Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1589
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 23:40:00 -
[91] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:The splash damage on missile turrets was nerfed in response to a wealth of complaints about killing people with splash damage being "skilless" and "faceroll".
If I recall correctly, many of those threads were made by players who are now members of your alliance.
Somewhat ironic, wouldn't you say?
You missed the point of the suggestions. They made them funny, short range railguns, instead of area denial tool. Splash is the right raw damage, but the damage falloff and maximum radius is too extreme, and the direct damage is still astronomical. Even when a player is standing still in a ditch below me, easier to kill with a direct impact than saturate the area. |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
826
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 00:14:00 -
[92] - Quote
I think the removal of the PG skill to force more focus on a given role as a tank or whatever they said it was done for was just absolutely nonsense. There's so much less versatility with the current lack of PG now, that you either have one of very few fit types or you have a bad fit.
Shield stuff needs a lot of work. Their hardeners are bad with cycle times, and yeah the passive regen is a joke.
I think the main changes I'd like to see right now after having gotten a bit more exposure to them this build is:
- Slight reduction to AV damage (maybe 20%?), including a sane level of damage scaling for swarms and AV nades bringing them in line with other weapons - Slight increase to dropsuit HP to "weaken" blasters a little, while giving blasters a bit more range. I don't think blasters should hit for less than 100% damage until close to if not all the way to 100m, that'd make their effective dps much better than comparing raw dps to handheld weapons - Missiles need to be reworked, and either be only anti-infantry, or have clearly-defined variants of anti-vehicle "precision" missiles with 0-0.5m splash radius with reasonable direct damage, and anti-infantry missiles with high radius, small-to-moderate splash damage and similar direct damage (a single volley of splash should kill a scrubby suit, but even hitting splash with all missiles from a large turret shouldn't kill a heavy in one trigger pull). |
CharCharOdell
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
192
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:43:00 -
[93] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:] Man you know what ur talking about and you don't tank. Nice. But for passive shield regen. the problem to me is how can a scout regen more shield faster than a tank. I wouldn't mind if it were a 60 point passive shield regen but it kept the crappier shield boosters. This would make passive tanking an option. Rails need some sort of buff. Make a skill like the enforcer for railguns. They just don't do enough damage to armor tanks to kill them. i mean 3 hardeners plus a super fast armor repair rate is pretty hard to get through while a damage modded shield tank has slow regen and terrible hardners. +1. I feel sad that you think I don't tank :( (It's true, in uprising I don't have HAVs trained because the LOLSP investments doubled for like everything, but before that I always had tank, dropship, and LAV skills pretty much maxed) How would you make passive tanking Viable though, Bob? Is it the delay in recharge, or the low rate of recharge that is a problem? Would having vehicle versions of shield regulators help? Should vehicles have a delay at all? (No delay could excuse a low rate of recharge if that recharge is constant, and the modules to improve recharge became more attractive than a raw booster on a 'passive' setup) Though, there's a fine line between passive actually being decent and being better than active. Where would shield tankers put that line? (I usually tank armor) As far as railguns go... I'd honestly want to see their range reduced. Not a lot, though. Maybe drop to like 300m since most other turrets seem to die off at 200m or so last I looked? They should still have the furthest range of any vehicle turret, but it shouldn't span pretty much the entire map IMO. Maybe have variants that are 'super ranged' but do less damage? (Thoughts on that?) But really, railguns struggle because you either hit or miss. To be honest, if the range issue is mitigated and 'hill sniping from across the map' becomes less of a thing, I'd like to see the massive splash radius come back for large turrets (4-5m for rails, matching their 'explosive' VFX and like 5-7m for missiles) The reason that was a problem in the past was because of the obnoxious damage that splash had with it. IF you buff the splash radius of both railguns and missiles (Since they both need it) but keep the damage relatively low (40-65 for rails, 90-115 for missiles, or around there) both will instantly gain back their 'usability' against infantry at close range without making them as hilariously broken as