DUST Search - Why prototype Tanks are a bad idea!

All Channels

General Discussions

Why prototype Tanks are a bad idea!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7782	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:09:00 - [1] - Quote And before you argue otherwise check the chart below. Madrugar Standard - 3 High 5 Lows Madrugar Advanced - 4 High 5 Lows Madrugar Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Gunnlogi Standard- 5 High 3 Lows Gunnlogi Advanced - 5 HIgh 4 Lows Gunnlogi Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Hypothetical Amarr HAV Standard - 4 High 4 Lows. Amarr HAV Advanced - 4 High 5 Lows Amarr HAV Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Minmatar HAV Standard - 4 High 4 Lows Minmatar HAV Advanced - 5 HIgh 4 Lows Minmatar HAV Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Max Rack Size in Dust is 5. Now you're all smart people; tell me, why this up here is bad overall for the game? Also explain the chicken of the enforcer/marauders fitting into this as both of those classes already had a +1 slot from regular HAVs.
Bittersteel the Bastard WarRavens League of Infamy 281	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:10:00 - [2] - Quote IWS I feel for you because you are going to get soooooooo chewed out by tankers.
Nguruthos IX Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 1159	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:11:00 - [3] - Quote Uhh. Then change max rack size. Wtf r u on about
The Attorney General ZionTCD 775	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:11:00 - [4] - Quote As a form like that, it looks bad. And it really is. That doesn't mean that Prototype tanks are bad, just that using that formula to create them is bad. The current enforcers could have been built very differently from how they were implemented, but CCP chose to half ass it. Doesn't make the idea of enforcers bad, just their current iteration. I personally would have loved to have seen an enforcer with a skill bonus to fitting the specified turrets, along with the damage and range bonuses, then lower the PG and bump the health up to around 5 k. Make it so that the vehicle can run resists and such, but not carry around the HP of a standard fit. Then you have the glass cannon without breaking the standard tank. More coming, editing.
Chances Ghost Inf4m0us 563	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:11:00 - [5] - Quote so what happens to your whole topic if they dont increase the slot loadout for ADV and prot?
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7782	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:11:00 - [6] - Quote Bittersteel the Bastard wrote: IWS I feel for you because you are going to get soooooooo chewed out by tankers. I haven't seen a single tanker go to the white board and tried to realistically design said tanks within current game expectations. I did. Also max rack size increase is a horrible option as it will lead to a game wide nerf of EVERYTHING. slots are a weighted stat and everything is weighed into that slot value.
Nguruthos IX Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 1159	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:12:00 - [7] - Quote I dont even tank and I think this line of reasoning is silly.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1100	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:14:00 - [8] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Gibberish by an infantry player. So basically CCP can change the fitting screen for vehicles Problem solved
Knight Soiaire Better Hide R Die 2050	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:14:00 - [9] - Quote It could be an increase in PG/CPU, Health maybe even speed. Its doesn't all have to be about slots y'know. And lolEnforcers. Caldari Enforcer bonus is useless, because missiles are useless. And Vayus are meh. Madrugars/Gunnlogi > Enforcer. No one wants a glass cannon tank.
Chances Ghost Inf4m0us 563	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:15:00 - [10] - Quote i understand how you would get the notion that the slots increase... but... gunnlogis and falchions are both technically standard.... so why does the flachion get an extra slot. the pattern doesnt match your assumption, so we can be fairly certain that this isnt how higher levels of tanks will be defined

Mossellia Delt Militaires Sans Jeux 81	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:16:00 - [11] - Quote If max rack size is stuck at 5 why not set it like this at end levels Proto Gal tank 4 highs 5 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Proto Cal Tank 5 highs 4 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Yes, this would require medium guns first, but as I understand they are in development
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7782	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:17:00 - [12] - Quote Mossellia Delt wrote: If max rack size is stuck at 5 why not set it like this at end levels Proto Gal tank 4 highs 5 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Proto Cal Tank 5 highs 4 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Yes, this would require medium guns first, but as I understand they are in development Because you run into the serious threat that a LAV or MAV will outperform said tank at everything.
Alldin Kan TeamPlayers EoN. 542	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:17:00 - [13] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: And before you argue otherwise check the chart below. Madrugar Standard - 3 High 5 Lows Madrugar Advanced - 4 High 5 Lows Madrugar Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Gunnlogi Standard- 5 High 3 Lows Gunnlogi Advanced - 5 HIgh 4 Lows Gunnlogi Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Hypothetical Amarr HAV Standard - 4 High 4 Lows. Amarr HAV Advanced - 4 High 5 Lows Amarr HAV Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Minmatar HAV Standard - 4 High 4 Lows Minmatar HAV Advanced - 5 HIgh 4 Lows Minmatar HAV Prototype - 5 High 5 Lows Max Rack Size in Dust is 5. Now you're all smart people; tell me, why this up here is bad overall for the game? Also explain the chicken of the enforcer/marauders fitting into this as both of those classes already had a +1 slot from regular HAVs. CCP confirmed for working on tank tiers.
Sgt Buttscratch G I A N T EoN. 685	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:19:00 - [14] - Quote Is that an official chart? I'd say Standard 2/5 ADV 2/6 Pro 3/6 would be more logical for the Armor tanks, reguardless I'm scared of what CCP think is a tank upgrade is 70 less HP, 200 less PG, 35% slower. In order to get slight buffs to only one type of turret.....oh yeah and $1,000,000 ISK extra for all that mighty crap.
Mossellia Delt Militaires Sans Jeux 81	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:20:00 - [15] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Mossellia Delt wrote: If max rack size is stuck at 5 why not set it like this at end levels Proto Gal tank 4 highs 5 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Proto Cal Tank 5 highs 4 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Yes, this would require medium guns first, but as I understand they are in development Because you run into the serious threat that a LAV or MAV will outperform said tank at everything. Increase HP of the races prefered souce with Proto then as well. (Cal / Min extra shield , Gal / Amaar extra armour). I think people would go with fitting rails then as a main gun with blaster mediums and fragmented missles as small. Combined fire of 4 weapons would be enough to out match any other vehicle.
Bittersteel the Bastard WarRavens League of Infamy 281	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:22:00 - [16] - Quote Mossellia Delt wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Mossellia Delt wrote: If max rack size is stuck at 5 why not set it like this at end levels Proto Gal tank 4 highs 5 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Proto Cal Tank 5 highs 4 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Yes, this would require medium guns first, but as I understand they are in development Because you run into the serious threat that a LAV or MAV will outperform said tank at everything. Increase HP of the races prefered souce with Proto then as well. (Cal / Min extra shield , Gal / Amaar extra armour). I think people would go with fitting rails then as a main gun with blaster mediums and fragmented missles as small. Combined fire of 4 weapons would be enough to out match any other vehicle. But then it makes it an omnitank where it can do everything well without many consequences.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Auxiliaries 2788	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:23:00 - [17] - Quote Prototype Tanks are a bad idea. But so is Prototype AV. King of the Forums // Seraphim <3 Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! gbghg wrote: 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.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7784	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:23:00 - [18] - Quote Sgt Buttscratch wrote: Is that an official chart? I'd say Standard 2/5 ADV 2/6 Pro 3/6 would be more logical for the Armor tanks, reguardless I'm scared of what CCP think is a tank upgrade is 70 less HP, 200 less PG, 35% slower. In order to get slight buffs to only one type of turret.....oh yeah and $1,000,000 ISK extra for all that mighty crap. No the chart is nothing official; was giving an example based on current foundation meta differences established by dropsuits on how a prototype HAV would look like, at max level it would be 5-5 across all races and how bad it will be overall for the game as most bonuses given out by vehicle skills can be replaced with a single module or better, so any advantage any race brings to the table can get easily nullified, or copied by the other race and as for doing the whole fitting thing based on the same chart would make every effective fit so ultra tight that only the most skill players would get anything out of it, anyone less would be seriously disadvantaged.
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers EoN. 1860	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:23:00 - [19] - Quote I am starting to agree IWS. So tiered weaponry, modules, and equipment are different as they provide more power at increased fitting cost. But the point there is the fitting cost. However, tiered suits and vehicles frames are more power at the cost of isk. That is coming close to P2W. I do think however that levels in 'suit/vehicle operation should be more substantial than they are now. We need dropsuit tiericide. Its the only type of item that needs it tiers removed. Everything else can stay the same, as they offer more options for power vs cost.
Asirius Medaius Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 301	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:25:00 - [20] - Quote What if prototype for vehicles (such as the enforcer) were just restricted to specializations (hear me out) as they are now. What about a tank who has a large increase to powergrid to fit multiple large armor or shield modules, with the removal of the misc turrets to re-arrange it's job to taking damage as a mobile infantry cover. Not saying this is the only idea, but it's a start on getting some ideas out there (not that they will ever be heard).

