Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Tech Ohm Eaven
L.O.T.I.S.
458
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:09:00 -
[241] - Quote
Ulysses Knapse wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:WARBLEGARBLE ANGRYTANKER SCREECH why is it that you tankers think you need to be totally immortal unless an entire squad rolls up with complex dam mod stacked proto gear to take out a standard level tank? do you see me whine when I go 3/7 burning your asses to the ground, hunting you across the field with my AV? no, because I know the risk of keeping a swarm launcher to fight you and that realistically, there will probably be an enemy encounter that isn't a vehicle between me and you. know what the risk is to a tank? Kittening NOTHING short of a dedicated av player, the blueberries growing a collective brain, or another, BETTER tank. A good tank costs far more than a standard AV user. Furthermore, that tech level argument doesn't actually work, since Advanced HAVs are nothing special and Prototype HAVs don't exist. Either way, he isn't arguing about dedicated AV users, he is arguing that he spends many skills to use a HAV and anyone can effectively use AV. Sure, one AV user doesn't scare a tanker, but once one comes out others are going to follow. Swarm launchers are the worst. Why? Because they work best against HAVs on flat, open ground, which is where HAVs are supposed to work well at. And they don't require skill unless the HAV is hiding behind something. Just lock and fire. No aiming necessary. On the other side, HAVs are beasts, but if you don't know how to pilot one you are screwed. The fact that it requires so many skill points is bad, too. Do you know why HAVs seem so overpowered? It is because HAVs are expensive, and only the truly great ones are fielded. It would be a waste otherwise. Those so called "standard-level tanks"? They are fitted with Prototype modules in many circumstances. Hardly comparable to a Standard dropsuit.
They do not seem overpowered but instead they are overpowered with the argument "its a tank" to rationalize a OHK. Well wheres my 1M ISK javelin to get a OHK on any tank.??
Sounds fair to me in that if the HAV user spends 1M isk for OHK capability then give me the same option to also spend 1M ISK to OHK a tank.
Wheres my 1M ISK Javelin?? |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:13:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:
They do not seem overpowered but instead they are overpowered with the argument "its a tank" to rationalize a OHK. Well wheres my 1M ISK javelin to get a OHK on any tank.??
Sounds fair to me in that if the HAV user spends 1M isk for OHK capability then give me the same option to also spend 1M ISK to OHK a tank.
Wheres my 1M ISK Javelin??
according to them you should also have to spec into that weapon and absolutely nothing else. |
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1212
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:15:00 -
[243] - Quote
What i want is that you need to spend a similar amount of SP to do a AV job as when you would use a tank. Both should be equal and AV's should only be fited onto dropsuits which allow you to fit AV weapons. In my opinion if we are at it why dont we seperate the other skills aswell? going full on hardcore. Im giving you a exmaple list:
instead of electronics: -assault dropsuit electronics -heavy dropsuit electronics -Logi dropsuit electronics -scout dropsuit electronics
instead of engenieering: -assault dropsuit engenieering -heavy dropsuit engenieering -Logi dropsuit engenieering -scout dropsuit engenieering
instead of shield upgrades: -assault dropsuit shield upgrades -heavy dropsuit shield upgrades -Logi dropsuit shield upgrades -scout dropsuit shield upgrades
instead of assault-heavy-logi-scout dropsuit operation (AV dropsuit) -AV assault dropsuit -AV heavy dropsuit -AV Logi dropsuit -AV scout dropsuit (those suits are only allowed to carry AV weapons but no AR's or other infantry weapons apart of sidearms and grenades)
If you guys want to go "oh yeah more specialisation is better" then you should aswell have to spend more SP to do the AV job. Oh and the AV suits should aswell have their seperated skills like "AV assault dropsuit electronics" and so on. Nobody should be on the upper side after the respec. Either you go normal infantry or AV but not both at the same time. And to make it clear again: AV dropsuits are the only dropsuits allowed to carry AV weapons of any kind. to balance it out i would recomend 50-60% more health on the AV dropsuits and aswell integrated armor repair at a 3HP/s. Of course it should have aswell have racial variants and so on which you need to specialise even more. |
Paladin Sas
Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:17:00 -
[244] - Quote
