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

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 7	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:40:00 - [31] - 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. Tracking speed. When tracking slower moving targets it is helpful to be able to reduce the turn speed (sensitivity) of the DS3 controller to make it easier to avoid overcompensating and waging your weapon back and forth like a dog's tail. I use ADS on the HMG more for controlling my turn speed than for the zoom. It makes it easier to target and track targets 20m out, or to make fine adjustments to get a head shot if you are sneaking up behind someone. I know the best players can swing their sights at full sensitivity and deaden the stick just as it passes over the target, but even those people must find it hard to track a walking target at certain ranges due to the lack of sensitivity on the DS3 thumb stick (meaning that due to the dead space at zero it only senses larger movement of the stick). They would be forced to constantly re-target, rather than track the target. The fact that you can set the sensitivity for both hip and ADS independently makes ADS even more useful for controlling tracking speed. So even on weapons that don't have other effects from ADS such as zoom or decreased dispersion, I would still like to have L1 decrease tracking speed, if the button is not being used for anything else. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 7	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:42:00 - [32] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. Seems like a solid framework. New content/assets might be a stretch; do you have a backup version of the framework without these items, just in case? Might also be handy to include an itemized list of the specific adjustments proposed. His new content proposals are simply reskins of existing art assets, so not too much of a stretch. He is not proposing anything that is actually new, just mixing and matching existing stuff to make a new combination. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:45:00 - [33] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: AV/V proposal: Looking for comment and critique. Seems like a solid framework. New content/assets might be a stretch; do you have a backup version of the framework without these items, just in case? Might also be handy to include an itemized list of the specific adjustments proposed. His new content proposals are simply reskins of existing art assets, so not too much of a stretch. He is not proposing anything that is actually new, just mixing and matching existing stuff to make a new combination. This. Things like converting a forge gun model to use as a heavy laser and such WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 554	Posted - 2015.08.19 15:11:00 - [34] - Quote You missed a spot. Remotes and proxies. These used to be fearsome to me. Now I can't think of the last time someone hopped on my tank and started puking remotes. Haven't heard the beep beep beep of proxies in so long, if someone focused on dropping them everywhere I could be quite ambushed. We have had hardeners for a long time now. The current resistance is indeed to high. Limiting modules is bad though. Remember how myofibs were limited until a fix could be found?... Still waiting. If we limit, they will never revert. As pretty much the only non-tanker that speaks on tanks that I respect, I tucked the bitters away to respond to this. I can't agree enough on parity and full turret lineup. However, those forge changes though... Mainly the charge overheat. Can't count how many times the killshot was the last round that I had to hold and track and plot and let go at last possible opening... Just no. Besides, if I forge infantry, I do it with the AFG inside 30 meters. The current HAV meta is simply due to the 'balances' to rails and missiles. Hard to keep Maddie's in check when I have no teeth. Not to mention, when we had a grand module variety, dual trip hardened tanks weren't a real problem. Much like dropsuits, there were many and varied vehicle fits. We need to stop treating vehicle operators like bad children. This is dust. There are vehicles. Maybe play something else if you want a foot only game. Edit: last part not at you breakin. Did say I was trying to hold back my bitters lol. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.19 15:51:00 - [35] - Quote Devadander wrote: You missed a spot. Remotes and proxies. These used to be fearsome to me. Those are the items I'm actually not familiar enough with to do writeups. Plus the packed came out long before I wrote this. it predated the changes to keep vets out of academy. As noted in the last portion. The limit to hardeners was the least sht of a buncha sht choices. Nothing else modded on the HAVs I could find would drop things into the range where they could be killed properly without either gimping them stupid, or not fixing the problems at all. as to the forge charge drop, it's because the forge gun doesn't need to be a convenient replacement for a sniper rifle that pulls an OHK. For every advantage there is to an item there must be a core disadvantage, and primarily the held-charge is used to ghetto a sniper shot. I recognize that you (and me) forge snipe like real men with an assault, but the breach and standard are an entirely different story for most. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 8	Posted - 2015.08.19 17:14:00 - [36] - Quote When I get some time I will throw together what a little writeup on what i think is inhibiting the use of RE and Proxies. I still use them a lot, I have a decent understanding of how they work, and I don't want them to be easy to use, but they should be a factor in AV. MOAR Ladders SpadeGÇª Remember your Warbarge
