You are not logged in. Please login or register.
About what you speak? You absolutely sick? Or you can think only about DPS/HPS? For what on the server neutralizers and ictus? What the delirium?
By the way. You always come in Т1-Т2 the equipment. You want what results? You damned noobs.
Inda wrote:Mongolia, and others I wrote the real numbers before, was able to do repair: 2 sec /560 HP /220 AP this was OP (before patch), now 5,4 sec others same, not ERP was OP.
I Disagree.
Your example above 560hp/220ap/2sec means that repping comes at a cost of 110ap/sec. No mech or module combo (without an ERP) comes close to that kind of ap/sec regen.
Inda, how many reps cycles can you run before running your accumulator dry?
It was balanced because you could only do it for about 15 or 20 seconds before your accumulator ran dry.
With the intro of the ERP, you could get 120+ ap/sec now THAT'S overpowered. How many accum rechargers, aux rechargers, and injectors do you need to get to that kind of recharge?
I think the ERP was balanced around the idea of making neuts/drainers more useful and common-place. Instead of adapting & changing fits, it was much easier to QQ to Devs on Skype for a nerf.
What the ERP nerf gave us is another module like the interference launcher module, too pricy to build and not worth building anymore.
Next nerf will be ictus-nerf. Wouldn't want anything to be completely invunerable to cheap t1 lights and assaults. 
I think the ERP was balanced around the idea of making neuts/drainers more useful and common-place. Instead of adapting & changing fits, it was much easier to QQ to Devs on Skype for a nerf.
What the ERP nerf gave us is another module like the interference launcher module, too pricy to build and not worth building anymore.
Next nerf will be ictus-nerf. Wouldn't want anything to be completely invunerable to cheap t1 lights and assaults.
indeed
Mongolia Jones wrote:Inda wrote:Mongolia, and others I wrote the real numbers before, was able to do repair: 2 sec /560 HP /220 AP this was OP (before patch), now 5,4 sec others same, not ERP was OP.
I Disagree.
Your example above 560hp/220ap/2sec means that repping comes at a cost of 110ap/sec. No mech or module combo (without an ERP) comes close to that kind of ap/sec regen.
Inda, how many reps cycles can you run before running your accumulator dry?
It was balanced because you could only do it for about 15 or 20 seconds before your accumulator ran dry.
With the intro of the ERP, you could get 120+ ap/sec now THAT'S overpowered. How many accum rechargers, aux rechargers, and injectors do you need to get to that kind of recharge?
I think the ERP was balanced around the idea of making neuts/drainers more useful and common-place. Instead of adapting & changing fits, it was much easier to QQ to Devs on Skype for a nerf.
What the ERP nerf gave us is another module like the interference launcher module, too pricy to build and not worth building anymore.
Next nerf will be ictus-nerf. Wouldn't want anything to be completely invunerable to cheap t1 lights and assaults.
Oh stop getting your knickers in a twist.
It come down to three things..
Do you want:
a. High repair amounts for high AP cost with a low cycle time
b. Medium repair amounts for medium AP cost but with a medium cycle time
c. Smaller repair amounts for smaller amounts of AP but with a fast cycle time.
The old system (When using an ERP) would result in High repair amounts for medium AP costs with a low cycle time. It was fun but was it balanced?
For this game I believe that you should have the choice between any of the a, b or c and this is done through fittings. For a start lower base cycle time of armour and remote armor repairs. Decrease their base AP usage. Change tunings so that they give a cycle time reduction, a repair amount increase but use more AP. Change ERP plates to resitance to electronic warfare effectiveness (Demob and energy drain) but do not give an armour bonus.
The thought about this is that when a large group primaries you with the correct setup you'd be able to survive as long as you AP last so returning fire would be a wise idea unless it uses very little AP and running with an injector would make more sense (Also needs to be balanced to inject much faster! Reload time will be the death of most people).
Thoughts?
Oh stop getting your knickers in a twist.
It come down to three things..
Do you want:
a. High repair amounts for high AP cost with a low cycle time
b. Medium repair amounts for medium AP cost but with a medium cycle time
c. Smaller repair amounts for smaller amounts of AP but with a fast cycle time.The old system (When using an ERP) would result in High repair amounts for medium AP costs with a low cycle time. It was fun but was it balanced?
For this game I believe that you should have the choice between any of the a, b or c and this is done through fittings. For a start lower base cycle time of armour and remote armor repairs. Decrease their base AP usage. Change tunings so that they give a cycle time reduction, a repair amount increase but use more AP. Change ERP plates to resitance to electronic warfare effectiveness (Demob and energy drain) but do not give an armour bonus.
The thought about this is that when a large group primaries you with the correct setup you'd be able to survive as long as you AP last so returning fire would be a wise idea unless it uses very little AP and running with an injector would make more sense (Also needs to be balanced to inject much faster! Reload time will be the death of most people).
Thoughts?
you can think only about DPS/HPS? For what on the server neutralizers and ictus?
You know that is "aspect"?
The aspect is possibility to operate in any way (especial).
You speak only about one aspect - DPS-HPS. You so speak, because differently don't want.
