost sure, but carrying capacity for right now is fine. No one is getting wiped out by just three nades right now. Any tanker with a bit of a brain would be hard pressed to get killed by AV nades alone right now. In any situation where two guys get six off, well, you got outnumbered, and everyone dies in a fire eventually. Fair enough but it takes a single plasma shot or any other high powered AV weapon to hit a armor tank once and 3 packed Lai Dai grenades will obliterate it. If the tanker is stuck in a bad situation or simply can't move from existential factors, he will lose 200,000 ISK on upward from effort that only cost 25,000 on upward. ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 310	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:50:00 - [15] - Quote Maximus Mobius wrote: Fair enough but it takes a single plasma shot or any other high powered AV weapon to hit a armor tank once and 3 packed Lai Dai grenades will obliterate it. If the tanker is stuck in a bad situation or simply can't move from existential factors, he will lose 200,000 ISK on upward from effort that only cost 25,000 on upward. And? Getting stuck in a bad situation means death. Don't get caught in bad situations. If the enemy baits you into one, good for them, enjoy your respawn. Glitches happen, and the randomness of it means you lost a bet with the RNG gods, but that isn't a problem with AV nades, but the game as a whole. Even if tanks cost 10 million ISK, a tanker who screws the pooch and high centers himself infront of some infantry should die. Just because AV nades are affordable doesn't mean they shouldn't work. They serve a very valid purpose, to keep tankers honest. You can't take that away just because you think that your tank is worth more and should therefore be able to survive an equal ISK cost to destroy it. That isn't a valid method of comparison. My gv.0 fits cost more than a million, but can be destroyed by 25k ISK worth of proto proxy mines. Should proxies be nerfed so that it takes one million ISK worth of proxies to destroy my tank? Of course not. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Maximus Mobius Fatal Absolution 943	Posted - 2015.08.16 06:09:00 - [16] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Maximus Mobius wrote: Fair enough but it takes a single plasma shot or any other high powered AV weapon to hit a armor tank once and 3 packed Lai Dai grenades will obliterate it. If the tanker is stuck in a bad situation or simply can't move from existential factors, he will lose 200,000 ISK on upward from effort that only cost 25,000 on upward. And? Getting stuck in a bad situation means death. Don't get caught in bad situations. If the enemy baits you into one, good for them, enjoy your respawn. Glitches happen, and the randomness of it means you lost a bet with the RNG gods, but that isn't a problem with AV nades, but the game as a whole. Even if tanks cost 10 million ISK, a tanker who screws the pooch and high centers himself infront of some infantry should die. Just because AV nades are affordable doesn't mean they shouldn't work. They serve a very valid purpose, to keep tankers honest. You can't take that away just because you think that your tank is worth more and should therefore be able to survive an equal ISK cost to destroy it. That isn't a valid method of comparison. My gv.0 fits cost more than a million, but can be destroyed by 25k ISK worth of proto proxy mines. Should proxies be nerfed so that it takes one million ISK worth of proxies to destroy my tank? Of course not. I in no way implied that AV should match the vehicles weight in ISK and should also be a direct reflection on standing damage. All I'm saying is if you tries to already escape, but the poorly meshed landscape gets you stuck, reversing, turning and speeding up is almost justifying a tanker's ability to fight back the AV without having to deal with landscape and akward camera angles. The tanker basically got his pooch screwed for him. ALL HAIL MAXSON!! Multi-role Tanker Tanks and turrets supplied by Caldari Steel and Ishukone!! For The State!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.16 08:14:00 - [17] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: One thing I didn't mention that you brought up briefly in our discussion is that if we are going to be buffing AV and readjusting tanks, I want tanks to be able to massacre infantry as they properly should. I have no qualms with a single AV player being able to junk my tank, so long as I have an equal chance of turning him to biomass if I get a chance. Finally, even though it doesn't fit in with your proposal specifically, AV nades will need to be carefully watched if a system like this goes into effect. There is a fairly high potential for AV nades to get out of hand if tanks are a little on the weak side, and I agree with Maximus that AV nades should not be a primary AV weapon on their own. If we approach a point where an infantry person can mop a tank up with just a nanohive and four nades, they will need to get hit with the nerf bat. first point: agreed. The whole idea here is to make tanks fit the DUST "Everything is disposable" idea without going so far as to make tanks instapoppable. But if I get to have a solid chance to kill you, then you damn well better have the tools to fight back properly. Honestly? I'm in favor of making nades unable to be restocked at a nanohive as well. I don't have a real problem if a tank dies because four or five assaults start flinging packed AV nades all at the same time, but I DO have a problem with people who stand on hives and fling them, or cores nonstop. Fortunately, commandos can't use grenades, so they aren't as much of a factor. They will reload a crapton faster, and that reload results in about 18% increased sustained DPS. So six of one, half a dozen of the other. AVnades on AV sentinels is a bad idea overall, unless you're the type who likes to literally shove the gun up the tanker's buttcheeks like I am. Even then, locus nades will serve you better. but flinging AV nades then lighting up the IAFG will be doable and deadly. This is why I want the tanker lethality returned somewhat. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.16 08:30:00 - [18] - Quote Maximus Mobius wrote: Moving on to turrets and/or AV weapons; New turrets or AV weaponry should NOT be introduced. Instead, variation of existing turrets should be reimplemented like the compressed particle cannon and fragmented missile launcher as to have more options to combat enemy AV forces and to work better as a force multiplier and not be too dependant on teammates to kill off enemy AV infantry. Racially aligned tanks should be a lesser priority and racially aligned turrets too. Balancing and tweaking should be a bigger priority than introducing new content. In conclusion, dedicated AV should be a fighting force. A mercenary with Lai Dai packed AV grenades as his only AV measures should not be a standing threat as it is now. Tank versus tank is already well done. Any inputs? A single mercenary with a laidai is only a threat to a militia tank. I'm shockingly comfortable with this. And Av nades need to make you think twice about entering an area. My original iteration of the proposal put AV nades back to chrome stats. And then I looked back, ran the numbers, threw up in my mouth a little and reduced it back to today's stats. As to not introducing new... Hell no I will fight that with knives. We need racial AV parity, period. We need turret parity, period. We need Vehicle HULL parity, period. And I'll take 'em any way I can get 'em. I actually had a spreadsheet somewhere with proposals for Artillery, autocannon, Beam and Pulse Laser Heavy turrets somewhere. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 3	Posted - 2015.08.16 11:19:00 - [19] - Quote You want to nerf the held charge for the standard forge guns.... I haven't bought hundreds of Gastuns forges for nothing bro! "Madness how we turned our common-ground into a battle-ground.." - Essa
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.16 11:21:00 - [20] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: You want to nerf the held charge for the standard forge guns.... I haven't bought hundreds of Gastuns forges for nothing bro! Do you REALLY need to hold a charge on a gastun for eight seconds? I never do. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.08.16 11:31:00 - [21] - Quote Just skimming at the moment, but I cant help but feel that if you're using an assault as the 'benchmark' for plasma cannons... they'll be ABSOLUTELY insane when a commando gets a hold of them. Yes they're hard to use but if you've got a kubo's now you can kill a gunnlogi in 3 shots (provided you hit them all). Same problem with swarm launchers. The reload speed (and potentially damage bonuses) do throw TTK out of whack. That said, breach forge IS one of my favorite forge guns (when not doing CFW I tend to play in smaller squads, and it's usually myself and a buddy attempting to take on the world and deal with all the problems that blueberries wont. Two breach forges can do horrible things to vehicles). Final edit: ~~I'm not seeing much actual discussion of vehicles or time to kill values...~~ found the spreadsheets. I'm not on board with a lot of your ideas... these numbers are approached from a 'single aver vs single tank' angle and while I feel that yes a single aver should be able to destroy a vehicle in a semi-reasonable timeframe, vehicles either leave (which leads to frustration on the aver's part) or there's multiple avers and that leads to unbelievably short TTK's on vehicle users part (which leads to frustration because they just lost more than they're likely to make in the match). Overall there are a lot of problems with this AND i'm not particularly pleased with the requests for new weapons though heavies certainly deserve some. In particular I dislike the "zealot" type weapon, and the anti-material rifle. AV sniper rifles opens a huge bad can of worms for vehicles (pilots have been complaining about high burst damage instakilling their expensive vehicles and rendering glitches like invisible swarms for FOREVER). One of the biggest problems with vehicle design currently is that they are typically ONLY 'fun' or interesting for a single part in an engagement (if that at all) and they need a metric boatload more work on more nuanced play and counterplay. Swarms are a perfect example of the problem, they're an incredibly low player skill 'point at target' mechanic, it's mindless on the part of the person shooting them and it's frustrating on the part of the vehicle user because they often CANNOT do anything about swarms (usually in escaping but sometimes in engaging). On the infantry end the current 'meta' tank fits are nigh indestructible, rep insane amounts incredibly quickly and simply zoom off once their cooldowns come into play. I think we should probably just write 'waves of opportunity' off as an entirely failed design concept and start over again. Cheap moderate hp vehicles, all infantry primary weapons (aside from purpose built av weapons and some sidearm exceptions) able to do 10-20% damage to vehicle, some efficiency tweaking on plasma cannons (75%), swarm launchers losing lock-on (and instead becoming something similar to plasma cannon but with a small av-grenade like seek range), some forge tweaking (and breach forge rework) are just initial points on my mind. I think we'd end up in a much healthier place for vehicles. Now... all that said. Change is bad and I hate it, maybe its nostalgia goggles but it seems like vehicles vs av balance has gotten worse every ing time it's been attempted. I no longer pull out vehicles unless I absolutely have to, because I've simply lost all passion for them - they are not fun, they are not engaging. They are frustrating to encounter because two or three tanks (or a dropship on TEH HIGH SPAHT!) will prettymuch ruin a match unless it's on a socket that they cannot access and unless you play like a **ing coward you will go deeply isk negative because a 20 second (or less) engagement resulting from a single mistake or quite simply being surprised will kill you (and your fun). Dropships and LAV's are ing coffins that are used either to get places fast or to get onto high spots. There is so very little that remains interesting about vehicles in this game anymore. They lack any meaningful roles beyond "get place faster" or "drive around and kill everything" and it seems like nearly everything is stacked against people attempting to be useful with them. If anything makes me quit dust, it will be the unsatisfactory vehicle (and anti-vehicle) gameplay... I was initially interested in dust because I went "whoa you can drive a tank ALL THE TIME? thats AWESOME!", and then upon playing I found out that vehicles are murderously expensive and ruinously stupid to play because dust is hilariously infantry centric. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.16 12:25:00 - [22] - Quote balancing for the outlier isn't going to work well. Besides, the only change to the plasma cannon proposed is 5% reload speed. Nothing else changes from current. Bluntly I have a lot of the same problems you do Mina. Unfortunately, ad I am not a dev, and have no say in the designs, my proposals are limited by what is available. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 445	Posted - 2015.08.16 14:40:00 - [23] - Quote This thread needs a blue tag. Purifier. First Class.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 7	Posted - 2015.08.17 15:58:00 - [24] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. To the usual offenders, I really am not going to entertain your comments. For those who actually enjoy constructive debate and discussion: Have an proposal for vehicle/AV balance that may or may not be an elaborate rickroll. There are some interesting ideas in there. Still reading. I like that Anti-Materiel Rifle concept. Sort of a Sniper Rifle firing armor piercing rounds, which can chip away at an armored vehicle, but do real damage where the armor is thinner and the round can penetrate completely. Those weapons that are "not designed to benefit from Aim Down Sight or zoom functions", I am fine with them not having Zoom, or reduced Dispersion, but I would like to have the reduced sensitivity when pressing L1. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.17 16:06:00 - [25] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. To the usual offenders, I really am not going to entertain your comments. For those who actually enjoy constructive debate and discussion: Have an proposal for vehicle/AV balance that may or may not be an elaborate rickroll. There are some interesting ideas in there. Still reading. I like that Anti-Materiel Rifle concept. Sort of a Sniper Rifle firing armor piercing rounds, which can chip away at an armored vehicle, but do real damage where the armor is thinner and the round can penetrate completely. Those weapons that are "not designed to benefit from Aim Down Sight or zoom functions", I am fine with them not having Zoom, or reduced Dispersion, but I would like to have the reduced sensitivity when pressing L1. reduced sensitivity? Clarify. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Mikel Arias Challengers 506 174	Posted - 2015.08.17 21:37:00 - [26] - Quote In general it seems really good, in particular I really like what you propose with the forge gun and the overheat to reduce sniping. It still gives a chance to do it and makes it a "think better" weapon even when used against vehicles. And, of course, I really like the new weapons you propose. I also like that you want the heavy AV weapons to be without the zoom function to prevent the excesive use of these against infantry, thats great. Now, what I would really like to know is about this Plasma Mortar. I get you are giving general ideas, but I would really like to know more about this weapon (I cant really get a clear idea of it).
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 451	Posted - 2015.08.17 23:00:00 - [27] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. To the usual offenders, I really am not going to entertain your comments. For those who actually enjoy constructive debate and discussion: Have an proposal for vehicle/AV balance that may or may not be an elaborate rickroll. There are some interesting ideas in there. Still reading. I like that Anti-Materiel Rifle concept. Sort of a Sniper Rifle firing armor piercing rounds, which can chip away at an armored vehicle, but do real damage where the armor is thinner and the round can penetrate completely. Those weapons that are "not designed to benefit from Aim Down Sight or zoom functions", I am fine with them not having Zoom, or reduced Dispersion, but I would like to have the reduced sensitivity when pressing L1. reduced sensitivity? Clarify. Holding L1 slows the aim, giving you Aim Down Sight sensitivity but without the zoom, allowing more precise aim that can make smaller adjustments. This is what I want for the Forge Gun. Purifier. First Class.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.18 07:51:00 - [28] - Quote AH. I'm just the opposite. I think if I had reduced sensitivity I'd lose my mind. But I'm not a fan of features that would make it easier to track and blap infantry. This would help with fast snap fire forge sniping. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.19 04:56:00 - [29] - Quote Maximus Mobius wrote: I agree that AV grenades should be nerfed but not in damage but in other means. Reduce the range thrown and magnestism by 3 meters and 1 meter respectively, slightly increase PG cost, decrease Packed AV grenades from 3 to 2 and make them be heavier on Nanohives since grenade spam seems to be first and last resorts for anyone with a formidable opponent. Other than that, introduction of new content is the least productive thing to occur within the AV & Vehicle communities respectively. Is HAV acceleration is going to be dramatically reduced? Short of pilot error or confined space, I'm rarely able to place 3 consecutive AV grenades on target as is. All the pilot has to do is move forward or backwards when hit by the first nade to clear toss range of subsequent grenades. The second grenade might connect, but the HAV's will be well out-of-range of the third. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.19 05:07:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. Seems like a solid framework. New content/assets might be a stretch; would the framework function without these items? Might also be handy to include an itemized list of the specific adjustments proposed. CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!

ALL HAIL MAXSON!!

For The State!!