I happen to agree with XXfootnoteXX. i find they are pretty well balanced. the best tankers out there are near impossible to kill for 2 reasons. 1. they have a healthy respect (not hatred, respect) for the dangers that AV bring to the table 2. they understand how to not get tricked into thinking tanks are "god mode"
tanks are squishy. very very incredibly squishy. and they should be. the amount of firepower they bring to the field is devestating and they can potentially win the battle singlehandedly. and its because of this that they die so often. ive personally killed a multitude of tanks because they got cocky and bumrushed my infantries line, where they were swiftly dispatched. enemy tanks that stay with their infantry and provide armored support, those tanks are damn near unkillable. not because of the tank itself, but because of the infantry. and dont go bitching about the 400m range on swarms and forges either. its called cover folks. learn the terain. i personally field absolute crap tanks from time to time, and i do a decent job in them because i understand sticking with the team and using terain. all you tankers out there griping about how often AV kills you, go play World of Tanks on the PC, the lessons i learned there have saved me millions in DUST.
lastly, tanks should be much more skill intensive than AV, they pose a much more significant gamechanger on the field than any AV ever will. Deal with the balance folks. tanks are weak, infantry are weaker, quit trying to solo a team based game. |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:25:00 -
[245] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Everything must be skilled into
fine, then tanks must also have different driving skills by model, lets separate hybrid into blaster and railgun. You don't share shield control with dropsuits, or field mechanics. and you now need to have a separate of every skill for every type of tank.
so you're totally locked into whatever you pick first unless you're willing to play for years on end to have a second choice ready. |
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1212
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:35:00 -
[246] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Everything must be skilled into fine, then tanks must also have different driving skills by model, lets separate hybrid into blaster and railgun. You don't share shield control with dropsuits, or field mechanics. and you now need to have a separate of every skill for every type of tank. so you're totally locked into whatever you pick first unless you're willing to play for years on end to have a second choice ready. I could live with that and thats CCP's long term plan anyway. So what would change? |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:37:00 -
[247] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Everything must be skilled into fine, then tanks must also have different driving skills by model, lets separate hybrid into blaster and railgun. You don't share shield control with dropsuits, or field mechanics. and you now need to have a separate of every skill for every type of tank. so you're totally locked into whatever you pick first unless you're willing to play for years on end to have a second choice ready. I could live with that and thats CCP's long term plan anyway. So what would change?
currently, everything would. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
779
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:44:00 -
[248] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:AV's should only be fited onto dropsuits which allow you to fit AV weapons You should only be allowed to call in tanks if you're wearing a tank driving suit |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:46:00 -
[249] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:The dark cloud wrote:AV's should only be fited onto dropsuits which allow you to fit AV weapons You should only be allowed to call in tanks if you're wearing a tank driving suit
That too! |
Tech Ohm Eaven
L.O.T.I.S.
458
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:54:00 -
[250] - Quote
Solo tank driver can only move tank or activate reppers with NO guns. Two in a tank then all of the above and ONLY main gun fires. Three in a tank and all of the above plus the small turrets fire.
Sounds fair.
Takes three infantry to kill a tank then it needs to be three infantry to operate it. |
|
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1212
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:00:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:Solo tank driver can only move tank or activate reppers with NO guns. Two in a tank then all of the above and ONLY main gun fires. Three in a tank and all of the above plus the small turrets fire.
Sounds fair.
Takes three infantry to kill a tank then it needs to be three infantry to operate it. Nope tanks aint becoming another "dropship". And you sir sound mad that i recommend equal SP investment. Sore infantry player much? |
Tech Ohm Eaven
L.O.T.I.S.