they were in the past. Splash damage should be used to 'whittle down', not to completely own everything. Those numbers are something I'd rather see CCP play with a bit though tbh. Missile splash (For large turrets) might stand to be lower since the spread would likely all 'hit' with higher splash radius (Thus still owning everything even without directly hitting them)... railgun might need to be a bit higher because of the prohibitive nature and slow refire rate. It's possible the only rail that has 'problem' damage is the compressed variant (IIRC it has double, at like 225 splash at standard level) I'd honestly rather them spend like two weeks making a pass, where they have the lower numbers first and then the higher numbers, then after the second week decide which to keep. (A lot of stuff needs this done, tbh) But those are the basic ideas of how I'd consider adjusting those turrets.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on reducing range without a huge increase in damage (20% range reduction giving 20% damage increase). It is the purpose of a rail gun to provide long range support. Shield tanks have a hard time fitting blasters as it is, and rail guns are their only shot at taking on armor tanks. The 600m range is fine. Damage is fine. When the PG is given back, shield tanks will once again be able to stack date mods to counter armor tanks at range. |
Starne
Planetary Response Organization
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:52:00 -
[94] - Quote
BOZ MR wrote:Here we are making a list. This list will collect the opinion of tankers, and a few reasonable AV friends. No CCP fanboys, no AR players no nothing. 1) PG skill should be re-implemented. 2) Turret damage bonus of all types of turrets should be re-implemented. (3% instead of 1.) 3) Resistance of tank hulls should be increased against AV by 20%. last night 2 swarm volleys dealt 10520 damage to my tank. Yes only 2 volleys, god knows how many damage mod that player stacked. 4) Railguns should deal more damage than a hanheld forge gun. (Forge nerf requested here.) 5) Scattered Ion Cannon's DPS should be more than a handheld D. Tac AR. One of them is a handheld gun, other is a tank mounted turret. 6) Active Shield Resistance module should be 30 second active and 30 second CD (Require opinions of serious shield tankers) 7) Passive regen of shields are joke, it should be 1.5x of what it is right now. (Require opinions of serious shield tankers) 8) Splash radius of missiles are joke, I have only been able to kill a few people with splash, it generally requires a missile to directly hit enemy to kill. All sorts of missile splash radius should be increased 1.5x 9) AV and Flux should branch off from grenadier to AV grenadier and Flux grenade Operation. P.S. We want Surya and Sagaris back. + I find it funny how AV grenade of same level deal more damage to armor than swarm launchers. as a shield tanker my self i have to agree. 1. yes 2. yes 3. they do mor damage because they are explosives which have bonse damage to armor. they need to add ex/kin/ther/em resist mod to help with this problem as i know for shield tanks this will be a big pain when amarr turrets hit the field. 4. yes i would also ask that they increase the blast zone to maybe 3.0 m 5.yes 6. hell yes. as it is there is not point to them unless u want to take 2 hits before it gose ofline... 7. hell yes again why is it the same as a drop suit ccp this is a tank right not a big heavey.lol 8. again hell yes bump the damage to splash to 150 if not more... or treat i like swarms where every lvl in lager rockets( yes there rockets not missiol get it right >.>) fires 2 more shots per volly 9. yes + i think av nades should only be doing 300 to 500 damage lets not forget its the size of your fist and it hits like a rail connon. |
ImpureMort
Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 13:56:00 -
[95] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:1) PG skill should be re-implemented.
- 100% Agree. Been pushing for this since day 1 of uprising.
2) Turret damage bonus of all types of turrets should be re-implemented. (3% instead of 1.)
- Disagree. I feel that the benefit vehicles bring to the battlefield should be in the modules unique to vehicles, and in overall survivability. Things shouldn't do amazing amounts of damage just because. I'd rather see the bonus reworked into more useful bonuses, like RoF, Overheat, Etc.
3) Resistance of tank hulls should be increased against AV by 20%. last night 2 swarm volleys dealt 10520 damage to my tank. Yes only 2 volleys, god knows how many damage mod that player stacked.
- Survivability of vehicles compared to the power of AV is definitely an issue.
4) Railguns should deal more damage than a hanheld forge gun. (Forge nerf requested here.)
- I don't think a huge damage nerf is required, but they do a bit too much, IMO. My main gripe with forges is the range. (And to a lesser degree, the accuracy)
5) Scattered Ion Cannon's DPS should be more than a handheld D. Tac AR. One of them is a handheld gun, other is a tank mounted turret.
