Turrets

• As mentioned above, weGÇÖll be adding ammunition to turrets.
• Small turrets are no longer mandatory when fitting a vehicle. This should allow for more interesting vehicle setups than before.

I think that's enough for now! We're looking forward to hearing what you think

CCP Wolfman

All I got out of this is you're going to nerf vehicles some more by introducing more restrictions to how they work. Also the ammunition idea is terrible, to be perfectly blunt. They already overheat, they don't need another restriction.

The philosophy for how modules are working is basically how they work already. And what we've learned is that it's a pretty terrible philosophy for the investment unless you plan to make all vehicles absolutely dirt cheap.


Why don't you just copy the EVE capacitor and resistance scheme over to Dust instead of continually dumbing it down? You're underestimating the intelligence of the playerbase.

Turrets will now have finite ammunition. Vehicle vs. vehicle combat generally boils down to two vehicles parked opposite one another firing until someone pops. This is not fun. Finite ammunition allows us to make turrets more powerful while preventing them from being a constant threat; spam a target and eventually you will run out of ammo.

Shield Boosters (A): Instant, emergency use high HP restoration in the heat of battle. Ultra-long cool down times.
Last-ditch injection of HP and a kick-start to shield recharge.

All I got out of this is you're going to nerf vehicles some more by introducing more restrictions to how they work. Also the ammunition idea is terrible, to be perfectly blunt. They already overheat, they don't need another restriction.

The philosophy for how modules are working is basically how they work already. And what we've learned is that it's a pretty terrible philosophy for the investment unless you plan to make all vehicles absolutely dirt cheap.


Why don't you just copy the EVE capacitor and resistance scheme over to Dust instead of continually dumbing it down? You're underestimating the intelligence of the playerbase.

To be honest I really thought that Dropsuits would get teiricided first, but alas vehicles are in dire need of it more so than the dropsuits.

Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

i dont see any whining. please keep your negativity out of this great thread

So can we understand from this post, that tiericide is on its way? \o/

Do you intend to temporarily remove/replace current proto AV during this period?

I hate to be a pessimist but all I read was "we have no idea how to fix vehicles so we are trying a bunch of stupid ****" it's going to be a long time before vehicles are fun to drive, boys and girls.

while many things are basically exactly what we have right now, im guessing roles will be more exaggerated, i.e. shield tanks are weak but with regen up the ass while armor tanks are slow moving turrets.

digging the turret ammo honestly.

CCP, how do you intend to work with the entire vehicle rework while maintaining proto AV weapons? Are we to expect worthwhile tanks while we have a base amount of modules and hulls to choose from? Do we just accept that we do not have proto stuff until you bring it in? Do you intend to temporarily remove/replace current proto AV during this period?

As a tanker, what are your thoughts on how they should be replenished while IN battle? Other than supply depots of course.

As a tanker, what are your thoughts on how they should be replenished while IN battle? Other than supply depots of course.

Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

They could temporarily add ADV/PRO versions of Vehicles I guess.

Boosting Swarms to high levels temporarily might make sense in context of having possibly super tanks around just to see how hard they are to take down (how many players, swarms, etc.) and check the dynamics of vehicle combat tank-on-tank and the like.

There aren't many other practical AV options, and so it's swarms for starters. They said they'd be balancing AV and vehicles at the same time, so Forges, Grenades, and Swarms will be looked at during this time I imagine. Plasma Cannons will continue to suck.

These look like great changes, the two I like are the fact that turrets have ammo, and that supply depots will now help vehicles, so we shouldn't see indiscriminate destruction of installations/turrets/CRU's because ammo will be more of a finite resource.

they already said they will begin with a minimal amount of modules and hulls, so we are basically only allowed to use militia/standard stuff. For obvious reasons, continuing to keep proto AV is a stupid idea, esp with the 1.4 swarm buff.

the only reason this would not be the case is if we have a one size fits all tank. this would also **** many people off because we like our sagarises and suryas. not to mention the failures that were black ops tanks and the enforcers

did you skill out of tanks? lol nonbeliever!

2. Shield recharge delay -- there should be a minimum damage threshold for this, otherwise infantry can just ping it with assault rifles to prevent the tank from restarting its shield recharge. That could prove irritating.

dammit i was literally just typing this.

CCP ^^^^^^^ important as ****

No, but now it seems like a good idea to get that SP back. Especially that stupidly expensive enforcer skill.

Finity ammo!
Thats very good news :|) But, where we can refill? In suply depot or HAV nanohives or nornal nanohives? :)

MAVs? Please say MAVs.

Or maybe deployable supply depots. Either way.

Ultimately, it appears CCP gave up on capacitor. Not necessarily the end of the world but their solution is oversized infantry mechanics with heavy reliance on burst powers. They are making vehicles super glass cannons. With all these active modules, I officially ask that we get a split between driver/gunner and vehicle locking tools. I don't see it being workable any other way unless you overhaul the controls as well for one button activation of modules.