458
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:05:00 -
[252] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:Solo tank driver can only move tank or activate reppers with NO guns. Two in a tank then all of the above and ONLY main gun fires. Three in a tank and all of the above plus the small turrets fire.
Sounds fair.
Takes three infantry to kill a tank then it needs to be three infantry to operate it. Nope tanks aint becoming another "dropship". And you sir sound mad that i recommend equal SP investment. Sore infantry player much?
So if it takes 4m sp to operate a tank then give me a OHK javelin for 4 m sp that also OHK infantry. |
LoveNewlooy
WarRavens
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:07:00 -
[253] - Quote
does hybird count on shotgun? |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:07:00 -
[254] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Sore infantry player much?
other way around, tank drivers are salty that infantry can spec into av easily. even though that's on top of whatever they would be regularly putting points into, and specialized fittings made specifically to counter vehicles.
to kill vehicles we have to give up infantry killing ability(forge guns notwithstanding) as they are incapable of harming infantry players. what do tanks give up to fight other tanks or infantry? NOTHING. they can kill everything effectively without giving up anything against either. |
XXfootnoteXX
DUST University Ivy League
184
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:12:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:WARBLEGARBLE ANGRYTANKER SCREECH why is it that you tankers think you need to be totally immortal unless an entire squad rolls up with complex dam mod stacked proto gear to take out a standard level tank? do you see me whine when I go 3/7 burning your asses to the ground, hunting you across the field with my AV? no, because I know the risk of keeping a swarm launcher to fight you and that realistically, there will probably be an enemy encounter that isn't a vehicle between me and you. know what the risk is to a tank? Kittening NOTHING short of a dedicated av player, the blueberries growing a collective brain, or another, BETTER tank. A good tank costs far more than a standard AV user. Furthermore, that tech level argument doesn't actually work, since Advanced HAVs are nothing special and Prototype HAVs don't exist. Either way, he isn't arguing about dedicated AV users, he is arguing that he spends many skills to use a HAV and anyone can effectively use AV. Sure, one AV user doesn't scare a tanker, but once one comes out others are going to follow. Swarm launchers are the worst. Why? Because they work best against HAVs on flat, open ground, which is where HAVs are supposed to work well at. And they don't require skill unless the HAV is hiding behind something. Just lock and fire. No aiming necessary. On the other side, HAVs are beasts, but if you don't know how to pilot one you are screwed. The fact that it requires so many skill points is bad, too. Do you know why HAVs seem so overpowered? It is because HAVs are expensive, and only the truly great ones are fielded. It would be a waste otherwise. Those so called "standard-level tanks"? They are fitted with Prototype modules in many circumstances. Hardly comparable to a Standard dropsuit. They do not seem overpowered but instead they are overpowered with the argument "its a tank" to rationalize a OHK. Well wheres my 1M ISK javelin to get a OHK on any tank.?? Sounds fair to me in that if the HAV user spends 1M isk for OHK capability then give me the same option to also spend 1M ISK to OHK a tank. Wheres my 1M ISK Javelin??
Its a 2500 WP OB.
|
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
779
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:13:00 -
[256] - Quote
Why would tanks and AV require the same SP investment? Can an AV player survive 15 people shooting them with an AR?
Things that can seriously hurt a tank: Forge Guns, Swarm Launchers, AV grenades, Orbital Strikes Things that can hurt AV: everything in the game minus Swarm Launchers and AV grenades.
|
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
779
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:15:00 -
[257] - Quote
XXfootnoteXX wrote:
Its a 2500 WP OB.
I've seen tanks just sit through OBS. |
XXfootnoteXX
DUST University Ivy League
184
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:15:00 -
[258] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Why would tanks and AV require the same SP investment? Can an AV player survive 15 people shooting them with an AR?
Things that can seriously hurt a tank: Forge Guns, Swarm Launchers, AV grenades, Orbital Strikes Things that can hurt AV: everything in the game minus Swarm Launchers and AV grenades.