- Same as the Answer to point 2. I don't feel MORE POWAH is the appropriate answer. I don't have a problem with things being on par (or close to) infantry damage. Like I said earlier, I'd rather see the benefit be unique modules and overall survivability. OHK **** is simply not fun to play against or use (It's boring. Though, some people enjoy decimating with no challenge, I guess.)
6) Active Shield Resistance module should be 30 second active and 30 second CD (Require opinions of serious shield tankers)
- Agreed. Shield hardeners have been terrible compared to armor hardeners, and the armor one doesn't need the nerf IMO.
7) Passive regen of shields are joke, it should be 1.5x of what it is right now. (Require opinions of serious shield tankers)
- I'm not sure if this is a problem with shield regen being bad or it passivetanking is just bad because of the delay. I'm also curious to read tankerthoughts about this.
8) Splash radius of missiles are joke, I have only been able to kill a few people with splash, it generally requires a missile to directly hit enemy to kill. All sorts of missile splash radius should be increased 1.5x
- Agreed. When they nerfed missiles ages ago, they changed the splash to basically make them direct-only weapons but left the hilarious damage intact. I'm torn between suggesting missiles be entirely AV (maybe lock-on) options to encourage variety, but that suggestion in itself would be stupid for as long as small railguns are useless and impractical. Alternatively, reducing splash damage to 100~ish and increasing the splash range to like 5-6m wouldn't be amiss.
9) AV and Flux should branch off from grenadier to AV grenadier and Flux grenade Operation.
- Not a bad idea.
P.S. We want Surya and Sagaris back.
- It'd be nice to have them back just for the sheer HP/fitting bonus, even if they're going to get 'changed' later. Don't deprive us of content because you don't have time to fix something in the meantime, IMO.
+ I find it funny how AV grenade of same level deal more damage to armor than swarm launchers.
- I feel that the main issue with AV nades is how fast they restock with nanohives. I don't mind them being a close range powerhouse, but the amount of DPS they kick out when someone has high ground and is sitting on a hive, is absolutely too high.
what do you think of this https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80949&find=unread |
Little Angus
CowTek IT Infotech
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 16:22:00 -
[96] - Quote
Surya and Sagaris returned!
Anti-armor counter measures such as ECM shield for AV grenades (limited use per battle).
And maybe a flare system to mitigate swarms? (probably better request on dropships). |
Little Angus
CowTek IT Infotech
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 16:26:00 -
[97] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:I love almost all of sylwester's bullet points except for the last two.
I agree that the third person camera does give too much intelligence. It makes it super hard to get snuck up on by people trying to bomb you with RE's, and anyone who gets in that range in general is easily seen.
Dust is a first person game, and I honestly think that the camera should stay in first person for all vehicles (Including dropships, but dropships need some serious love before they can be viable like that) LAV and HAV first person cameras are both functional, and allow the driver to look around freely (Yet don't give an almost omnidirectional sense of sight for free)
That creates a specific weakness in vehicles (Line of sight) and it is absolutely necessary IMO, as it then requires you to communicate with passengers and gunners to know where you are being shot from, as well as communication from your teammates elsewhere.
I should not be able to avoid an ambush because 3rd person camera let me see someone that first person would've made me miss. Or at least, I think so. That does give AV yet ANOTHER advantage over vehicles, and I'll admit they don't really need more advantages atm... but in a perfect world where there's actually a balance between the two... Third person camera should die.