Then what about removing tanking all together. Repairing should be done out of combat and not during it. Make repairers bad during combat.
This helps blobs out a lot as when you take damage just fall back. Biggest blobbers win.
To me has bothered that on the server operate t1 noobs. To me has bothered that developers listen to them, instead of think of the real balance.
Pressure upon developers is obvious to me.
Then what about removing tanking all together. Repairing should be done out of combat and not during it. Make repairers bad during combat.
This helps blobs out a lot as when you take damage just fall back. Biggest blobbers win.
You repeat one. I will do too most:
you can think only about DPS/HPS? For what on the server neutralizers and ictus?
You know that is "aspect"?
The aspect is possibility to operate in any way (especial).
You speak only about one aspect - DPS-HPS. You so speak, because differently don't want.
Instead of constructing the same robots, Instead of using the same equipment you speak about how it is difficult to kill. Lead to us of the same robots and will be very strongly surprised.
What do you think, that fit was the best on all mechs in big combat, so you want more customisable or not?
If yes you agree with that nerf if not you disagree.
Still now that fittings usable than other fittings and this is good i think. Now has more customisable fittings than before.
I didnt want nerf, I just say what i know.
You couldn't oppose to our heavy robots anything. Therefore you have removed this aspect. If we use other aspect which you can't overcome, you will remove also it.
What do you think, that fit was the best on all mechs in big combat, so you want more customisable or not?
Not. It is shrotrange-slow-defence fit
There is a lot of other fits, and there is not any one "best" fits in this game
I cant get guys, why Chaos in t1 can kill erp tank, Hun or 62nd cant? WTF? My corp is best? no. We using different variations of fits and experiments, like some of guys on this server too. Its more entertaiment and challenging that insert 5 f***ng tunnings in head, turn on dps modules and play chap-pewpew-dieall game. But when game disbalancing when some part of the comunity cant get obvous things...well...there can be some perpetuum refugees soon
Ok I stop that argue, just one thing > the developers seems was think near about my opinion > they nerf a rep tuning cycle time modifier for third so at the end something was not good there > and then we tried again that fit and 1v1 this is still good, but cant handle too much mechs.
Thank you the argue.
Real question is on what feedback did this ERP nerf/armor repair tuning happen? No posts in forum, no topic in forum.
We remember how game was developed when Styx was around, all changes were discussed with him to see if he had better ideas. Skype logs were made public for all to see. I suspect this feedback comes from new Skype hotline, from same source that attempts deception by saying "on behalf of community" that nobody wants alliances.
Perhaps Developers could simply remove mech & heavy mech from game, also Tier 2/3/4 equipment to ensure even playing field? 
Maybe full EP reset so everyone start from 0, to make sure EP playing field is even? Wouldn't want new players to feel bad because someone has more EP.
Oh stop getting your knickers in a twist.
It come down to three things..
Do you want:
a. High repair amounts for high AP cost with a low cycle time
b. Medium repair amounts for medium AP cost but with a medium cycle time
c. Smaller repair amounts for smaller amounts of AP but with a fast cycle time.The old system (When using an ERP) would result in High repair amounts for medium AP costs with a low cycle time. It was fun but was it balanced?
For this game I believe that you should have the choice between any of the a, b or c and this is done through fittings. For a start lower base cycle time of armour and remote armor repairs. Decrease their base AP usage. Change tunings so that they give a cycle time reduction, a repair amount increase but use more AP. Change ERP plates to resitance to electronic warfare effectiveness (Demob and energy drain) but do not give an armour bonus.
The thought about this is that when a large group primaries you with the correct setup you'd be able to survive as long as you AP last so returning fire would be a wise idea unless it uses very little AP and running with an injector would make more sense (Also needs to be balanced to inject much faster! Reload time will be the death of most people).
Thoughts?
It's not a matter of knickers being twisted, its feedback of 1 corporation/ 1 person being presented as "community opinion" and browbeating the poor Developers that unless they do X the big bad evil wolf will scare everyone away from their game.
ERP pre-nerf was quite balanced, as it required high-level extensions (accum. expansion 8+, energy management 8+) to function independent from a medium injector. In order to even consider fitting it, big investments of EP had to be done in economical/optimized armor and weapon usage skills (8+ in econ armor, econ weapon, optimized armor, optimized weapon), coupled with data processing and reactor expansion 10.
And all it took was 1 troiar with 3 light neuts to completely wreck the ERP tank pre-nerf. Hell, 6 waspishes with a few light neuts were able to completely wreck it.
It created diversity in the game, as people could choose between:
a) being a viable TANK, moving at 45-46 KPH, still prone to Demob (no armor plates), but incredibly durable under fire.
b) being a viable DPS, moving at 70+ KPH, heavily prone to Demob (LWF), but capable of high-DPS output.
c) being a viable SUPPORT, either as ICTUS or ZENITH or VAGABOND, capable of completely shutting down TANK and DPS bots.
Whereas now, there's no point in sacrificing speed & range & DPS for tanking capacity since you can't tank anymore. It's a DPS & Support game, we've taken a big step back towards release when light bots & speed > everything.
But, enough of logical technicalities. I've seen enough how things are done around here over the last year (give or take a few months); and its high time I started playing the same game.
I cant get guys, why Chaos in t1 can kill erp tank, Hun or 62nd cant? WTF?
Stop sticking your head in the sand, we did kill chaos t1 fit in erp tank, killed multiple tanks. It's not about us not being able to counter fit you. It's about using tanks that are unbalanced.
You guys need to calm down, and go rethink, there is no conspiracy. just lol
But, enough of logical technicalities. I've seen enough how things are done around here over the last year (give or take a few months); and its high time I started playing the same game.
Didn't you already high counselor?
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq18 … ership.jpg
6 Waspish with neuts killing a single mech is only a victory if the rest of the game is balanced as such... And it's not.. And maybe it shouldn't take 6 but maybe 3 or 4.. Either way. Something is wrong somewhere. 
A mech lasting that long because it's spent months of EP to do so.. isn't really balanced.
Let's go back to basics and sort out the robot teirs.. Then we wouldn't need all these tanking and dps arguments.
Ewar Light robots = 0.75x
Light robots = 1x
Assault robots = 1.5x
Ewar Mechs = 2x
Mechs = 4x
Heavy Mechs = 6x
The above is an example of ROUGHLY what I consider to be a fair base armour value for each stage of a factions robots. E.g. Castel has a base of 1000HP then a Gropho would have a base of 6000HP.
When 5 mechs meets 5 mechs on the battle field it should not be tanking that works out the winner but the use of terrain and cover. I never liked the idea of just standing still and taking damage but it appeals to others. The reason a lost of people die is because they get either demobbed or not supported during the fight. Balance demobs to be more universally ranged no matter who's using them and that could make things interesting.
The above is what I mean when I say the Devs need to choose a direction. Brawling tanking battles where every AP makes a difference or long distance fights where flanking and taking down the enemy cover is the best solution. Can we really live in a world of a mix?
When 5 mechs meets 5 mechs on the battle field it should not be tanking that works out the winner but the use of terrain and cover.
Why should tanking not play a part in a fight?
Alexander wrote:When 5 mechs meets 5 mechs on the battle field it should not be tanking that works out the winner but the use of terrain and cover.
Why should tanking not play a part in a fight?
It does, but there's a degree to which it should play.
Note : I can't play the game because my computer is bust and an insurance company has it so I have been unable to test or assess the change, but if what has been said about tanks are true then ........ (I want sympathy now!)
I am a dedicated remote rep toon, now if the figures are correct on lemon style tanks then they self repped quite a bit more than I can remote rep. If they have been nerfed to the point where they are balanced 1v1 against a dps mech then my remote repper will not be able to rep as much as the damage of a single dps mech.
What is the point of remote reppers now? Can I get a free respec as my toon seems to have been made totally useless by this change. (Assuming all figure given are infact true, I don't even know the stats of a t4 rep tuning now).
Also to note if the changes to the weight of rep tunings are great then the speed of a rem rep bot will have been further lowered to the point that they will never be used on roams, due to being too slow. (They are right on the min speed limits as it is.)
Is this removal of diversity really what is desired? Can we get a proper remote rep bot or some serious changes to the stats on remote reppers.
I may well be the only dedicated remote repper on the server ( I just don't ever see any others other than in intrusions and they just aren't happening at the moment), but this change may well see the end or remote repping.
Please try and discuss this seriously and not bicker and infight because I think this change has just made my toon pointless (not that it had much point in the first place).
Can I get a free respec
:facedesk:
Simple answer: unlikely
6 Waspish with neuts killing a single mech is only a victory if the rest of the game is balanced as such... And it's not.. And maybe it shouldn't take 6 but maybe 3 or 4.. Either way. Something is wrong somewhere.
A mech lasting that long because it's spent months of EP to do so.. isn't really balanced.
Let's go back to basics and sort out the robot teirs.. Then we wouldn't need all these tanking and dps arguments.Ewar Light robots = 0.75x
Light robots = 1x
Assault robots = 1.5x
Ewar Mechs = 2x
Mechs = 4x
Heavy Mechs = 6xThe above is an example of ROUGHLY what I consider to be a fair base armour value for each stage of a factions robots. E.g. Castel has a base of 1000HP then a Gropho would have a base of 6000HP.
When 5 mechs meets 5 mechs on the battle field it should not be tanking that works out the winner but the use of terrain and cover. I never liked the idea of just standing still and taking damage but it appeals to others. The reason a lost of people die is because they get either demobbed or not supported during the fight. Balance demobs to be more universally ranged no matter who's using them and that could make things interesting.
The above is what I mean when I say the Devs need to choose a direction. Brawling tanking battles where every AP makes a difference or long distance fights where flanking and taking down the enemy cover is the best solution. Can we really live in a world of a mix?
newbie-mathematic?
Not enough brains to understand the meaning of the neutralizers?
Not enough brains for something more than the usual shooting?
Not enough brains to understand the cost of heavy mech in T4?
This game is for the mentally *** noobs in t1 assaults?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.090 seconds (92% PHP - 8% DB) with 22 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