STOP USING LOGIC!!!! |
Tech Ohm Eaven
L.O.T.I.S.
458
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:15:00 -
[259] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Sore infantry player much? other way around, tank drivers are salty that infantry can spec into av easily. even though that's on top of whatever they would be regularly putting points into, and specialized fittings made specifically to counter vehicles. to kill vehicles we have to give up infantry killing ability(forge guns notwithstanding) as they are incapable of harming infantry players. what do tanks give up to fight other tanks or infantry? NOTHING. they can kill everything effectively without giving up anything against either.
Agreed.
Tanks are ISK intensive the same as good infantry fittings but tanks are going to get kills and are inmune to being sniped by a rifle, shotgunned, melee or other risks that simple infantry has to face. |
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1212
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:15:00 -
[260] - Quote
Just you wait. Because ive mentioned and suggested this CCP is going to implement it at some point. You wanna know why? Cause it would extend the games lifetime. Sure it wont be with the new build that we get soon. But probs after that. CCP introduced quite alot of my suggestions into the game. LIke the fix for TAC AR' and the added recoil on normal AR'S. All my soloutions to "balance" the game. |
|
XXfootnoteXX
DUST University Ivy League
184
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:17:00 -
[261] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:XXfootnoteXX wrote:
Its a 2500 WP OB.
I've seen tanks just sit through OBS.
Ok, honestly I have only used them on tanks 2 times, they worked both times, not a guaranteed kill though. |
Heathen Bastard
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
131
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:19:00 -
[262] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Just you wait. Because ive mentioned and suggested this CCP is going to implement it at some point. You wanna know why? Cause it would extend the games lifetime. Sure it wont be with the new build that we get soon. But probs after that. CCP introduced quite alot of my suggestions into the game. LIke the fix for TAC AR' and the added recoil on normal AR'S. All my soloutions to "balance" the game.
and when they do that, I'll still spec into AV and blow you up, and you'll still scream out for nerfs, CCP shall look down upon the chaos and whisper: "SOONGäó" |
Zooka Booom
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:22:00 -
[263] - Quote
If they change the main gun on tanks so it can only kill other tanks and installations then i can go with big sp investments in av infantry. If you need 6 mill sp to have a good swarm luncher thats only effects havs , lavs and installations. Thats more like it i think |
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
1282
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:25:00 -
[264] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Just you wait. Because ive mentioned and suggested this CCP is going to implement it at some point. You wanna know why? Cause it would extend the games lifetime. Sure it wont be with the new build that we get soon. But probs after that. CCP introduced quite alot of my suggestions into the game. LIke the fix for TAC AR' and the added recoil on normal AR'S. All my soloutions to "balance" the game. and when they do that, I'll still spec into AV and blow you up, and you'll still scream out for nerfs, CCP shall look down upon the chaos and whisper: "SOONGäó"
except the fix for TAC AR is a non-sense as it became pretty much unusable giving it a huuuge recoil insted of just lowering RoF. And the missing recoil to AR was just a glitch, they were always supposed to have some. BUT, weird enough, the better your AR is, the worst the recoil is.
Making using exile AR still as easy as cake.
Anyway, not like you were the only one asking for those things ^^ |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
779
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:27:00 -
[265] - Quote
My AV fit costs 75K if I lose just 3 then I've already lost 225K, which is probably more than I'l make in a match considering I'm focusing on the tank and not getting much WP otherwise. I'm pretty much guaranteed to die at least 3 times if the tank has good infantry support, and I can guarantee that I won't do much damage to a tank if I don't have other AV players helping me.