So, is the issue of Gallente (Armor) Tanks being inherently faster than Caldari (Shield) Tanks being fixed or is there a moot point to shields being "hit and run"?

For that matter, will Caldari have better acceleration to effectively hit-and-run or just hit and pray to god they can achieve top speed fast enough without turning?

Ultimately, it appears CCP gave up on capacitor. Not necessarily the end of the world but their solution is oversized infantry mechanics with heavy reliance on burst powers. They are making vehicles super glass cannons. With all these active modules, I officially ask that we get a split between driver/gunner and vehicle locking tools. I don't see it being workable any other way unless you overhaul the controls as well for one button activation of modules.

This is so silly.

Why did they run into such issues with capacitor, anyway? It works just fine in EVE. These are New Eden vehicles and they should behave like New Eden vehicles. A heavy investment in a tank with a working capacitor and strategic resistance allocation makes sense.

For ten second hulk-mode, it doesn't.

I understand Wolfman is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator with this vehicle philosophy, but seriously it's not worth it. Just use EVE mechanics here. They are cool.

Stupid people are always going to die-and-cry, there is no need to appeal to them whatsoever.

[Specialization cost]:
Infantry specializations are CHEAPER than the basic counterparts. Why is it different for vehicle specializations?

Most vehicle specializations are already balanced by stats and capabilities, do they really need the massive ISK price increases added? don't think so. An enforcer tank is basically a militia tank with a bonus and 1 more slot than a regular tank, and has less PG/CPU, it doesn't need to cost a million ISK. An assault dropship is highly maneuverable, and gets a small front turret, but its still very fragile, and its impact on the battlefield in no way justifies the 500K price tag, it can reach over a million ISK when fully fitted. Vehicle specializations, and specializations are meant to be sidegrades, NOT upgrades, so why is the price upgraded?
Lower the costs of vehicle specializations DRASTICALLY. They should not cost more than the basic vehicle, they already require more SP investments.

[Specialization balance]:
LAV specializations are a real problem. This is not about roadkills.The logistics LAV has no drawbacks, just as fast as the other LAVs, more HP, more shield recharge, more slots. This is not a sidegrade or specialization, its a complete upgrade. They need to have disadvantages to balance out their advantages.

They should keep the superior HP

They should only have as much slots as the basic LAV. They don't need extra slots since they already have more base HP, AND a built-in module.

They need a maximum speed nerf; they have the same max speed as the basic and scout LAVs. Like the infantry counterparts, the LLAV should sacrifice speed.

The scout LAV has the EXACT same stats as the militia LAV counterpart. The only difference is a worthless bonus to turret turning speed, slight acceleration speed, and a blue color. This thing is so worthless. Basically a 80k+ SP sink militia LAV.

Their inferior slot layout and HP should be compensated for with superior shield recharge rate.

Maximum speed needs to be higher for the scout LAV since it is designed for mobility.

*If some of you are afraid of scout LAVs being turned into better murder taxis, know that a collision nerf is coming*

[Skills]:

The operation skills are pointless after level 3 since there are no prototype version of basic vehicles to unlock,only the specializations which unlock at level 3. Give them a purpose, I recommend a PG bonus per level for the specific vehicle type,

The presence of CPU-raising skills, but the lack of PG-raising skills heavily favors Gallene vehicles which have more starting PG then their Caldari counterpart; Gallente vehicles may have less CPU than Caldari vehicles, but Gallente vehicles can always gain more CPU through skills to cover that weakness, while Caldari vehicles can't cover their PG weakness. Its not fair to have a skill that helps CPU but not one that helps PG.

Vroom vroom mutha thukka.

Can we have a transport focussed Dropship that doesn't have both turret mounts. Maybe just one nose mounted gun that can be controlled by a passenger or put on sentry-mode. The loss of the main turrets will be replace with better survivability/speed/ manoeuvrability.

Also, when are we getting jetbikes?

Recalling / calling tanks will be a quick way to get ammo. Maybe a long cool down of recall is used.

For ammo to work, recalling a tank must store its current HP, cooldowns and ammo supply, so when you call it back in, it will have the same values (at least until the end of the match)

Ultimately, it appears CCP gave up on capacitor. Not necessarily the end of the world but their solution is oversized infantry mechanics with heavy reliance on burst powers. They are making vehicles super glass cannons. With all these active modules, I officially ask that we get a split between driver/gunner and vehicle locking tools. I don't see it being workable any other way unless you overhaul the controls as well for one button activation of modules.

Resupplying ammo should be done by LOGISTICS!!!! Simple! Enables teamworking better on the battlefield also... and would work in a similar way to Eve with regards to reps etc.

With regards to cap... i can see the arguement, however i don't see why a projectile turret would need cap? Hence why the 'ammo' issue is a good idea IMHO. Cap usage should depend on the turret type.