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 18:49:00 - [37] - Quote Why hello Breakin, and grats on your CPM election. Me being me, get ready for the smack down. Your proposal is awful, and should be burned with the fires of hell... Ok, serious time. It's an excellent piece of work. Though I do have some problems with a few of your proposals. (Of course I do right) On Tanks I have NEVER been able to agree with a single hardener rule. Placing such limitations leaves NO room for any variation in tank fitting. The baseline fit under this proposal would be the double plated, single rep, single hardener fit that I myself run mostly for trolling in Pubs (and PC). With a single hardener rule, this would be the ONE and ONLY tank on the armor side to run. I do understand why you make such a proposal, but in the end it's nothing more than a band-aid on a gushing wound. And from my experiences with running this fit, I can say a 10% reduction would be HUGE. At 30%, I suspect a single swarmer could easily match a single tank, not to mention your proposals to forge guns (of which I agree). Perhaps this is your intended goal, yet, given the costs for tanks, I simply could not agree with this. With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. And never mind multiple AV, as that would be complete over kill for any tank that moves onto the field. Anyways, enough of my critique. The main problem with tanks lay in the "Waves of Opportunity". The concept works in practice from the tanks perspective, but does not work from the AV perspective. I know from experience, that you can easily work the "Waves of Opportunity" to my own sole advantage. AV quite literally have no "Window of Opportunity" between hardener cycles. On the flip side, I have a HUGE window. This is the biggest problem with AV/Tank interactions. I propose : We reduce the available active hardener times reducing the tanks window A change to passive reps, that fall more inline with EVE active reps. Terribly sorry, but at work atm and breaks over, will finish later.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.19 19:45:00 - [38] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 20:27:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that. Cost is a large issue, and prices would have to come down to reflect the loss of durability. Now, I don't want to go too far with this, as I know it's a rather touchy subject and it's unlikely we will ever agree. But on that one vs one thing. Tanks are nothing like infantry and should not be treated as such. I'm for them having increased durability for what they trade out when you attempt to compare them to dropsuits. Tanks are quite limited in what area's they can actually control, and even then they have some severe limitations. More often than not I run ground game because the contributions I make as infantry far outweigh any contribution I can make in a tank. Just by having a tank on the field does not mean you are going to hold a significant advantage. And with many maps and sockets, tanks just have no viable way to make a contribution. More often than not, AV go for a tank because it's there and they want to kill a tank. Not because it's holding them back from an objective or preventing them from moving up. Given in a few instances they can completely hold a point, they are often very limited to objectives. Dom and Aqa are 2 where they can often make noticeable impacts. Pubs are Pubs, if a tank dominates, is it due to the inadequacies AV or the lack of diversity on the AVers side to deal with it. Let me just throw PC out there. Tanks absolutely do not dominate infantry directly. In fact, you would question whether AV is actually underpowered at all or if tanks are OP. Tanks are there mostly for dropship control. Notably the bridge map would tend to be a good map for a blaster, it's not something I see much anymore. Tanks play an important role, yet it's more directed in the Vehicle vs Vehicle department. And there are often times when I must mulit role and drop tanks all together in favor of a commando. Because my tank isn't making any contribution or AV is dominating. Look, bottom line, they go through with this (even WITH a huge cost reduction), tanks will be completely and utterly worthless. Yes, gloom and doom I know, but it's the cold hard truth. Why in the world would I EVER call a tank out when infantry do it better? Under your proposal tanks become a novelty item (yet again). AV would be where it's at for ALL vehicle control. I commend your efforts at balancing, yet I feel you are missing some important aspects when it comes to tanks and their actual contributions. Or their ability to interact with said infantry that feel they NEED to 1 vs 1 them.
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations 5	Posted - 2015.08.19 20:28:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that. I still maintain that a transition to active, rather than passive, reps is the right call. Gives another point from which to tune values. We also need to look at the situation of value in each type of HAV when considering 'one player = one player' because a HAV with two gunners on board then equals three players and balance needs to account for that in some manner. CPM mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!

Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 20:29:00 - [41] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you. And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps. The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha. If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that. I still maintain that a transition to active, rather than passive, reps is the right call. Gives another point from which to tune values. We also need to look at the situation of value in each type of HAV when considering 'one player = one player' because a HAV with two gunners on board then equals three players and balance needs to account for that in some manner. Good point on that, I'll have to elaborate more on this as well.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 20	Posted - 2015.08.19 20:59:00 - [42] - Quote TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 21:00:00 - [43] - Quote True Adamance wrote: TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around. Only allowing one hardener per fit, buffing forge gun with faster ROF (which I think is a solid idea). Reducing hardener to 30%.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.19 21:20:00 - [44] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around. Only allowing one hardener per fit, buffing forge gun with faster ROF (which I think is a solid idea). Reducing hardener to 30%. And reverting the shield changes and a buncha other crap. The fulcrum point is balancing AV weapons to Vehicles is balance by intended time to kill. And no, it will not make tanks useless. It puts the benchmark madrugar fit at an identical TTK to the closed beta sagaris solo. That's hardly "worthless. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 20	Posted - 2015.08.19 21:47:00 - [45] - Quote Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 22:21:00 - [46] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: And reverting the shield changes and a buncha other crap. The fulcrum point is balancing AV weapons to Vehicles is balance by intended time to kill. The suggestions for this balance method and the suggestions for benchmarking are actually what I consider most important: establishing a method. Numbers and specifics can be shifted up or down as needed and at will depending upon results. And no, it will not make tanks useless. It puts the benchmark madrugar fit at an identical TTK to the closed beta sagaris solo. That's hardly "worthless." Bear in mind all of my proposals are designed to be easily shifted up or down the curve as needed in entire. I want to set things so that, were this proposal adopted and tebu correct that tanks are too squishy, the curve can be easily shifted to compensate. A solid method trumps any numbers I can pull out of my ass any day of the week. And a solid method will make it easier to find the sweet spot. But there is no room in a balanced environment for a single player to require 2-3 to kill. My thing is, within the hardened cycle, it should require more than one to deal with. As we have a non defensive mode that (non hardened) has no defenses if one were to choose double hardeners. It takes burst dps for short periods (which are long periods at the moment). On the flip side, my single hard / rep, double plated fit does better with slower, sustained DPS. Outside of that cycle, tanks are easily taken solo even now. As I had started in the post above that I will finish at some point in time, I think a big part has to do with the waves of opportunity working nearly completely in the tanks favor. Surely we can get creative and work out and idea to open up those windows for AV. I'm still pointing to changing the rep cycles to a 5 second cycle or more. With some of you proposals there, and rep cycles in mind, one will drive one(tank) off with relative ease. Passive reps need to emphasise mitigation of sustained dps, where burst (2 Av for example) damage kills it. And in all honesty, active reps DO need to come back, yet I think we can still keep passive around if we change some of it's basic mechanics. In my mind, a double hardened or triple hardened tank should tank burst damage, and not do nearly as well with sustained dps. To do this, timers need to come down to more reasonable levels to reduce the actual time you can effectively take damage. As any of these tanks without hardeners are basically two shot with an unmodded rail. On the flip side, the fit you describe should be great at dealing with sustained dps, but fail against larger bursts. While it could take burst damage for a short time, it's not possible to sustain it like the previous fit. It's built around the idea that you drop those cycles for some long term sustainability. One type goes balls deep, the other creeps around the edges. (sorry, kinda messy, in a hurry to get to the game)
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 378	Posted - 2015.08.19 22:24:00 - [47] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? Breakin's proposal is largely about quick fixes that could be implemented to address immediate balance concerns to allow for a proper baseline. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.19 22:40:00 - [48] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely on "what we have." If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with. We will see. I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless. Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 11	Posted - 2015.08.19 23:09:00 - [49] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely on "what we have." If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with. We will see. I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless. Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. Will you be looking into what ever happened the previous proposal of UHAVs and the like? I thought it sounded interesting to have various HAV classes, but then talk died out, and I never heard what became of the concepts. Or is that getting ahead of everything? Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.19 23:52:00 - [50] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. This would be an acceptable trade off. Although, I feel often times tanks are not quite the power house against infantry people make them out to be. I personally use tanks more as an anti vehicle/turret source. Blasters can be used for AI, yet I feel often times they are lacking. If I want to go for kills, an ADS is still king in that department. And don't forget dropships, 30% hardeners will drop them even lower on the totem pole. Though I think it's widely known that dropships need the same treatment tanks were given.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 00:26:00 - [51] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely on "what we have." If it is feasible I actually would like to open a dialog with rattati about re-introducing as many modules for vehicles lost in 1.7 that I can get away with. We will see. I'm actually taking making vehicles more sustainable as a pet project objective on the CPM. While I cannot promise (I haven't even finished the NDA process yet) the best results, I'm not interested in the role becoming useless. Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. Will you be looking into what ever happened the previous proposal of UHAVs and the like? I thought it sounded interesting to have various HAV classes, but then talk died out, and I never heard what became of the concepts. Or is that getting ahead of everything? I'm going to take any discussion with the devs about vehicle/AV balance as carefully, logically, and civilly as I can. Bearing in mind, I'm more concerned with learning the process and such at the moment so I can effectively share your feedback as well as mine. Since we didn't get a pokey (again) and I don't think anyone else on CPM 2 has the same interest, I'm going to have to play devil's advocate against myself when it comes to V/AV or any advice I give will inevitably make the problems worse. 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 - 2015.08.20 00:29:00 - [52] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. This would be an acceptable trade off. Although, I feel often times tanks are not quite the power house against infantry people make them out to be. I personally use tanks more as an anti vehicle/turret source. Blasters can be used for AI, yet I feel often times they are lacking. If I want to go for kills, an ADS is still king in that department. And don't forget dropships, 30% hardeners will drop them even lower on the totem pole. Though I think it's widely known that dropships need the same treatment tanks were given. there's nothing here I disagree with out of hand. Incubi will need to change fitting metas likely, but... I absolutely have not forgotten dropships. Once I know how things work, what's in the works (in theory) and once I have figured out where my evil talents best lie? THEN I intend to advocate. But it's also not just tanks and dropships, it's also rifle balance, and I want to help rattati set up baselines, procedures and performance curves wherever he has not already done so by providing good feedback and suggestions. The lack of such has been rather telling in every aspect of the game, especially AV/V, which is invariably all over the gorram map. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 20	Posted - 2015.08.20 00:45:00 - [53] - Quote Eh..... I'm not convinced that HAV can be fixed with the content we have now. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 00:59:00 - [54] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Eh..... I'm not convinced that HAV can be fixed with the content we have now. I think it has more to do with the platform limitations WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 7	Posted - 2015.08.20 13:12:00 - [55] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: With hardener cycles up, a single tanks should not be solo'ed (with just the main weapon) by one infantry. Your proposal, while not fully pushing it to that point, would bring it very close. For this to work, costs would HAVE to come down. 1.2 million for a paper tank is simply unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that. I actually agree with Tebu Gan on this one, specifically because he also specified "with just the main weapon". I think that Swarm, Plasma Cannon, and AHMG users should be able to solo a tank, but only if they also have AV Grenades, or start with a Flux, or the tank is stuck and can't get away, or some other factor. A solo AV'er should only be able to solo a tank if they are lucky, or are supplementing the limitations of their main weapon with something else. I would make an exception for Forge Guns though. First because Forge Guns are a ranged weapon, so you can't exactly pair them up with an AV Grenade. Secondly, the Forge Gun is an aimed weapon, with a charge up time, that can only be used by a Sentinel (with all the limitations to movement that implies). These are limitations the other weapons do not have. So I am fine with a Forge Gun being able to solo a tank, but it should not be easy. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 14:47:00 - [56] - Quote Honestly I suggested that Heavy weapons be the primary anti-HAV weapons with Light AV weapons and sidearms keyed for lighter vehicles once upon a time. People rioted. Mostly my concerns that a weapon has to be able to kill a target pertains to things where the intended engagement distance makes for a passable duel with a railgun. Plasma cannon has range limitations already which almost necessitate AV nades for solo, and I'm tired of grinding my teeth about swarms. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 14:55:00 - [57] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I actually agree with Tebu Gan on this one, specifically because he also specified "with just the main weapon". I think that Swarm, Plasma Cannon, and AHMG users should be able to solo a tank, but only if they also have AV Grenades, or start with a Flux, or the tank is stuck and can't get away, or some other factor. A solo AV'er should only be able to solo a tank if they are lucky, or are supplementing the limitations of their main weapon with something else. I would make an exception for Forge Guns though. First because Forge Guns are a ranged weapon, so you can't exactly pair them up with an AV Grenade. Secondly, the Forge Gun is an aimed weapon, with a charge up time, that can only be used by a Sentinel (with all the limitations to movement that implies). These are limitations the other weapons do not have. So I am fine with a Forge Gun being able to solo a tank, but it should not be easy. Even a forge gun with it's limitations has some strengths. A big part of that being said range. Few weapons have the range (and nearly the power) of a particle cannon. For a blaster tank, a forge gun easily beats it in range, making it difficult to dislodge it. It stands on more even ground with a rail tank, considering they are matched in range. A missile tank is not nearly in as bad a position as a blaster, yet missiles are missiles. They don't do much beyond pop maddies. A forge gun even now has superior vehicle control. They drive away both tanks and ADS, locking down high points while covering large portions of the map. To me, forge guns even now are in a strong spot. They are an absolute must in many PC's I play, and typically have a larger impact on the win than any tank would. They don't need to outright kill a tank, just drive it out. That said though, the proposed slight increase in ROF for the FG would put it in a VERY strong position. Maybe just a bit to strong as they aren't exactly weak now. But I do like the idea of a higher ROF. Anyhow, there are multiple options open to AV and they should all be considered being used in conjunction (a true AV'er) to supplement the primary weapon. And Proxies really need to be looked at. These things could be absolutely devastating. Maybe something like spider mines in SC, where when you get in the proximity of them, they magnetize to the target. As it is now, you can lay a trap, yet getting a tank to drive over them can be difficult. A magnetic feature like AV nades have would go a long way in making them invaluable assets.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:05:00 - [58] - Quote I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal. The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:23:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal. The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability. True, and this would be a reasonable trade off. Something though I've mentioned in the past, if a tank is AI focused, it should be more on par with the infantry it is fighting. Be it through range limitations or durability. If a tank is AV focused, in the case of a rail gun, it should have the durability to withstand punishment from infantry AV as it's not focused around fighting said infantry. Increased durability for the trade off of AI capabilities. Else, the anti vehicle role would fall squarely on infantry AV and only infantry.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:41:00 - [60] - Quote I disagree. Anti vehicle weapons are anti-vehicle weapons. I feel that heavy weapons need to be dual purpose rather than ungodly and unreasonably more powerful. The same applies to turrets. Making heavy turrets gimped against infantry by more methods than rotation speeds can create some issues. Infantry should always be a threat unless they take no special effort to be so. By the same token, HAVs should always be a threat to infantry. Problem with most dialogs is people willing to meet in the middle usually get drowned in a sea of bullsh*t when it comes to AV/v. Honestly I wish balance hadn't swung so hard that the community feels that one must have proto AV to avoid getting schooled without hope of reprieve by HAV and ADS. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:50:00 - [61] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree. Anti vehicle weapons are anti-vehicle weapons. I feel that heavy weapons need to be dual purpose rather than ungodly and unreasonably more powerful. The same applies to turrets. Making heavy turrets gimped against infantry by more methods than rotation speeds can create some issues. Infantry should always be a threat unless they take no special effort to be so. By the same token, HAVs should always be a threat to infantry. Problem with most dialogs is people willing to meet in the middle usually get drowned in a sea of bullsh*t when it comes to AV/v. Honestly I wish balance hadn't swung so hard that the community feels that one must have proto AV to avoid getting schooled without hope of reprieve by HAV and ADS. Say we take a blaster, reduce it's damage and reduce it's dispersion. Conversely, we take a blaster, increase damage but increase dispersion as well. One would be more equipped at taking infantry, the other more equipped for tanks and other vehicles. I could see an obvious problem with the AV blaster being a threat to infantry, yet we had some pretty large dispersion in the past and it severly reduced a blasters AI functionality to a point of nearly being useless. If you could, elaborate on some of these issues that would crop up when you go beyond rotation speed. When I bring my rail tank to the field, dealing with infantry is a secondary thought and not one it does very well at unless what I'm fighting stands still or moves in a straight line.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 16:38:00 - [62] - Quote I don't think that there are any easy fixes. Honestly we'd need to know more of rattati's intent for vehicles ultimately. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:15:00 - [63] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I don't think that there are any easy fixes. Honestly we'd need to know more of rattati's intent for vehicles ultimately. Agreed.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:15:00 - [64] - Quote actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:22:00 - [65] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs Through role bonuses eh. I was thinking doing a bonus to a specific turret class like scouts and cloaks. Though you could do the same with the class of HAV, augmenting the turrets functionality.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:10:00 - [66] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs Through role bonuses eh. I was thinking doing a bonus to a specific turret class like scouts and cloaks. Though you could do the same with the class of HAV, augmenting the turrets functionality. Honestly that might be the least idiotic way of going about it. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:18:00 - [67] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs Through role bonuses eh. I was thinking doing a bonus to a specific turret class like scouts and cloaks. Though you could do the same with the class of HAV, augmenting the turrets functionality. Honestly that might be the least idiotic way of going about it. Sounds good to me. Seems to work best as evident with logis, scouts, assaults, ect.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:43:00 - [68] - Quote so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good. For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footscrubs, but the UHAV would be the low DPS, splash weapon having death mobile that AV has a hard time dropping with MBTs in the middle providing a baseline. I actually wrote the proposal with the intent that the main battle tanks act as the baseline. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 20:20:00 - [69] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good. For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footscrubs, but the UHAV would be the low DPS, splash weapon having death mobile that AV has a hard time dropping with MBTs in the middle providing a baseline. I actually wrote the proposal with the intent that the main battle tanks act as the baseline. Oo, I didn't even consider giving forge heavies a bonus to a certain hull type. That's a good idea. Glad we could come to an understanding. I would be most interested in what the big man up top intends. While I can't say I don't like being OP (not that I drive a tank too often anyhow nowadays), I do not enjoy the imbalances and neither does anyone else. And this is one that has been ongoing since the start of this game with no huge improvements to the problem. Nice work in any case, been a while since there was anything worth commenting on.
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2015.08.20 21:45:00 - [70] - Quote If you want one AV player to reliably handle one vehicle player, then why does the vehicle player have to pay significantly more ISK, SP, vulnerability of deployment and recalling, time required to deploy and recall, as well as a general lack of effectiveness at doing anything but killing out in the open. Things like this are precisely why I don't vote for CPM. Also, suggesting new assets in a game that can barely afford the staff to remove the assets causing the game to run at a crawl is probably not the most sensible approach, particularly for a newly elected "representative". I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease Swarms *everywhere. WoD 514*

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 22:23:00 - [71] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good. For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footscrubs, but the UHAV would be the low DPS, splash weapon having death mobile that AV has a hard time dropping with MBTs in the middle providing a baseline. I actually wrote the proposal with the intent that the main battle tanks act as the baseline. Oo, I didn't even consider giving forge heavies a bonus to a certain hull type. That's a good idea. Glad we could come to an understanding. I would be most interested in what the big man up top intends. While I can't say I don't like being OP (not that I drive a tank too often anyhow nowadays), I do not enjoy the imbalances and neither does anyone else. And this is one that has been ongoing since the start of this game with no huge improvements to the problem. Nice work in any case, been a while since there was anything worth commenting on. I was talking about the heavy turrets, honestly 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 - 2015.08.20 22:24:00 - [72] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: If you want one AV player to reliably handle one vehicle player, then why does the vehicle player have to pay significantly more ISK, SP, vulnerability of deployment and recalling, time required to deploy and recall, as well as a general lack of effectiveness at doing anything but killing out in the open. Things like this are precisely why I don't vote for CPM. Also, suggesting new assets in a game that can barely afford the staff to remove the assets causing the game to run at a crawl is probably not the most sensible approach, particularly for a newly elected "representative". You're falling into my caveat for spkr4thedead: Learn to read. We've been addressing those questions for about four pages now. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2015.08.20 22:32:00 - [73] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: If you want one AV player to reliably handle one vehicle player, then why does the vehicle player have to pay significantly more ISK, SP, vulnerability of deployment and recalling, time required to deploy and recall, as well as a general lack of effectiveness at doing anything but killing out in the open. Things like this are precisely why I don't vote for CPM. Also, suggesting new assets in a game that can barely afford the staff to remove the assets causing the game to run at a crawl is probably not the most sensible approach, particularly for a newly elected "representative". You're falling into my caveat for spkr4thedead: Learn to read. We've been addressing those questions for about four pages now. I wasted enough time reading through your document, I'm not here to debate things that will never happen. You're falling into my caveat for Sorya, so the feeling is apparently mutual. I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease Swarms *everywhere. WoD 514*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.20 22:58:00 - [74] - Quote As if I cared what you thought of me. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
2 NOITCEFREP YLOH Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 21	Posted - 2015.08.21 01:04:00 - [75] - 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. Well you got the AV part... oh wait you included tanks ( only nerfed more ******* ) get gud I am LOGI KING
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.21 07:41:00 - [76] - Quote I'm still better than you. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
CommanderBolt Dead Man's Game 3	Posted - 2015.08.22 10:51:00 - [77] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Honestly, not terribly often but there are times where I am set up preparing a trap for tanks or infantry. I usually have the charge held for infantry to be honest. I know you understand the intricacies of forgeing so I trust your judgement even if I dont fully agree. "Madness how we turned our common-ground into a battle-ground.." - Essa
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.22 11:45:00 - [78] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Honestly, not terribly often but there are times where I am set up preparing a trap for tanks or infantry. I usually have the charge held for infantry to be honest. I know you understand the intricacies of forgeing so I trust your judgement even if I dont fully agree. Unfortunately if we want to get a bit more juice out of the guns, then we absolutely have to be prepared to compromise. Giving up a little sniper utility in exchange for more alpha and less charge time to put the vanilla forge between the assault and breach is a compromise I am more than happy to make. The proppsal may be based wholly on a balanced conceptual framework, HOWEVER, It would still involve nerfing and buffing things simultaneously, something I normally loathe. There's also that "on paper" and "in practice" don't always mesh well. So I'm trying to make everything as linear, adjustable and prepared fully to compromise to bring things to actual parity. The reduction in sniper utility serves two functions: 1: limiting lazy tower sniper behavior and forcing forge gunners into a less passive role on the battlefield. 2: restoring sniper rifles to the premier long range precision weapon. The forge gun does not need to be better at AV as well as being better than sniper rifles at sniping. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 12	Posted - 2015.08.22 12:44:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Honestly, not terribly often but there are times where I am set up preparing a trap for tanks or infantry. I usually have the charge held for infantry to be honest. I know you understand the intricacies of forgeing so I trust your judgement even if I dont fully agree. Unfortunately if we want to get a bit more juice out of the guns, then we absolutely have to be prepared to compromise. Giving up a little sniper utility in exchange for more alpha and less charge time to put the vanilla forge between the assault and breach is a compromise I am more than happy to make. The proppsal may be based wholly on a balanced conceptual framework, HOWEVER, It would still involve nerfing and buffing things simultaneously, something I normally loathe. There's also that "on paper" and "in practice" don't always mesh well. So I'm trying to make everything as linear, adjustable and prepared fully to compromise to bring things to actual parity. The reduction in sniper utility serves two functions: 1: limiting lazy tower sniper behavior and forcing forge gunners into a less passive role on the battlefield. 2: restoring sniper rifles to the premier long range precision weapon. The forge gun does not need to be better at AV as well as being better than sniper rifles at sniping. What is being defined as sniper utility, so that I can better understand what is being presented? Thanks for all the support guys, let's fix Dust 514 :D
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.22 14:20:00 - [80] - Quote Forge gun hold-charge. The proposal suggests a 5 second cut-off to held charge. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.

Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.22 15:27:00 - [81] - Quote Just spit balling an idea here. What if forge guns (or a variant) did damage based on the amount of charge. Meaning it could be fired early for much less damage. Might be something good for infantry sniping.
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 472	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:00:00 - [82] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Just spit balling an idea here. What if forge guns (or a variant) did damage based on the amount of charge. Meaning it could be fired early for much less damage. Might be something good for infantry sniping. Like the Charge Sniper; half charge for lower damage, and maybe shorter range, or full charge for full damage. Purifier. First Class.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:24:00 - [83] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Just spit balling an idea here. What if forge guns (or a variant) did damage based on the amount of charge. Meaning it could be fired early for much less damage. Might be something good for infantry sniping. Like the Charge Sniper; half charge for lower damage, and maybe shorter range, or full charge for full damage. with four shots total in the magazine? Waste of ammo and effort WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 12	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:37:00 - [84] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Forge gun hold-charge. The proposal suggests a 5 second cut-off to held charge. Eh, sure. I forge snipe with an Assault Forge Gun anyway so it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. Thanks for all the support guys, let's fix Dust 514 :D
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:55:00 - [85] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Eh, sure. I forge snipe with an Assault Forge Gun anyway so it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. And what are balance decisions if not a means by which to tailor the game to better fit my playstyle? Will the proposed change affect me negatively? Opposed. Will the proposed change affect me positively? In Favor. Will the proposed change not affect me in the slightest? Eh, sure. :: A moment inside Aeon's mind :: CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.22 17:01:00 - [86] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Just spit balling an idea here. What if forge guns (or a variant) did damage based on the amount of charge. Meaning it could be fired early for much less damage. Might be something good for infantry sniping. Like the Charge Sniper; half charge for lower damage, and maybe shorter range, or full charge for full damage. with four shots total in the magazine? Waste of ammo and effort Could be a variant, larger magazine, higher ROF, less damage per shot. Something good for keeping the pressure up. Bored, just throwing random stuff out there.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.22 17:11:00 - [87] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Just spit balling an idea here. What if forge guns (or a variant) did damage based on the amount of charge. Meaning it could be fired early for much less damage. Might be something good for infantry sniping. Like the Charge Sniper; half charge for lower damage, and maybe shorter range, or full charge for full damage. with four shots total in the magazine? Waste of ammo and effort Could be a variant, larger magazine, higher ROF, less damage per shot. Something good for keeping the pressure up. Bored, just throwing random stuff out there. that would be under the AI heavy weapons bit actually 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 - 2015.08.22 17:14:00 - [88] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Eh, sure. I forge snipe with an Assault Forge Gun anyway so it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. And what are balance decisions if not a means by which to tailor the game to better fit my playstyle? Will the proposed change affect me negatively? Opposed. Will the proposed change affect me positively? In Favor. Will the proposed change not affect me in the slightest? Eh, sure. :: A moment inside Aeon's mind :: @ Breakin - I don't see any problem holding a charge on a sniper rifle or nova knives or maintaining target lock indefinitely with a swarm launcher. What is the basis for implementing a mechanical restriction on the Forge Gun? Is Forge Sniping that big of a problem? it's a tradeoff. Being able to wait indefinitely to alpha a passing tank or dropship the instant they put themselves into a bad spot should require timing and some forethought, not the ability to simply hold a charge forever from a rooftop. That and I'd like it to be slightly harder to use a forge gun as a sniper rifle to pick off infantry, personally. The assault is "all or nothing" but it's generally only used by people who have been using it forever to begin with and have the forge gun behaviors down to a science anyway. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
CommanderBolt Dead Man's Game 3	Posted - 2015.08.23 08:09:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Eh, sure. I forge snipe with an Assault Forge Gun anyway so it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. And what are balance decisions if not a means by which to tailor the game to better fit my playstyle? Will the proposed change affect me negatively? Opposed. Will the proposed change affect me positively? In Favor. Will the proposed change not affect me in the slightest? Eh, sure. :: A moment inside Aeon's mind :: @ Breakin - I don't see any problem holding a charge on a sniper rifle or nova knives or maintaining target lock indefinitely with a swarm launcher. What is the basis for implementing a mechanical restriction on the Forge Gun? Is Forge Sniping that big of a problem? it's a tradeoff. Being able to wait indefinitely to alpha a passing tank or dropship the instant they put themselves into a bad spot should require timing and some forethought, not the ability to simply hold a charge forever from a rooftop. That and I'd like it to be slightly harder to use a forge gun as a sniper rifle to pick off infantry, personally. The assault is "all or nothing" but it's generally only used by people who have been using it forever to begin with and have the forge gun behaviors down to a science anyway. The splash makes infantry sniping easy mode from an elevated vantage point (Much like mass drivers, Flaylocks and PLC`s) however the regular charge and hold in my opinion is a much more viable weapon for absolute infantry sniping from all elevations. "Madness how we turned our common-ground into a battle-ground.." - Essa
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 12	Posted - 2015.08.23 10:04:00 - [90] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Eh, sure. I forge snipe with an Assault Forge Gun anyway so it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. And what are balance decisions if not a means by which to tailor the game to better fit my playstyle? Will the proposed change affect me negatively? Opposed. Will the proposed change affect me positively? In Favor. Will the proposed change not affect me in the slightest? Eh, sure. :: A moment inside Aeon's mind :: @ Breakin - I don't see any problem holding a charge on a sniper rifle or nova knives or maintaining target lock indefinitely with a swarm launcher. What is the basis for implementing a mechanical restriction on the Forge Gun? Is Forge Sniping that big of a problem? Adipem you could twist a child's Happy Birthday song and make it into something it is not. I was stating that because while it is awesome that this change limits forge sniping with vanilla forge guns in a small way, it doesn't address the fact that forge sniping > sniping. There is no sway, if you hit them you are -GUARANTEED- to kill them, and you can remain mobile while doing so. You put the reticle over the target, if it lights up red, they die. I pointed out the fact that yes, it would affect normal forge gun sniping, but it isn't addressing the core issue of the problem. I'm sorry I didn't make this blatantly clear and directly say that but I didn't feel that I needed to at the time. I understand now that I was wrong and that from now on I need to make things as painfully obvious as possible using complete sentences and baby speak or expect to be needlessly painted as the villain because you just do not like me for whatever reason, enough so that you have -directly stated- that amends cannot be made. Look dude, I've told you once before (in The Barbershop no less) that I am willing to bury the hatchet with you but if you're not going to meet me halfway on that than you can absolutely 100% expect to be visiting another representative for the remainder of the term because [i]I'm just not going to deal with you[/i] I am not going to beg you to co-operate with me. Thanks for all the support guys, let's fix Dust 514 :D

Tebu Gan 0uter.Heaven 1	Posted - 2015.08.25 00:54:00 - [91] - Quote Did a few comparisons with current fits simulating a 3 hard 1 rep, and 2 hard, 1 rep, 1 plate (the current PC tank meta). threw in a 2 plate, 1 rep, 1 hard fit for lolz and it's insanely underpowered in comparison. The fit I assume is attacking is a duel dmg mod, heatsink proto rail. Attempting to convince my corp tankers that's it's superior within it's hardener cycle to any fit out there. Would like you to fact check if you don't mind. Sorry it's not exactly pretty but I think my math is solid. Outside of the hardener cycle, it's a difference of one shot anyhow, which is marginal and not nearly as useful as some make it out to be. Right now though the tank meta is hardeners or go home. Tank on tank skirmishes are brief anyhow. But imagine if AV attempted to down this tank (3 hards 1 rep) in it's cycle. With a blaster, it could hold a point for 45 seconds against quite a large number of AV (AV nades are required). Not to mention on a blaster they can easily cycle and have at least one up all the time. Tank comparisions


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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!!