So even if you did lose a 2 million ISK tank, I can almost guarantee that your tank did more ISK damage to my team than we did to you, unless we we're all using militia fits of course. |
Ignoble Son
3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:30:00 -
[266] - Quote
Laurent Cazaderon wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Just you wait. Because ive mentioned and suggested this CCP is going to implement it at some point. You wanna know why? Cause it would extend the games lifetime. Sure it wont be with the new build that we get soon. But probs after that. CCP introduced quite alot of my suggestions into the game. LIke the fix for TAC AR' and the added recoil on normal AR'S. All my soloutions to "balance" the game. and when they do that, I'll still spec into AV and blow you up, and you'll still scream out for nerfs, CCP shall look down upon the chaos and whisper: "SOONGäó" except the fix for TAC AR is a non-sense as it became pretty much unusable giving it a huuuge recoil insted of just lowering RoF. And the missing recoil to AR was just a glitch, they were always supposed to have some. BUT, weird enough, the better your AR is, the worst the recoil is. Making using exile AR still as easy as cake. Anyway, not like you were the only one asking for those things ^^
Yah, because the fixes to the TAR were superb, which is why you see so many people using it today.
Man if you really are the reason why the TAR got effed up as bad as it did then... I hate you.
Don't use the AR enough to be able to comment. |
Tech Ohm Eaven
L.O.T.I.S.
458
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:11:00 -
[267] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Just you wait. Because ive mentioned and suggested this CCP is going to implement it at some point. You wanna know why? Cause it would extend the games lifetime. Sure it wont be with the new build that we get soon. But probs after that. CCP introduced quite alot of my suggestions into the game. LIke the fix for TAC AR' and the added recoil on normal AR'S. All my soloutions to "balance" the game.
No. The only things that will extend the games lifetime are new maps, new game modes and new weapons.
If it lacks these three key items in favor of more SP grind then more players will ask a simple question: Why am I playing this game?
And if the response is substandard then the playerbase will contract and players will seek more satisfying options in other games.
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2401
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 10:30:00 -
[268] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:My AV fit costs 75K. If I lose just 3 then I've already lost 225K, which is probably more than I'l make in a match considering I'm focusing on the tank and not getting much WP otherwise. I'm pretty much guaranteed to die at least 3 times if the tank has decent infantry support, and I can guarantee that I won't do much damage to a tank if I don't have other AV players helping me either.
So even if you did lose a 2 million ISK tank, I can almost guarantee that your tank did more ISK damage to my team than we did to you, unless we we're all using militia fits of course.
Edit: The sad part is that I do think tanks are slightly UP, but since they can be called into Ambush, where they're pretty much guaranteed to have very little opposition, they can suck it. Assuming everyone on your team is running similar fittings to your own, worth about 75,000 ISK, that means the tank needs 26 kills to match its 2 million ISK value.
A decent cheaply-fitted Sica can get 3 kills to pay for itself by this logic. |
A'Real Fury
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 10:40:00 -
[269] - Quote
Zooka Booom wrote:If they change the main gun on tanks so it can only kill other tanks and installations then i can go with big sp investments in av infantry. If you need 6 mill sp to have a good swarm luncher thats only effects havs , lavs and installations. Thats more like it i think
Agreed, If you want to have an AV specialisation then Level 4/5 AV weapons should be able to insta-kill an advanced tank and 2 shot proto tanks, when they are introduced. This is because such an AV specialisation would be useless for anything else.
Also only the secondary weapons on the tank should be ant-infantry weapons. When have you heard of main battle tanks using there primary turrets to track and shoot individual infantry troop as a common occurrence. Main turrets should be used for AV and installations.
If you want something that is antipersonnel then CCP could introduce a new vehicle class that sits between LAVs and HAVs which gives you 2 turrets, better Armor and Shields than a LAV/Worse than a HAV, but slower than a LAV/Faster than a HAV.
Finally I would like to see a new turret which functions in a similar fashion to an MD. very effective at short range but limited at long range. If you want it to be effective at longer range would result in the introduction of a new infantry weapon and module.
The module would be a squad weapon module. It would be a module that goes into an equipment slot and allows the user to fit a squad weapon like a mortar or light machine gun. The mortar would be able to do enough damage that after a few hits, 3-4 hits, would even take down a well fitted HAV hiding behind a hill. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 11:10:00 -
[270] - Quote
What really needs to be thought about is how much SP should realistically be expected to affect a given load out.