Mossellia Delt Militaires Sans Jeux 81	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:26:00 - [21] - Quote Bittersteel the Bastard wrote: Mossellia Delt wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Mossellia Delt wrote: If max rack size is stuck at 5 why not set it like this at end levels Proto Gal tank 4 highs 5 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Proto Cal Tank 5 highs 4 lows 1 large gun 1 medium guns 2 small guns whole load extra CPU/PG Yes, this would require medium guns first, but as I understand they are in development Because you run into the serious threat that a LAV or MAV will outperform said tank at everything. Increase HP of the races prefered souce with Proto then as well. (Cal / Min extra shield , Gal / Amaar extra armour). I think people would go with fitting rails then as a main gun with blaster mediums and fragmented missles as small. Combined fire of 4 weapons would be enough to out match any other vehicle. But then it makes it an omnitank where it can do everything well without many consequences. not really, they're big and slow, relatively speaking, once we have bigger maps this would work out. Give MAVs lots and lots of HP and make them a decent speed but only allow 1 small or medium turret and make LAVs faster then they are. BAM, done and done. (We cant forget about dropships, but they need to make maps with them actually in mind.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster 816	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:27:00 - [22] - Quote Chances Ghost wrote: so what happens to your whole topic if they dont increase the slot loadout for ADV and prot? I'd say because it probably wouldn't be worth to use and probably cost a tonnnnnnn more.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7784	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:28:00 - [23] - Quote Asirius Medaius wrote: What if prototype for vehicles (such as the enforcer) were just restricted to specializations (hear me out) as they are now. What about a tank who has a large increase to powergrid to fit multiple large armor or shield modules, with the removal of the misc turrets to re-arrange it's job to taking damage as a mobile infantry cover. Not saying this is the only idea, but it's a start on getting some ideas out there (not that they will ever be heard). HAV Basic Role =/= Enforcer Role Assault Drop Suit Basic Role = Assault Drop suit Advanced Role = Assault Drop Suit Prototype Role.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7784	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:30:00 - [24] - Quote Cody Sietz wrote: Chances Ghost wrote: so what happens to your whole topic if they dont increase the slot loadout for ADV and prot? I'd say because it probably wouldn't be worth to use and probably cost a tonnnnnnn more. Why pay for advanced when basic does everything better much cheaper at less skill point costs?
Assert Dominance Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 258	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:30:00 - [25] - Quote PG's and CPU is what makes a tank, a madrugar proto will give 2 sh**s about moar high slots. That is what needs to be taken into consideration.
The Attorney General ZionTCD 776	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:32:00 - [26] - Quote Cody Sietz wrote: I'd say because it probably wouldn't be worth to use and probably cost a tonnnnnnn more. Increased speed, increased CPU or PG, higher turning speeds, better acceleration or even a base 10% resist to damage would make prototype chassis worth looking into. People will pay a lot of ISK for small gains in effectiveness.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 7784	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:32:00 - [27] - Quote Assert Dominance wrote: PG's and CPU is what makes a tank, a madrugar proto will give 2 sh**s about moar high slots. That is what needs to be taken into consideration. Cept we now have 4 tanks with the same 5 and 5 slot layout. How do you expect to squeeze enough variety out of that without cross stepping toes?
Chances Ghost Inf4m0us 563	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:38:00 - [28] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Assert Dominance wrote: PG's and CPU is what makes a tank, a madrugar proto will give 2 sh**s about moar high slots. That is what needs to be taken into consideration. Cept we now have 4 tanks with the same 5 and 5 slot layout. How do you expect to squeeze enough variety out of that without cross stepping toes? cept hes talking about increaseing CPU and PG INSTEAD of increasing slow loadout... meaning variety would come from slot lodouts at basic level with small variations depending on specialisation (falchion etc) and the advantage to higher tiers would be CPU/PG
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 1262	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:40:00 - [29] - Quote All this really demonstrates is the need for a reworking of vehicles.
The Attorney General ZionTCD 776	Posted - 2013.08.27 15:41:00 - [30] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Cept we now have 4 tanks with the same 5 and 5 slot layout. How do you expect to squeeze enough variety out of that without cross stepping toes? Once again, you don't need to increase module layouts to grant benefits to a vehicle. There are numerous other statistics where there is room for improvement that sane vehicle drivers would pay for. How about a proto Vayu that takes only half the movement penalty of the standard? Falchion would be nice in that vein as well. How about a DS that gains enough CPU and PG to actually fill its slots with quality. What if the scout LAV gained a built in Active scanner at proto.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.