They need to do something about those damned murder taxi's anyway... at least give reduced damage for jumping out the way.

i just jizzed my pants

FINALLY I CAN HAVE

no small turrets
unstupid shield regen
ammo in turrets (meaningful engagements)
balanced modules between shields/armor

Turrets having ammo is a wonderful thing as it prevents senseless spamming and makes accuracy more important. Awesome change here guys! I think there to be a way for ships to 'restock' their ammo without having to recall it and call another of the same vehicle. Maybe a built-in nanohive that is very slow, and disables turrets while refilling them, or something? I'm not sold on a "Bigger ammo bay module" or needing to hang out at a supply depot (Especially with dropships)

One of the reasons vehicles are not 'fun' is because unlike a dropsuit... You can't really die in them without it being a huge deal and taking up several matches of earnings to even pay for it. In a game where the whole point is basically chaos and lots of things dying, saying "No, you can't die if you want to use this effectively" seems a bit dumb. I think that all vehicles should be relatively cheap and disposable, so that dying in them is no bigger deal than dying in a dropsuit.

Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

These changed sound good on paper but what's the purpose of this changes if anyone can "steal" your vehicle. That's the reason I don't like using vehicles!

CCP Rejavik
CCP Shanghia

Same company different studios, one has near perfected the player feedback process, the other is still rolling on the floor after it fell over its first baby step.

Seriously, all of the really stupid CoD players stick to militia-grade crap anyway. Anyone venturing seriously into the wonderful world of vehicles knows that they are taking incredible risks when doing so and are usually prepared to apply the use of their intelligence to keep themselves alive.

Most also like customizing stuff and nerding out over fits.

Why insult tankers by basically dumbing down the mods and the mechanics?

Ultimately, it appears CCP gave up on capacitor. Not necessarily the end of the world but their solution is oversized infantry mechanics with heavy reliance on burst powers. They are making vehicles super glass cannons. With all these active modules, I officially ask that we get a split between driver/gunner and vehicle locking tools. I don't see it being workable any other way unless you overhaul the controls as well for one button activation of modules.

On the topic of roles and such, We've bugged Wolfman about this to no end, but I'll throw it here anyways : Logistics modules simply need to be turrets, instead of pilot controlled modules. The use of these modules currently ranges from simply impractical to use, to downright impossible to use, as you look at them on each vehicle. The only vehicle that can even use them with good practicality is an HAV, because they are the only vehicle where the aiming/LOS is not dictated by movement controls. You could spend weeks/months reworking these module systems and making their aiming & locking functionality much more practical, or you could transfer this function to a series of turrets, and eliminate all of the 'ease of use' concerns pretty much by the sheer viture of how turrets work compared to vehicle controls. The only concern not addressed here is the seriously lacking range of these modules, which could honestly use a pretty big buff.

Now... Art becomes a concern. It is my honest belief that you guys could just rotate the 'turret' part of a blaster turret 90 degrees in each direction and then just slap two of them together side-by-side. You guys have done stuff like that before (*wink* MCC turrets *wink*) and I think this would look cool enough to pass until a real art asset could be drawn up. This only becomes a problem with the 'large' variants of remote-assist modules, because there's really no way I can think of to combine existing turrets to make them look different/cool enough to pass. I don't think this is an issue, if the current logistics vehicles were given proper bonuses (Oh god, PLEASE give them a range bonus)

it is bad game mechanics to have to go through a radial menu to select active modules in the middle of a fight. i have always had a problem with this. Either controls need to be more streamlined, not necessarily a one button thing, but def streamlined, or active modules need to be accessed in a different manner.

It is stupidly easy to select the wrong module on the radial menu as well, as the icons are small and close together. I have lost many a tank to this, compounded with the terrible mouse radial menu bug.

For ammo to work, recalling a tank must store its current HP, cooldowns and ammo supply, so when you call it back in, it will have the same values (at least until the end of the match)

All I read is th at they are debuffing tanks some more simply because peoplebare still complaining they are hard to kill once people realize its a tank and mean to be hard to kill things will be fixed. One person with three av grenades should not kill a tank it should take a organized effort to do so. Its a tank notva glass cannon. Why do lavs have almist the same armor as a tank before modules? Its a light attack vehilce vs a heavy attack vehicle. Why is everything that is heavy with ccp a broken class? Tanks are meant to be in battle and hold the ground. But I find myself busy trying to kill the scout with av grenades more then anything. Also how about fixing the controls before anything else I am sick and tired of my controls suddenly inverting with out my doing so. Also fix the module wheel I am tired of trying to turn on one module and instead turning off another. Here is an idea no off switch.I have yet to see why I woukd want to turn off a module once activated. Usually runs out before I want it to. Ammo for turrets why? Unless it leads to tiered ammo its just anotherb way to debuff tanks. You have no way of reloading explained how much ammo does each turret hold? Will the ammo do more damage now since it has a limited amount? How about more splash damage and larger area for missle tanks since they will run out faster if used for area denial. How about buffing the basic stats on tanks to be more in line of being a tank. Ie double the lavs basic stats so there is a clear reason to be a tanker then a lav driver. Basic issue lavs have the abikity to get a large damage reduction and have high class based defense that tanks don't get and lavs are much faster and smaller they can get into cover quicker.

As far as what you guys actually posted;

One thing that I'm super super cautious about is what you mean when you say "Long Cooldowns" on active modules. As a vehicle dude, nothing would irk me more than to have the game pretty much tell me "Here, be useless for a couple minutes as you need to go hide for all your stuff to recharge." I can almost promise the common tactic would be to simple drive/fly around until your stuff went on cooldown, flee to a safe place, and then recall the vehicle and call a new one to shorten the cooldown, if it was anywhere near that long.

IMO, a "long cooldown" should never be anything more than 30-40s. The way I'd personally approach making active modules more situationally useful is making their affects more powerful, but active for only a shorter time, with a mediocre cooldown compared to making them active for a decent time with a mediocre effect, with a super long cooldown

Turrets having ammo is a wonderful thing as it prevents senseless spamming and makes accuracy more important. Awesome change here guys! I think there to be a way for ships to 'restock' their ammo without having to recall it and call another of the same vehicle. Maybe a built-in nanohive that is very slow, and disables turrets while refilling them, or something? I'm not sold on a "Bigger ammo bay module" or needing to hang out at a supply depot (Especially with dropships)

On the topic of roles and such, We've bugged Wolfman about this to no end, but I'll throw it here anyways : Logistics modules simply need to be turrets, instead of pilot controlled modules. The use of these modules currently ranges from simply impractical to use, to downright impossible to use, as you look at them on each vehicle. The only vehicle that can even use them with good practicality is an HAV, because they are the only vehicle where the aiming/LOS is not dictated by movement controls. You could spend weeks/months reworking these module systems and making their aiming & locking functionality much more practical, or you could transfer this function to a series of turrets, and eliminate all of the 'ease of use' concerns pretty much by the sheer viture of how turrets work compared to vehicle controls. The only concern not addressed here is the seriously lacking range of these modules, which could honestly use a pretty big buff.

Sounds like armor vehicles will suck. We already have a lower up ceiling than shield with OK reps.

Howzabout.

We focus on drop suit/weapon issues before we tackle vehicles.

I.e
Gallente logi is BS
Mass drivers are the new(not really)flaylock
Proto snipers are too easy to spec in to
Every ******* out of academy has militia suits and proto snipers
Gtfo

Oh yeah, and shield regenerators suck too.

The list goes on really

.... Truncated to avoid pyramid posting.
I think that's enough for now! We're looking forward to hearing what you think

CCP Wolfman

To be honest I really thought that Dropsuits would get teiricided first, but alas vehicles are in dire need of it more so than the dropsuits.

If you don't feel being able to deactivate Modules is helpful.....you are probably a "Not-So-Good" Tanker (Notice I didn't flat out say you are bad & suck). Deactivating Modules allows for going straight into Cooldown in order to re-engage faster than waiting for........idk....a 1-Minute Active Armor Hardener or wasted Reps to finalize. Logic

Can we get some more info on how this will effect dropships?

Limited ammo seems a particular slap in the face for assault dropship pilots.

All I got out of this is you're going to nerf vehicles some more by introducing more restrictions to how they work. Also the ammunition idea is terrible, to be perfectly blunt. They already overheat, they don't need another restriction.

The philosophy for how modules are working is basically how they work already. And what we've learned is that it's a pretty terrible philosophy for the investment unless you plan to make all vehicles absolutely dirt cheap.


Why don't you just copy the EVE capacitor and resistance scheme over to Dust instead of continually dumbing it down? You're underestimating the intelligence of the playerbase.

Active vs. passive modules. There will be a far greater emphasis on active module use than ever before. The intent here is to create GÇ£waves of opportunityGÇ¥ that allow vehicles to be devastatingGǪ temporarily. Active modules will greatly enhance a vehicleGÇÖs attributes, but when they enter cooldown, the vehicle is left exposed and vulnerable to attack (more on this below). This back-and-forth allows infantry to engage vehicles, but do so knowing that the vehicleGÇÖs pilot has a short window in which he can drastically alter the outcome of any engagement.

CCP Wolfman

Will you include, in this "vehicle pass", an option to use infantry weapons/equipement by vehicle passengers not manning turrets?

Edit:
For LAVs & DSes passengers. HAVs passengers are totally enclosed, so it would be suicidal to fire MD or nade inside it. Or... why not? Things happen...

Seriously Noc??? If they "Split" Driver & Gunner.....there will officially be no point in Speccing into Tanks...... Who wants to "Gimp" their gameplay by sinking SP/ISK/AUR into paying to play "Chauffeur"??? This is the last thing I'd expect to come from you..... Just gimme my SP Refund so I can play AR 514 w/ the rest of the CoDbois......

All I got out of this is you're going to nerf vehicles some more by introducing more restrictions to how they work. Also the ammunition idea is terrible, to be perfectly blunt. They already overheat, they don't need another restriction.

The philosophy for how modules are working is basically how they work already. And what we've learned is that it's a pretty terrible philosophy for the investment unless you plan to make all vehicles absolutely dirt cheap.


Why don't you just copy the EVE capacitor and resistance scheme over to Dust instead of continually dumbing it down? You're underestimating the intelligence of the playerbase.

I think I just read a giant " we are nerfing most aspects of vehicles again" post. Not to say that there are zero positive changes but here is some feedback(not crying):

- Vehicles take immense time and skill to fit and learn to use. This is ok but when you are in a tank engagement there is a lot going on. You have a tank hitting you from in front, swarms hitting you from a tower and/or ground, and some idiot throwing a nano hive down and spamming AV grenades all at the same time. Sometimes forge guns pitch in too. A lot of engagements have all of these elements simultaneously. You have to manage your modules(activate, deactivate, count cooling times and time other modules appropriately), manage turret heat, anticipate and pay attention to all of the map and other team to avoid their AV, and now....... We have to manage ammo as well. It's just one more thing to manage. I'm not complaining about the skills it takes to run a tank/drop ship, I'm giving negative feedback on the fact that you are giving tanks another nerf.

I know that adding ammo and changing the reps etc will make for more meaningful engagements, but; when I die because of someone using a wyrikomi swarm from a hill or I can't kill an AV spammer because all I hear is a 'click' from running out of ammo, it's going to be a large problem. I won't be the only one who will experience this.

It seems tanks will never get a good buff. Leave in OP AV and nerf the tanks. Maybe it will balance out in the long run.

We don't want god mode tanks, we just want tanks that either are cheap or don't die from a couple of swarms, grenades, or forge hits. One or the other.....

CCP, please consider adding emphasis on HP Buffer over HP regen/recharge... This would allow damage that AV does to be far more persistent. Currently, if you inflict damage on a vehicle it will be able to recharge almost all the HP before you can get another shot off.. Or if it can't, it just runs to the other side of the map which it will have all its HP and its cooldown completed.

Wll light weapons still stop shield tank from regen?
Recalling / calling tanks will be a quick way to get ammo. Maybe a long cool down of recall is used.

passive modules becoming weaker, ammo, active modules with long cool downs... ugh this could be so very very bad, hopefully they have module activation roulette fixed soon, a small part of me is hoping this will work out alright but most of me thinks this is probably the last nail in the tankers coffin.

Turrets will now have finite ammunition. Vehicle vs. vehicle combat generally boils down to two vehicles parked opposite one another firing until someone pops. This is not fun. Finite ammunition allows us to make turrets more powerful while preventing them from being a constant threat; spam a target and eventually you will run out of ammo.

Once weGÇÖre confident weGÇÖve gotten the base balance right weGÇÖll start to add back in things weGÇÖve removed as well as introduce new elements to the mix. Pilot dropsuits, improved roles, increased infantry and vehicle interplay, and new turret types for a start.

and survive[/i] long enough to retreat and recover. This is an area where skills should make a difference - in duration of active effects.

Supply Depots will need much more HP. Maybe increase the amount of depots also.

Good work guys. My sleeping tank Alt will get to spend his points after all. The beast will be awoken!

Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

Wolfman... I love you.... You removed requirement of small turrets! Yay! You clearly defined what you want! Yay! You decided to introduce more turrets later! Yay!

Now please, tell me that I will get any skills that I spent in vehicles refunded. If my enforcer tank lvl3 just disappears without refund I swear I might break something.

Hi guys,

As promised the other day here is an overview of me being awesome.

[snip]

I think that's enough for now! We're looking forward to hearing what you think

CCP Wolfman

What if you could only deploy certain vehicles from supply depots? They have that deployment option that nobody ever uses...?

I remember in codex that was the worst possible option: the deployment system was weird, so the RDV would put the vehicle directly on top of the supply depot.
I personally think that the non-depot deployment should be slow again, while deploying from a supply depot is nearly instant.

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to allow all Turrets to have a passive regeneration for ammunition. Additional items such as modules, Supply Depots, nanohives, etc. can instantly refill or increase that regeneration but by having a passive regeneration on all turrets it will mean that vehicles will not be in a position were they can no longer be of use within a match which I think is the greatest fear being expressed.

please tell me you have done something about recalling damaged vehicles and now those without ammo too

FINALLY NO MORE IDIOTS IN MY TANK GETTING ME FOUND OUT. WORKS JUST AS WELL AS A LOCK! THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US ON THAT!

Now, for these hardeners. I'm gonna go with it, and ask, are they going to be 50% reduction since you say they're going to provide a massive boost to defenses?

How about slot count?

And for ammo. I hope it's not some ridiculously low count, like 10 for a rail and 150 for a blaster. Those rounds are relatively small. If anything, missile should have the lowest ammo count, because those rounds are fairly large. Will the small turrets have an ammo count? Will they have their own ammo, or will they *puke* pull off from the main ammo count?

Passive ammo regen would defeat the purpose of limiting ammo, it's ment to put vehicles into the same situation as dropsuits where they can run out of ammo and be "in a position were they can no longer be of use within a match" until they find resupply from a logistics or hive or that supply depot that survived being HAV raped in the first 30 seconds of a battle.

Do you intend to temporarily remove/replace current proto AV during this period?

they already said they will begin with a minimal amount of modules and hulls, so we are basically only allowed to use militia/standard stuff. For obvious reasons, continuing to keep proto AV is a stupid idea, esp with the 1.4 swarm buff.

the only reason this would not be the case is if we have a one size fits all tank. this would also **** many people off because we like our sagarises and suryas. not to mention the failures that were black ops tanks and the enforcers

These look like great changes, the two I like are the fact that turrets have ammo, and that supply depots will now help vehicles, so we shouldn't see indiscriminate destruction of installations/turrets/CRU's because ammo will be more of a finite resource.

What was wrong with the black ops tanks, I don't remember ever seeing one on the battlefield.

Were they even available on the market ... or were they just there for show ... I recall they had a built in cloaking device that was never introduced.

What was wrong with the black ops tanks, I don't remember ever seeing one on the battlefield.

You already don't get how we do things.

We destroy turrets as a matter of standard operating procedure, because it's smart to destroy things that are a danger to our tank.

We'll destroy a CRU if we have to, such as if our blues are struggling to hold an objective with a red CRU right next to it.

We destroy enemy depots to deny them the ability to switch suits on the fly, so that they have to die to take out their swarm or forge gun. Plus it denies them infinite ammo when firing right next to it.

Does this mean no more vehicles in ambush (No supply depots for ammo)?

If so

There's no reason to fly Skirm/Dom in this game with all the Red Line Rail tanks, Redline Rail installations, and the terrible ISK payout for such long and dangerous games. Add to that MCC missiles 1 shotting Dropships and RDV's still spawning around everywhere and remind me again why I should play at all, as a pilot?

That would depend on the passive regeneration rate. The purpose of limiting ammo was from what I gathered to prevent vehicles from spamming attacks without thought or care and repercussion. In addition it was to add an additional level of strategy. Passive regeneration at a nominal rate would still mean that vehicle drivers would have to factor ammunition in their strategy but would prevent them from becoming entirely useless on the field if all ammo sources were destroyed.

After reading this. I still don't think I want to spec into vehicles again. If I get a respec that is. In the end if you make tanks usable people will cry that tanks are killing them until you nerf them to crap. I am not spec'n into something when it good for it to be nerfed to **** again. Infantry bound.... maybe my Saga II as well

there is no issue. it is the way it is meant to be. It has nothing to do with armor or shields, it is a racial trait of Gallente being faster than Caldari tech....or at least that is my understanding. This is a direct example of EVE mechanics being brought into Dust. With armor stacked of course armor will become slower than shields

Similarly, once we have minmatar, it will be ****** shields AND armor, but nice speed and 50 guns duct taped to the turret

Until CCP gives you a unique mission for your dropship the simple answer is that there no reason to fly and every reason not to.

- The dropship is highly visible and thus under near constant threat from AV.
- The dropship will now be dependent on active defenses with long cooldowns.
- The majority of dropships are pretty slow to get into position given the nerf to handling so most of your active defense time will be spent inserting and then exiting the battle.

So most of your time will be spent out of battle.

Now if CCP were to create a real dropship only mission, like say troop spotting, you might just be valuable.

With a redsigned scanner and WP's to go with it you would be able to make scanning passes to assist your team and wouldn't automatically attract AV fire due to being an immediate life threat.

Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

Dropships could easily be adjusted with a bonus to all module cooldowns (for example) or relevant shield or armor modules, giving them the extra defensive abilities they need ... it's a simple option that could work.

I am skilled deeply into small turrets. If small turrets will no longer needed in order to fit a tank, I don't want them anymore. Can I have an SP refund?

It doesn't matter. As long as the mission of the dropship is to slay infantry it will always be a more complicated and risky tool than just running in a suit. It's more expensive, it's far more visible, and it can't be any better than a suit or it will be declared OP (compared to the suit which will be a valid point).

The dropship needs missions that infantry can't perform or it will be forever balanced against a single dropsuit.

there is truth to this.

CCP, please dont just do a rehashed version of what we already have....

Yeah it primarily needs wp for troop transport ... it's main purpose !

In it's simplest form x wp for each passenger carried over x distance ... but it would need restraints to avoid farming.

Some of the time they can be more powerful than suits, but most of the time they will be weaker.

Time spent stronger + Time spent more vulnerable = Capability and survivability of a dropsuit.


Vehicle pilots are already complaining about the significant downtime required by this balancing act because it's no fun to sit out the majority of the match.

CCP Wolfman,

You mentioned limited Ammunition and Ammunition Cache's, and also refereed to Supply Depots. How do tanks recover ammunition? Is it self-regenerating, but regenerates faster while around Supply Depot? As an Infantry player, if I remove all the Supply Depots from the map(or the tankers themselves do this), how(if at all) will it impact the Tank drivers?

Passive ammo regen would defeat the purpose of limiting ammo, it's ment to put vehicles into the same situation as dropsuits where they can run out of ammo and be "in a position were they can no longer be of use within a match" until they find resupply from a logistics or hive or that supply depot that survived being HAV raped in the first 30 seconds of a battle.

Edit ... maybe you could have an active module as I think someone else suggested ... that resupplies ammo but at some expense, likely inactive turrets or other modules or putting all other modules into cooldown or some or all of the above. But this would obviously be at a fitting cost and reduce your resistance options ... just like hives do on a dropsuit.

Since this is pretty much the post they gave us internally, I'm pasting my posts from there (Snipped a bit due to NDA stuff though)

Regarding Vehicle power level:

My own view is that the prohibitive cost makes them way too unattractive.

One of the reasons vehicles are not 'fun' is because unlike a dropsuit... You can't really die in them without it being a huge deal and taking up several matches of earnings to even pay for it. In a game where the whole point is basically chaos and lots of things dying, saying "No, you can't die if you want to use this effectively" seems a bit dumb. I think that all vehicles should be relatively cheap and disposable, so that dying in them is no bigger deal than dying in a dropsuit.

I don't feel that vehicles should drastically change the battlefield simply by being there. The battlefield should be drastically changed by the knowledge and skill of the people playing. This tends to come into play when the question "How powerful should turrets be?" comes up. Personally, I'd like to see small turrets be doing around the same damage as their relative infantry weapon equivalents, or as much as possible. Large turrets would be a bit higher in the damage range. I had Tiel Syysch (One of the most level-headed, knowledgeable dudes I know) crunch the numbers for a few days on where to put turret damages. Now, I don't expect you guys to use these numbers, but this is the sort of range/area that they'd be great in, IMO. Linky.


As far as what you guys actually posted;

One thing that I'm super super cautious about is what you mean when you say "Long Cooldowns" on active modules. As a vehicle dude, nothing would irk me more than to have the game pretty much tell me "Here, be useless for a couple minutes as you need to go hide for all your stuff to recharge." I can almost promise the common tactic would be to simple drive/fly around until your stuff went on cooldown, flee to a safe place, and then recall the vehicle and call a new one to shorten the cooldown, if it was anywhere near that long.

IMO, a "long cooldown" should never be anything more than 30-40s. The way I'd personally approach making active modules more situationally useful is making their affects more powerful, but active for only a shorter time, with a mediocre cooldown compared to making them active for a decent time with a mediocre effect, with a super long cooldown


Turrets having ammo is a wonderful thing as it prevents senseless spamming and makes accuracy more important. Awesome change here guys! I think there to be a way for ships to 'restock' their ammo without having to recall it and call another of the same vehicle. Maybe a built-in nanohive that is very slow, and disables turrets while refilling them, or something? I'm not sold on a "Bigger ammo bay module" or needing to hang out at a supply depot (Especially with dropships)

On the topic of roles and such, We've bugged Wolfman about this to no end, but I'll throw it here anyways : Logistics modules simply need to be turrets, instead of pilot controlled modules. The use of these modules currently ranges from simply impractical to use, to downright impossible to use, as you look at them on each vehicle. The only vehicle that can even use them with good practicality is an HAV, because they are the only vehicle where the aiming/LOS is not dictated by movement controls. You could spend weeks/months reworking these module systems and making their aiming & locking functionality much more practical, or you could transfer this function to a series of turrets, and eliminate all of the 'ease of use' concerns pretty much by the sheer viture of how turrets work compared to vehicle controls. The only concern not addressed here is the seriously lacking range of these modules, which could honestly use a pretty big buff.

Now... Art becomes a concern. It is my honest belief that you guys could just rotate the 'turret' part of a blaster turret 90 degrees in each direction and then just slap two of them together side-by-side. You guys have done stuff like that before (*wink* MCC turrets *wink*) and I think this would look cool enough to pass until a real art asset could be drawn up. This only becomes a problem with the 'large' variants of remote-assist modules, because there's really no way I can think of to combine existing turrets to make them look different/cool enough to pass. I don't think this is an issue, if the current logistics vehicles were given proper bonuses (Oh god, PLEASE give them a range bonus)

Something to consider would even be changing up how these modules function entirely, so that they repair a flat amount that is percentage based on total buffer (Making completely passive tanks a possibility, with help) or possibly based from modifying/boosting a vehicle's native regen ability rather than a flat rate. This would eliminate the need for multiple modules to perform the same function, but could come at the risk of making some stuff extremely powerful. (If this happens, some sort of stacking penalty would need to be enacted so that multiple repair modules can't make a buffer fit completely invincible)

The part they don't seem to understand is that right now they have the 'stonger than infantry' part but are ALWAYS weak against AV (mostly due to lack of proto) ... what this rebalance is trying to achieve is during their 'stronger' window they will be practically invulnerable to equal level AV, but they won't be able to sustain that for long periods without having to retreat during their more vulnerable cooldowns.

They will still likely have matches with lower skilled AV or none at all where they can even survive through their cooldowns, or other matches where they are up against stronger AV or more AV numbers and won't be able to survive a heavy onslaught even during their 'stronger' period. But that's how balance works, so long as it's equally possible to sway in both directions.

How do hives reduce your resistance or survivability? They are equipment slots not you high or low slots they only stand to improve your survivability why should it harm a tanks? You don't have a cool down in your nano hive nor does placing one stop you from firing one placed.

How do hives reduce your resistance or survivability? They are equipment slots not you high or low slots they only stand to improve your survivability why should it harm a tanks? You don't have a cool down in your nano hive nor does placing one stop you from firing one placed.

I am skilled deeply into small turrets. If small turrets will no longer needed in order to fit a tank, I don't want them anymore. Can I have an SP refund?

I might have missed something, but... where's the buff?

Dropships and HAV's are currently terribad and you talk about "make base vehicles weak" (aren't they? lol), increase shield delay and make ammo depletable? What? Seriously?

The only positive thing is that small turrets will be removed by the 95% of HAV pilots.

The plan isn't even clear, passive and active modules are exactly as you describe them. Are you giving more power to the active modules? And not to the passive ones? I don't understand.

HP are staying the same?

Shield and Armor %resistance are staying the same?

The number of module slots is staying the same?

PG/CPU are staying the same?

So we've been waiting all this time... for nothing?

I might have missed something, but... where's the buff?

Dropships and HAV's are currently terribad and you talk about "make base vehicles weak" (aren't they? lol), increase shield delay and make ammo depletable? What? Seriously?

The only positive thing is that small turrets will be removed by the 95% of HAV pilots.

The plan isn't even clear, passive and active modules are exactly as you describe them. Are you giving more power to the active modules? And not to the passive ones? I don't understand.

HP are staying the same?

Shield and Armor %resistance are staying the same?

The number of module slots is staying the same?

PG/CPU are staying the same?

So we've been waiting all this time... for nothing?

Hi guys,

What we didnGÇÖt want to do was take every element, hurriedly try to rebalance them all in 4 weeks, and then stuff them back in. So, this will be a staged process, one that we will continue to work on over the releases following 1.5.

CCP Wolfman

Does that mean in 1.5 we wont have all the modules we currently have in the game right now? I know you want to take this slow and get it right so that all us vehicle users can finally have fun, but with just basic hulls and basic modules how will things even out in 1.5? cuz proto av vs basic stuff just makes things harder, no?

Ie. active hardeners drop movement by 80% whenever they are active but allow them to work indefinitely.

Why did you skill deeply into small turrets if you only wanted them "in order to fit a tank"?

CCP Wolfman,

You mentioned limited Ammunition and Ammunition Cache's, and also refereed to Supply Depots. How do tanks recover ammunition? Is it self-regenerating, but regenerates faster while around Supply Depot? As an Infantry player, if I remove all the Supply Depots from the map(or the tankers themselves do this), how(if at all) will it impact the Tank drivers?

I figured if I was going to be forced into having passengers on my ride, they should at least have decent weapons. The damage bonus was also nice for when I'm in another tanker's ride.

Well, now that we don't have to fit small turrets, no one will ever use them (myself included) making it the definitive example of a worthless talent.

Just because you don't want them doesn't mean that you can't use them

Surely you can use your SP in small turrets to spice up your fittings, to create more team oriented tanks, nes pas?

I still want a stasis webifier deployable to equip to infantry. Say it would slow vehicles down 60% for 60 seconds in an 8 meter radius when activated. Long enough to counter active mods. It would take luck to get the vehicle on top of it and coordination to let a squad take advantage of it, but that would finally put a stop to those HAVs that just run when they take any damage and then are back in two minutes.

Or encourage them to have teammates nearby who can jump out and kill you while you are holding your webifier.