3rd person camera makes the tanks fun, so I have to disagree there. I only play Dust514 for tank command, and removing 3rd person camera would certainly determine my future purchasing decisions when buying more aurum. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 03:36:00 -
[98] - Quote
BOZ MR wrote:Here we are making a list. This list will collect the opinion of tankers, and a few reasonable AV friends. No CCP fanboys, no AR players no nothing. 1) PG skill should be re-implemented. 2) Turret damage bonus of all types of turrets should be re-implemented. (3% instead of 1.) 3) Resistance of tank hulls should be increased against AV by 20%. last night 2 swarm volleys dealt 10520 damage to my tank. Yes only 2 volleys, god knows how many damage mod that player stacked. 4) Railguns should deal more damage than a hanheld forge gun. (Forge nerf requested here.) 5) Scattered Ion Cannon's DPS should be more than a handheld D. Tac AR. One of them is a handheld gun, other is a tank mounted turret. 6) Active Shield Resistance module should be 30 second active and 30 second CD (Require opinions of serious shield tankers) 7) Passive regen of shields are joke, it should be 1.5x of what it is right now. (Require opinions of serious shield tankers) 8) Splash radius of missiles are joke, I have only been able to kill a few people with splash, it generally requires a missile to directly hit enemy to kill. All sorts of missile splash radius should be increased 1.5x 9) AV and Flux should branch off from grenadier to AV grenadier and Flux grenade Operation. P.S. We want Surya and Sagaris back. + I find it funny how AV grenade of same level deal more damage to armor than swarm launchers.
Let's see if I'm deemed worth at commenting.
1) No. PG buff, yes. But that kind of no-brainer as a skill to have on L5 in order to have any sensible fits, no (remember ccp HAS to balance all vehicles considering max PG/CPU)
2) Probably no need. Let's tune other things first before checking that out.
3) I wouldn't use a single occasion as a basis for such hard action. (might've been some other AV at the same time etc, you know the thing). Tank vs AV balance is now better than for ages.
4) perhaps yeah. But that's difficult to balance. Now what I would like to see is that tank mounted railgun is pinpoint accuracy, very damaging and extreme range but tracking just absolutely awful. Hand held forge gun, on the other hand, normal very long range, extreme tracking (turning around=) but the shaking aim should be more than just cosmetic shake (now shot still goes to center) so that even tho forge techically has range, it has no reliable way of hitting long range consistently. Both of these would also breath life into dropships as they are currently so easy targets to both rails and forges.
5) Very much yes, fix that.
6) yes definately, active shield hardener is a bad joke. Even with 30-30 timers it would be hard to use safely.
7) Yeah passive might be a bit too weak - but then again I haven't really tried passive tanking for a long time. For LAVs the passives seem to work okay with few PDSs. But, It is likely that passive tanking isn't feasible for tanks.
8) Green light for small missile splash buff - whether it's either splash range or splash damage using the same range.
9) Good idea. I heard btw that CCP is thinking about giving grenadier skill some other ability than just unlocking nades.
I gotta say I DON'T want Sagaris&Surya back as they were. Having simply higher tier tanks better/same on all counts and not weaker in any is just dull and boring. It makes no sense to use any other, making battlefield repetitive. I like current special role of Falchion and it's armor counterpart. Next, there could be Speed+Agility buff for Sica&Soma. Or simple size decrease making them just a bit more able to move in built up areas and also have a bit smaller hitbox. That's such a small benefit we could grant for even militia tanks. Tiericide FTW...
+Kero's point 10): Fix active module activation for mouse! Any mouse user knows how hard it is to activate modules or set a defence order. In a combat situation, trying to juggle the round selection menu to hit diagonal slot for 20 to 40 seconds just isn't acceptable. It breaks effectively use of active modules. Trust me, I tried today armor tanking and had 3-4 losses because there was no way to activate my modules. Lame. Gotta wonder, how it is even possible to break that kind of basic thing which worked ok in Chromosome? |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 03:40:00 -
[99] - Quote
I gotta say for all tanking bros and sis's out there, even tho it would be fun and give feeling of power to have all the things (damage, pg, splash, marauders etc) back as such, it isn't necessarily good and right thing to have em back. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 03:46:00 -
[100] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:AV grenades are too effective. Every other AV weapon sacrifices significant anti-infantry capability in order to damage tanks. AV grenades don't, and they're too spammable. They should need some priming time before throwing, for example. I don't think they need significantly less damage, though I think they should have a damage reduction, but the ability to spam them absolutely needs to go.
One reason why loads of infantry are carrying them is also because it's the best counter to free LAV spam.