WARNING Long post
I have 70 million SP in EVE; but when I fly a Rifter (a frigate), only 6 million SP affect my Rifter's performance. Just for frame of reference: It takes a newbie about 6 months to get to that same level of performance if they specialize, at which point player skill is what will determine the outcome. What I gain with more SP consists of two things: - Broader specialization: the other 64 million SP I have apply to making any number of other ships and fittings effective. - The luxury of being able to make more mistakes before losing.
This is why Core skills are so important, those are the skills that affect virtually everything (CPU and PG increases, extra Shields and Armour, Speed). Core skills are allowed to effect a broad swathe of things, but they should also be skills that are prerequisite for specialization. Specialization is more narrow, and the more SP you invest into a given specialization, the less returns you gain. In the above example, I say that 6 million SP effect my Rifter, but of those 6 million SP at least 4 million are invested in the fifth level of a variety of skills. Level 5 is a luxury in most cases, and the newbie can actually be quite effective in his Rifter with level 4 in the same skills at just 2 million SP invested.
The skill problem DUST has at the moment is that specialization skills are too broad. For example: Sensor Dampening affects dropsuits when it should affect the module it unlocks. I have this skill trained and yet I don't fit the module it unlocks, because the passive bonus is what I trained the skill for, not the module.
To their credit CCP are fixing this in a lot of places where it is an issue: - The Hand to Hand skill now effects the efficacy of melee boosting mods instead of giving the user a direct increase in damage. - Stamina skills get the same treatment, with one core skill (1% to stamina, stamina regeneration and speed), and several boosting the effects of biotic mods. The amount of SP affecting your suit depends on the fittings, which is as it should be (this is how EVE does it, and rightfully so).
What I'd like to see is a redo of the Weapon skill tree (the one where the notorious [size] Weapon Sharpshooter is under). To summarize it (I'll probably make a thread about this soonGäó): I want to see some of the size dependent skills merged, and spitted into their respective components; Sharpshooter comes to mind.
To explain this properly, I need to make something clear: - Effective range is the sum of Optimal + Falloff: "This weapon has 30m Optimal- and 70m Falloff range, its effective range is 100m"
In my opinion, all [size] Weapon Sharpshooter skills should be combined into two skills that effect all weapons. The two skills would be one for Optimal and one for Falloff, instead of just one for Effective range (which doesn't affect Optimal). This is similar to EVE, where we have two gunnery skills for this: Sharpshooter [rank 2] (for optimal range) and Trajectory Analysis [rank 5] (for falloff range).
By separating the two, you give players choice in what weapon type and play style they want to specialize into; weapons with more Optimal, or weapons with more Falloff, and whether they like fighting in optimal or falloff, instead of picking the size your suit uses and rolling with it.
Example: - My weapon has a base Optimal of 30m and Falloff of 70m for an effective range of 100m. - After a few matches of getting out ranged, I decide I want more total range. - 12.8k SP to get Level one Sharpshooter [rank 2] would grant me a whopping 1.5m extra effective range. - 32k SP to get Level one Trajectory Analysis [rank 5] would grant me 3.5m extra effective range. To get the equivalent amount of range from Sharpshooter requires at least level 2 (3m) which costs more than level 1 Trajectory Analysis. However, Sharpshooter might be worth picking if you fight in optimal range instead (If I had a penny for every time an extra 3m of Optimal could have made a difference I'd be rich).
To rephrase: Heavy [rank 3], Light [rank 2] and Sidearm [rank 1] Weapon Sharpshooter become Handheld Weapon Sharpshooter [rank 2] and Handheld Weapon Trajectory Analysis [rank 5]. The new skills affect Optimal and Falloff (the sum of which is effective range) respectively.
Thanks for reading!
TL;DR the skill change is good, but I want to see more work in the Weapon skill tree. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |