DUST Search - [Feedback] Hotfix FoxFour

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Feedback] Hotfix FoxFour

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.05 18:44:00 - [1] - Quote Is it confirmed now that the SL maneuverability parameter that was tweaked from 90 to 70 [units] and is proposed to be tweaked to 50 in Foxfour is indeed "max rotation [-¦]"? If so I'll crosscheck this with my simulations in the next few days. Shouldn't be too hard. I still find it a very weird design parameter. [Edit] Current SLs don't seem to adhere to this: - Lock on to a static LAV. - Launch swarms in the opposite direction. - SL missiles will perform a full 180-¦ turn. - Foxfour design sheet says current maximum rotation is 70-¦. I won't be able to give any feedback until this is resolved.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.06 13:00:00 - [2] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Is it confirmed now that the SL maneuverability parameter that was tweaked from 90 to 70 [units] and is proposed to be tweaked to 50 in Foxfour is indeed "max rotation [-¦]"? I assume it's referring to a rotation speed, rather than a max total rotation. Let's hope so.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.06 15:45:00 - [3] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Sequal's Back wrote: I hope you did some kind of script to like every comments automatically. If not, it must be pretty easy to do with any HTML parser. Python or PowerShell ones are really easy to use if you haven't coded one yet ;D I like them all manually. I feel loved.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.07 08:58:00 - [4] - Quote I would've preferred a buff to initial dispersion. I don't like decreasing dispersion for blasters. What's going to be the splash damage? It won't be helpful if each individual hit is below the shield regen threshold. That gives a lower bound of 11 damage to shields per shot (Caldari Scout shield threshold). At 20 shots a second that's at least 220 DPS for any shot that lands within 2 meters of the target.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.08 11:30:00 - [5] - Quote If anyone was interested in performing some testing of the dropship-swarm interaction I'd be very open to messages to my pilot alt "Jak Teston". I will likely be online for from 12 UTC to 14 UTC, maybe also later.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.08 20:08:00 - [6] - Quote The swarm missile tracking changes seem to have gone through. Missiles do appear to have more trouble tracking vehicles under certain conditions. Though I didn't manage to produce a miss on LAVs or DS during my few hours of testing today. At least this shows that missile tracking doesn't break badly when this parameter is toned down. Might I suggest dialing swarm rotation speed further down to 40 (-¦/s, if that is the correct unit) at the next convenience? Other than that, congratulations on a well done hotfix. I didn't notice any technical issues. P.S.: I am sorry to report that flying a 150k ISK NDS with 28 mil SP to back it up (perfect fitting skills) seems to have less of a positive effect on the result of a match than using a MLT SL and a MLT Magsec on a 8k ISK STD Basic suit.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.10 12:43:00 - [7] - Quote Today I successfully managed to dodge Swarms with a Python. It took me a few attempts, but here's what I did: - Linger at ~100 meters range towards enemies and pelt them with rockets until sufficient attention is attracted and a swarmer fires a volley at you. - Flick on afterburner and go to 150 meter range quickly. There should now be two swarms in the air, third one should not lock on. - Tank the first swarm while setting up maximum angular speed towards incoming second volley (what I did was "fly a circle around the approaching missiles" - this ends up looking like a spiral, because I don't know any better maneuvers). - Hopefully ... dodge the first approach of the second volley. - If enough distance is achieved in the meantime the swarms won't manage to come back around for a second hit. [See my swarm missile speed and lifetime changes to rectify this.] - You're ready to attack with minimal damage taken. But you used up an afterburner. As predicted, this isn't much more useful than just afterburning into the distance, but that is exactly what we were aiming for. The concept seems sound and we can now include missile turn rate as one of the parameters that can be tweaked in order to achieve ADS and SL balance. By the way, DS are still very far away from being able to dodge missiles. Those still rely on raw ehp, but the range nerf made things much easier. With a missile gunner I can now hover at ~125 m range and dip out of lock on range when things get too tough. I feel that this does significantly decrease the utility of SLs though. More analysis to come in my SL feedback thread after further testing.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.10 16:39:00 - [8] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: @Stefan: I also think the turning changes are a step in the right direction, they let you artificially increase the distance Swarms have to travel, which helps you actually leave the fight. I do think Swarms need the variants looked at: having the base SL function like a 'Breach' with high damage but longish lock-on times (for HAV work) and the Assault having lower damage (probably a little lower than the current SL) but with longer lock range, faster lock-on and more shots in the clip. That would go a long way towards solving SL balance by making them actually balance-capable, instead of OP vs one and UP vs the other. I'm receptive to the idea of separating SLs into long and short range versions. However I advise against separating them too far for several reasons. Most importantly, once we get into a territory where the two variants are separated into "anti-DS SL" and "anti-HAV SL" the utility of each individual SL will be greatly reduced. It's a good idea to have one SL that does long range supressive damage to both DS and HAV and a short range SL that can kill HAVs and forces DS to immediately flee out of range. But the long range SL needs to be able to deter an HAV that is rolling up to your face and the short range SL needs to be able to keep a DS away. Otherwise people won't use either of them unless they perform so well at their respective jobs that it'll be an unfair fight for the HAV or DS pilots.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.10 17:56:00 - [9] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Unless CCP is actually willing to reinvent the mechanics entirely, which I honestly believe would do a whole lot more than just tweaking numbers. The game's mechanics seem to have been designed in a very flexible way. The way rifle dispersion and kick can be modified using several parameters for all sorts of conditions (standing, crouching, walking) shows that the original designers really were looking for a long-term design. Similarly SLs appear to have a fairly large number of tweakable parameters (such as under which conditions exactly a lock on is lost). There seems to be a lot of stuff to work with for the time being. Should anyone be working on a port though I'm sure we'll be asked for feedback as soon as possible . The only hard mechanical change I'd like to see with swarm launchers right now is directional launching (making the missiles start their travel in the direction you launched them). That'd open up possibility for skillshots with SLs, which would be much appreciated I believe.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.12 08:27:00 - [10] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: would love to have these thoughts spelled out in actual before and after numbers per each swarm variant. I'll entertain the thought and see what comes of it, but I can't promise I'll be able to prioritize it sufficiently. By the way, I proposed a dumb-fire single-missile SL variant back in June 2014 with these stats: The past wrote: - 1 "Missile" per shot - No lock-on - 400 direct damage per shot - 8 shots per clip - 60 rpm - About the same projectile speed as current Swam Launcher (-> playtest) - Same splash damage stats as current Swarm Launcher - Same range of rockets as current Swam Launcher These days I think I'd give it ~200 hp splash damage at a 2 meter radius for some medium range supportive anti-infantry capability. Too little to be competitive (a pro flaylock does 340 dps splash), but enough to add some utility for those times when there isn't an HAV within 60 meters of you.

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 08:58:00 - [11] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: I know it takes some skills to increase the survivability, and getting the hell out of there works too. I think standard dropships and ADS need a straight HP and fitting buff. Especially PG on armour ships, cos it's very tight on fitting. The Myron is actually worse for fitting space. It lags a fair bit behind the Grimsnes right now and could definitely go with +5% PG. On the other hand at some point I wouldn't know what to fit to its low slots...

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.