Currently the AV grenades are better than before. Commenting your points: - Ask any pro locus grenade user, giving up those to fit AV nades IS a sacrifice. - Lower tier nanohive nerf (perhaps all hives were nerfed?) took away lots of teeth from AV spamming alto it didn't take it out. Nor it needs to take out completely. Having hive spamming means you have to prep a trap before hand or it's very difficult to run and hive and replenish and then spam again while chasing tank. |
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 04:08:00 -
[101] - Quote
Flyingconejo wrote:Trying to balance proto AV and turrets against standard hulls is a waste of time. Because they are not supposed to be balanced. Give the tank drivers their toys and bring out the proto hulls, CCP. Properly priced, of course.
Price is a terrible way to try to fix the battlefield gameplay balance. Sorry. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
366
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 04:12:00 -
[102] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:
- Gunners in you HAV need to be inform about modules that HAV have - If you are gunner and u see sniper fit gtfo.
- Gunner need to be aware when Pilot is activating Active Heat Sink, so he can manage his 'heatup' more cerful.
- Pilot need to be more aware where gunners is aiming, and gunners need to be aware where pilot is aiming - and I'm not telling about turret-direction on bottom icon, I'm telling about DOT on you screen in first person camera.
- Every Pilot need to be aware about overheat state of each turret on board - if he wish so, it could be optional - bound to button.
- Activating several modules need to be easier - today you can die on OB because you didn't manage to activate all modules in time - CCP need to create button that activate selected module without getting out from 'choosing module' radial window.
- Small Railguns role need to be reassigned - right now they suck against vehicle and structure because of 35% dmg modificator.
- Third Person Camera is pure magic, and it give HAV pilot advantage the he not supposed to have. I think that this camera should be replace with dron in future, dron that can be destroyed be Infantry to reduce HAV sigh of view.
- HAV should have more 'tactical' camera system - that not force HAV to move whole body just to look at corner, we should have 4 cameras at corners so we don't have to risk moving out from safe spot just to tell that we are now in danger situation for us.
+1 Awesome ideas! |
BOZ MR
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
169
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 11:00:00 -
[103] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:
- Gunners in you HAV need to be inform about modules that HAV have - If you are gunner and u see sniper fit gtfo.
- Gunner need to be aware when Pilot is activating Active Heat Sink, so he can manage his 'heatup' more cerful.
- Pilot need to be more aware where gunners is aiming, and gunners need to be aware where pilot is aiming - and I'm not telling about turret-direction on bottom icon, I'm telling about DOT on you screen in first person camera.
- Every Pilot need to be aware about overheat state of each turret on board - if he wish so, it could be optional - bound to button.
- Activating several modules need to be easier - today you can die on OB because you didn't manage to activate all modules in time - CCP need to create button that activate selected module without getting out from 'choosing module' radial window.
- Small Railguns role need to be reassigned - right now they suck against vehicle and structure because of 35% dmg modificator.
- Third Person Camera is pure magic, and it give HAV pilot advantage the he not supposed to have. I think that this camera should be replace with dron in future, dron that can be destroyed be Infantry to reduce HAV sigh of view.
- HAV should have more 'tactical' camera system - that not force HAV to move whole body just to look at corner, we should have 4 cameras at corners so we don't have to risk moving out from safe spot just to tell that we are now in danger situation for us.
+1 Awesome ideas! -1 (some of them are really bad ideas.) *I don't want scrubs to hop in my tank and learn my tank fit, tank fits are vital in this game. They only should be aware if I activate a heat sink. * My dot is small enough to be confused with my gunners dot, changing main sight might do the trick. *I don't care if my scrub gunners over heats or not. *Yes activating several modules that you pre-selected should be easier if not all. *If you take away 3rd person camera I want 60% resistance bonus since it is nearly impossible to see where the threat is coming from. Yes 60% not 20 not 40 exactly 60% resistance not plus health. *3rd oerson is much better than adding 4 cameras. |
demonkiller 12
BetaMax. CRONOS.
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 09:48:00 -
[104] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:Draxus Prime wrote:hey nova whens the next cast514? Whenever Grideris is not busy doing whatever it is australians do when they aren't on the internet. Just waiting on him to be available to record it, we have one planned.
We usually sleep, sometimes we hunt tourists for food, but that only happens when the drop bears are increasingly aggressive. |
demonkiller 12
BetaMax. CRONOS.
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 10:12:00 -
[105] - Quote
Can't we just reduce the amount of AV/Flux held to like 1 or 2? I remember another post talking about how taking down a well fitted HAV is a team task and not something a guy with 500ksp should be able to do alone, and I completely agree with that, tanks are there to dominate the battlefield and you should have to work together to take him down. |
demonkiller 12
BetaMax. CRONOS.
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 10:13:00 -
[106] - Quote
BOZ MR wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:
- Gunners in you HAV need to be inform about modules that HAV have - If you are gunner and u see sniper fit gtfo.
- Gunner need to be aware when Pilot is activating Active Heat Sink, so he can manage his 'heatup' more cerful.
- Pilot need to be more aware where gunners is aiming, and gunners need to be aware where pilot is aiming - and I'm not telling about turret-direction on bottom icon, I'm telling about DOT on you screen in first person camera.
- Every Pilot need to be aware about overheat state of each turret on board - if he wish so, it could be optional - bound to button.
- Activating several modules need to be easier - today you can die on OB because you didn't manage to activate all modules in time - CCP need to create button that activate selected module without getting out from 'choosing module' radial window.
- Small Railguns role need to be reassigned - right now they suck against vehicle and structure because of 35% dmg modificator.
- Third Person Camera is pure magic, and it give HAV pilot advantage the he not supposed to have. I think that this camera should be replace with dron in future, dron that can be destroyed be Infantry to reduce HAV sigh of view.
- HAV should have more 'tactical' camera system - that not force HAV to move whole body just to look at corner, we should have 4 cameras at corners so we don't have to risk moving out from safe spot just to tell that we are now in danger situation for us.
+1 Awesome ideas! -1 (some of them are really bad ideas.) *I don't want scrubs to hop in my tank and learn my tank fit, tank fits are vital in this game. They only should be aware if I activate a heat sink. * My dot is small enough to be confused with my gunners dot, changing main sight might do the trick. *I don't care if my scrub gunners over heats or not. *Yes activating several modules that you pre-selected should be easier if not all. *If you take away 3rd person camera I want 60% resistance bonus since it is nearly impossible to see where the threat is coming from. Yes 60% not 20 not 40 exactly 60% resistance not plus health. *3rd oerson is much better than adding 4 cameras.
I also like this last idea but I think it should be more like 40% resist to front 25% resist to sides and no resist to the back
|
Aerion Spiritus
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 11:16:00 -
[107] - Quote
Exerminatus Shihinra wrote:Everything here is good. I'll just add my two cents.
Make the hacked EX-0 require at least a LITTLE sp put into it to use. Damn that thing is annoying as... Yeah you get the point.
Give the caldari HAV's a bit of a buff on power grid, but the PG skill would do that just fine I'm guessing but I've not done the math.
BUFF THE EFFIN SICA! The Soma literally wipes the floor with this thing as far as militia tanks go, give 'er another mid and a CPU buff. Then it suddenly becomes more viable, as it stands it's just a glorified LAV that rookies will have issues putting out in any game from the increased cost.(Rookie Soma = 160-180k, Rookie Sica = 190-220k ISK)
You obviously don't face my Sica's.... I blow Somas sky high with my sica and sometimes if I manage to flank Madrugars too |
Croned
The Penguin Society
4
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 04:50:00 -
[108] - Quote
You need to be able to activate Precision Strikes from inside a HAV, or any other vehicle for that matter. Leaving the tank usually results in the passengers griefing by switching to the drivers' seat and stealing the tank. |
BOZ MR
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
179
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 18:10:00 -
[109] - Quote
Croned wrote:You need to be able to activate Precision Strikes from inside a HAV, or any other vehicle for that matter. Leaving the tank usually results in the passengers griefing by switching to the drivers' seat and stealing the tank. Bump ' BLAM see the post. |
pegasis prime
The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY
195
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:15:00 -
[110] - Quote
I have a small list of things that I think would make HAVs perfect. Note these changes shoul apply to std and above grade HAVs
1) 15%-25% powergrid increase
2) 10%-15% dammage resistance or hp buff on top of what we have just now.
3) an eject button or the ability to asign the tank to your squad and your squad only
4) triage and guardian points for spider tanking.
5) +5%-10% acceleration on all tanks.
6) passive shield recharger moduals that acctually make a difference.
All the above i think would put tanks in their rightfull place and allow us to acctivlt tank more effectivly |
|
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
512
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:48:00 -
[111] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:I have a small list of things that I think would make HAVs perfect. Note these changes shoul apply to std and above grade HAVs
1) 15%-25% powergrid increase
2) 10%-15% dammage resistance or hp buff on top of what we have just now.
3) an eject button or the ability to asign the tank to your squad and your squad only
4) triage and guardian points for spider tanking.
5) +5%-10% acceleration on all tanks.
6) passive shield recharger moduals that acctually make a difference.
All the above i think would put tanks in their rightfull place and allow us to acctivlt tank more effectivly
dude #6 I totally agree the shield passive recharge is worthless and the modules are just as bad. the passive recharge is only slightly useful with small arms fire and not a lot and really small arms fire doesn't bother armor tanks so there is no advantage there.
I agree on all point and I think the swarm launcher needs to be toned down. it literally is more effective the plasma launcher just on damage alone and is the most effective AV on LAV then any other AV because they are homing. now with this sure nerf LAV slightly because the LLAV can be a pain and would be more so then.
|
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
512
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:57:00 -
[112] - Quote
has nothing to with the op or this^ post but I am wonder if/when we get a dev response and will it be filled with bad news. HAV need a reason to be on the field or we will just put out the much cheaper LLAVs and cause more nerf LAV threads just because of the new skill tree. |
ImpureMort
Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 11:55:00 -
[113] - Quote
ladwar wrote:has nothing to with the op or this^ post but I am wonder if/when we get a dev response and will it be filled with bad news. HAV need a reason to be on the field or we will just put out the much cheaper LLAVs and cause more nerf LAV threads just because of the new skill tree. well the obvious reason for havs to be on the field is so av specialists can blow them up ..caldari's are such bull now..easily soloable armor tanks not that much better really |
Purona
Militaires Sans Jeux
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 12:05:00 -
[114] - Quote
ladwar wrote:pegasis prime wrote:I have a small list of things that I think would make HAVs perfect. Note these changes shoul apply to std and above grade HAVs
1) 15%-25% powergrid increase
2) 10%-15% dammage resistance or hp buff on top of what we have just now.
3) an eject button or the ability to asign the tank to your squad and your squad only
4) triage and guardian points for spider tanking.
5) +5%-10% acceleration on all tanks.
6) passive shield recharger moduals that acctually make a difference.
All the above i think would put tanks in their rightfull place and allow us to acctivlt tank more effectivly dude #6 I totally agree the shield passive recharge is worthless and the modules are just as bad. the passive recharge is only slightly useful with small arms fire and not a lot and really small arms fire doesn't bother armor tanks so there is no advantage there. I agree on all point and I think the swarm launcher needs to be toned down. it literally is more effective the plasma launcher just on damage alone and is the most effective AV on LAV then any other AV because they are homing. now with this sure nerf LAV slightly because the LLAV can be a pain and would be more so then. shield passive recharge is fine you can take multiple routes and gain your shield back quickly without using modules unlike armor tanking where you need to activate a module just to repair 300 damage
you lose strength for longevity and consistency |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
583
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 05:58:00 -
[115] - Quote
Purona wrote:ladwar wrote:dude #6 I totally agree the shield passive recharge is worthless and the modules are just as bad. the passive recharge is only slightly useful with small arms fire and not a lot and really small arms fire doesn't bother armor tanks so there is no advantage there.
I agree on all point and I think the swarm launcher needs to be toned down. it literally is more effective the plasma launcher just on damage alone and is the most effective AV on LAV then any other AV because they are homing. now with this sure nerf LAV slightly because the LLAV can be a pain and would be more so then.
shield passive recharge is fine you can take multiple routes and gain your shield back quickly without using modules unlike armor tanking where you need to activate a module just to repair 300 damage you lose strength for longevity and consistency not to mentuion it increases your shield recharge rate when you use shield boosters gunlogi with booster heals for 350 a second 1750 over 5 seconds madrugar with repair heals for 414 every 3 seconds 2070 over 15 seconds gunlogi will heal for 1950 after 15 seconds and continue to outpace a madrugar in repair so quickly is less then 1% of base HP? yea that's slow. its just laughable that LAV have the same recharge rates as HAVs. for LAVs sure that might be ok they have lower HP. btw armor HAVs can have their armor repaired by infantry and supply depots while only the LOL small passive repairs shields. and since you bought it up the light repairer heals for the about the same as heavy booster so armor LAV and DS repair hp as fast as shield HAVs. shield LAVs and DS booster for about 500 hp. |
BOZ MR
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
187
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 08:53:00 -
[116] - Quote
Reviving da thread. |
ImpureMort
Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 11:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
demonkiller 12 wrote:Can't we just reduce the amount of AV/Flux held to like 1 or 2? I remember another post talking about how taking down a well fitted HAV is a team task and not something a guy with 500ksp should be able to do alone, and I completely agree with that, tanks are there to dominate the battlefield and you should have to work together to take him down. fixing tans is far more complex than nerfing any one 2 or even all av. ....that would just lead to slow boring tank fights....no fun...tanks need the following i feel. 1 the need serious buff to stats...as far as shield tankers go there are issues with regen stacking active resistances 2 missiles need a serious over haul...i would prefer they were just completely redone with swarm lock on type firing system...and make caldari av only...with extreme sensory capabilities to counter rails range...make the like a mega swarm launcher mini guns as well 3 the keyboard adds allot of acceleration like having a free jovian its rediculus 4 all vehicles need to have a means to lock the driver seat and to kick people from they're vehicle. i would prefer adding in a L2 L3 combo wheel like squad command with the following options..lock driver seat ...should hold to anyone but tanker..and tankers direct corpmates....a way to kick people....highligh they name release thy pop out and are denied acess to the hav for a 20 sec interval.... for drop ships it should auto inertial damp them....and it should prohibit ejections over enemy airspace.. 5. when impacting a suit any vehicle should have damage relevant to the hp and frame and res of the suit hit just a few of my thoughts of vehicles in general i suppose oh also radar and active sensors need a huge range buff to be effective.
|
pegasis prime
The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries DARKSTAR ARMY
248
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 11:05:00 -
[118] - Quote
Purona wrote:ladwar wrote:dude #6 I totally agree the shield passive recharge is worthless and the modules are just as bad. the passive recharge is only slightly useful with small arms fire and not a lot and really small arms fire doesn't bother armor tanks so there is no advantage there.
I agree on all point and I think the swarm launcher needs to be toned down. it literally is more effective the plasma launcher just on damage alone and is the most effective AV on LAV then any other AV because they are homing. now with this sure nerf LAV slightly because the LLAV can be a pain and would be more so then.
shield passive recharge is fine you can take multiple routes and gain your shield back quickly without using modules unlike armor tanking where you need to activate a module just to repair 300 damage you lose strength for longevity and consistency not to mentuion it increases your shield recharge rate when you use shield boosters gunlogi with booster heals for 350 a second 1750 over 5 seconds madrugar with repair heals for 414 every 3 seconds 2070 over 15 seconds gunlogi will heal for 1950 after 15 seconds and continue to outpace a madrugar in repair
Im sorry but I have to dissagree the passive shield regen on havs is a joke. Armour tanks also have shields that passivly repair. Tgey can also add shield extenders for a much larger buffer. Shield passive regen wont be an option for tanks unless we can get it up to 70-100 hp per second then buffer\passive regen will be viable. |
ImpureMort
Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 11:15:00 -
[119] - Quote
the math on the repper s nice now do the math on resistances and active res.. |
ImpureMort
Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 11:17:00 -
[120] - Quote
ImpureMort wrote:the math on the repper s nice now do the math on resistances and active res.. the shield res ext skills should give +3 % res for starts....if there is no pg skill then the local powergrid exp need to give much more pg. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |