DUST Search - Vehicles

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2466	Posted - 2013.08.29 22:58:00 - [1] - Quote So I was most-way through a lengthy write-up on all things V and AV and decided to delete it. I will post the highlights though mainly because I like the conversation more than believe DUST has a real future. Caldari philosophy - these guys are all about the bottom line, they want stuff that performs top tier, but they cut the corners so they only live up to expectations when used skillfully. Gallente philosophy - they "focus" on omni-performance, in their efforts to shore up weaknesses, they only have the advantage when they can engage outside of their opponents' strengths. Amarr philosophy - imposing and enlightened, amarr vehicles can be summed up as "floating bricks", they favor laser and missile recoiless weaponry to compensate for their lack of traction. Minmitar philosophy - brutal simplicity, stripped of all but the barest essentials, even their HAV is little more than an oversized buggy, speed and aggression is everything since they cannot win a contest of endurance. HAVs - the support vehicle, large, imposing, dangerous, your ball breakers and your anchors, very vulnerable in CQC with infantry. LAVs - flanker and harassment, quick, nimble, they swoop in to tip the balance in infantry fights, must be coordinated or lucky to bring down HAVs or turrets. DSs - logistics, they bring stuff from point A to point B direct, occasionally provides a little rain, optionally brings ammo, spawns, or fit swapping to an otherwise stranded squad or vehicle. Some specifics of the big changes: Costs start at 50k (fully fit militia) to 300k (fully fit prototype) using typical gear All HAVs lose the top small turret, drivers occupy that seat but cannot aim large turret Small turrets act like handheld weapon analogs with slightly tweaked magazines but similar range and damage profiles Large turrets have roughly 5x the optimal range and 1.5x the damage of infantry weapons Sica, Gunloggi, etc - main turret limited to 120-¦ arc, forward shields have innate 50% resists, rear armor so weak even ARs can seriously threaten it Soma, Madruger, etc - no rear or undercarriage weak point, very good torque, can ignore almost all small arm fire, least vulnerable to infantry of HAV class Small rails do full damage to vehicles, large rail has optimal of 100, effective of 400, ultimate of 650 (compared to new forge gun with optimal of 25, effective of 125, ultimate of 250) I could go on, but I've already lost interest.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2466	Posted - 2013.08.29 23:13:00 - [2] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Seems a little disjointed, but I suppose that's because you clipped most of it, like you said. I never really had an issue with the idea of separate drivers and gunners myself, but it seems our community isn't interested in that kind of mechanic, to say the least. As far as small rails, I'd LOVE to see them work as you described. Right now they just aren't even worth fitting. I ended up with a list of 1000 little things that could each be fixed a dozen different ways. The real problem is lack of roles and differentiation. For 1.5 I'd just like to see the Caldari = 1 direction strong, 3 directions weak vs the Gallente = jack-of-all, master-of-none philosophy implemented to make them behave very differently. As for roles and balance, Infanty < LAV/Dropship < HAV/Installations < Infantry. Sure it's a bit RPS but at least everything has a use.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2466	Posted - 2013.08.29 23:15:00 - [3] - Quote ladwar wrote: besides rails having less optimal range then missiles meh...work in the right step. needs more bacon too. Missiles should have the same range, they just give have a flat damage no matter how close or far away when they explode. In effect, they end up the best damage at long range, worst in close range, and long travel times make them harder to blap randomly.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2466	Posted - 2013.08.29 23:46:00 - [4] - Quote Sarducar Kahn wrote: Large turrets with only 1.5x dmg on infantry weapons? Meaning a large blaster with 1.5x DPS of an AR? No thanks. And small turrets that eliminate your mobility and cost a ton plus the suit for the same DPS? You serious bro? Somewhere it got lost that vehicles should become much cheaper and situationally more durable. An AR already does a crapton of DPS, anything higher is asking for an infantry murderer.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2467	Posted - 2013.08.30 00:36:00 - [5] - Quote Lurchasaurus wrote: i didnt spec into tanks so someone else could use it for me I almost wish I had pasted the whole thing now. But basically, vehicles need demoted to equipment. Most of that SP deserves refunded. As to the specific, you could always seat swap. If only vehicle locking were a thing...
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2467	Posted - 2013.08.31 00:26:00 - [6] - Quote Sarducar Kahn wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Sarducar Kahn wrote: Large turrets with only 1.5x dmg on infantry weapons? Meaning a large blaster with 1.5x DPS of an AR? No thanks. And small turrets that eliminate your mobility and cost a ton plus the suit for the same DPS? You serious bro? Somewhere it got lost that vehicles should become much cheaper and situationally more durable. An AR already does a crapton of DPS, anything higher is asking for an infantry murderer. But a good gunner can only get a 50% hit rate with a blaster most of the time. So 3X DPS would be more appropriate. And a blaster should never have 5X the effective range of an AR, that's a really long range man. Same with railgun/FG 3x range seems more appropriate. And what pulls you equate missiles to? Mass drives? 5x range is a bit short then isn't it. On the damage though only a fraction of the damage can be effectivly applied to infantry and they need the av level DPS against tanks. Honestly balance is such an awful mess in DUST it's really stretching it to use a hard rule to compare infantry to turrets. The takeaway is small turrets should be comparable, the large turrets slightly beefier and significantly better optimal range. But I actually played a round this morning and was reminded how bad aiming is which makes any balance talks meaningless.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2467	Posted - 2013.08.31 00:40:00 - [7] - Quote Baal Roo wrote: Until the maps are MUCH larger, I don't see how any of the vehicles can really perform the tasks you have outlined in the OP. Well, in theory if they make them disposable instead of game changers, it would be reasonable to use them in the small DUST maps.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 2467	Posted - 2013.08.31 00:46:00 - [8] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99405 Still the best thing that could happen (that never will).

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.