DUST Search - Announcement:Vehicle Changes and Beyond

Winsaucerer wrote:

Uravm0d groundforce wrote:

...Seriously the way to make vehicles fun is to make it profitable and with the info provided I would say they would have to cost the same as a drop suit.

Thats my verdict.

Yep. What I think should be considered:
* Reduce cost by a lot
* Make tanks easier to kill by just a little bit

This way, you can afford to lose a tank maybe once or twice a battle, but they also don't dominate so much. The main issue with tanks is that they're quite hard to kill, and can kill a lot -- so infantry think they're too strong. However, one tank costs multiple battles worth of ISK, so tankers think they're too weak, because one loss means a few battles of earning that isk back. You can change a lot of people's expectations by reducing their power on the battle field by just a little, and reducing their cost by a whole lot, so that losing one or two in a battle isn't a problem.

I also think that CCP needs to eat less vegetables and more dessert. I am seriously wondering if the better thing is to just keep introducing new stuff, and balance while you go, rather than removing content and balancing the core. Each new thing in the game can significantly affect the balance of a whole range of things. So even if you succeed at balancing the core, that may not mean much at all once you throw new things in the mix.

Put it all out there, let the chips (so to speak) fall where they may, and then balance. Put all the pieces you can in as scaffolding, then build up around that. Dust 514 needs more dessert.

Also, please capacitors like EVE. That sounds great.

Caveat: I have not given these suggestions a great deal of thought.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Anoko Destrolock THE NUCLEAR KNIGHTS 6	Posted - 2013.10.03 20:24:00 - [1] - Quote As both an AV player AND Tanker, I have a few concerns. 1. To start, it looks like tanking will take WAY more sp. 2. For shield vehicles, something needs to be done to prevent players from shooting a vehicle to prevent shield recharge with non AV weapons. 3. Swarm launchers can currently do about 3500 dmg to armor in 1 hit which is rough on tankers as is. By reducing the hp of std tanks AND removing passive resist, armor tanks will get destroyed crazy fast by swarms. 4. CCP said they wanted to make the base hull weak and make it essential to fit the tank with modules. On the contrary, tanks are getting a small buff to base hp and modules are getting nerfed. To summarize: 2 less modules, the best plates give 1300 less armor, the armor rep is going from a max of 476 armor / sec to 181 armor / sec (with skills) 5. Tanking can be very fun. But often it can be frustrating. I think 95% of my frustration comes from the cost of loosing a tank. If tanks are cheap, I think the changes mentioned will be fine. The solution is to make STD tanks CHEAP. I think if the cost of a fitted std tank was about 150k, players would be more interested in tanking. Right now, it just costs too much isk and is not easily sustainable. I find myself more concerned about loosing a tank than having fun playing. Tanks should be tiered in cost similar to dropsuits. By this, I mean that they should be tiered in cost. i.e. 150-200k for STD 400-550k for ADV and 1-2.5 mil for PROTO (fully fitted) I think everything should revolve around cost. If std tanks are still way overpriced, as they are now, people are going to be turned off immediately. Standard tier dropsuits are cheap and disposable and you will always make isk even if you loose 20 of them. Loose a std tank and you lost 2-4x what you made in 1 match. P.S. I dont see why ccp would only introduce only STD vehicles to try to balance them when every AV guy runs proto. Proto Swarm fits only cost 32k isk >..>
Anoko Destrolock THE NUCLEAR KNIGHTS 6	Posted - 2013.10.03 20:57:00 - [2] - Quote Winsaucerer wrote: Uravm0d groundforce wrote: ...Seriously the way to make vehicles fun is to make it profitable and with the info provided I would say they would have to cost the same as a drop suit. Thats my verdict. Yep. What I think should be considered: * Reduce cost by a lot * Make tanks easier to kill by just a little bit This way, you can afford to lose a tank maybe once or twice a battle, but they also don't dominate so much. The main issue with tanks is that they're quite hard to kill, and can kill a lot -- so infantry think they're too strong. However, one tank costs multiple battles worth of ISK, so tankers think they're too weak, because one loss means a few battles of earning that isk back. You can change a lot of people's expectations by reducing their power on the battle field by just a little, and reducing their cost by a whole lot, so that losing one or two in a battle isn't a problem. I also think that CCP needs to eat less vegetables and more dessert. I am seriously wondering if the better thing is to just keep introducing new stuff, and balance while you go, rather than removing content and balancing the core. Each new thing in the game can significantly affect the balance of a whole range of things. So even if you succeed at balancing the core, that may not mean much at all once you throw new things in the mix. Put it all out there, let the chips (so to speak) fall where they may, and then balance. Put all the pieces you can in as scaffolding, then build up around that. Dust 514 needs more dessert. Also, please capacitors like EVE. That sounds great. Caveat: I have not given these suggestions a great deal of thought. CCP should hire you dude. This has been the case since beta....... yet CCP ignores the actual problem when trying to solve it..... Time to go back to Step 1: Identify the problem: TANKS COST TOO MUCH and are hard for non-coordinated newbie players to kill
Anoko Destrolock THE NUCLEAR KNIGHTS 6	Posted - 2013.10.13 03:11:00 - [3] - Quote Ccp: a few things to look at more closely: Proto swarms do 50% more Dmg than std All other weapons at only 10% difference Your numbers on missile turrets make them look even less appealing than they are now. Full auto sounds very fun. The small 12 shot clip is ok. But the reload time is scary. 10 secs is certain death vs a blaster tank and probably infantry if things are anything like their current state. Let's do the math: .15 RoF 12 shots= 2 secs to empty the clip and 10 to reload. The 1.5m blast radius on large missiles is rediculous. Its hard enough to hit infantry with the current 3m radius. Should a LARGE missile turret really have the same radius as a flaylock SIDEARM and a quarter the radius of a mass driver? Would you make the AR a 10 sec load time with a 2 sec ammo capacity? No? Why do this to tankers then? Tankers are tired of being at the bottom of the priority list. How did you come up with these numbers? They make no sense. And btw Ccp says we wan vehicle hulls to be weak and modules to be strong yet does the opposite Buff base hull hp and nerf armor plates and shield extenders Ccp: any word on tank pricing? It obviously needs to be brought way down to help make tanking more fun and less frustrating Av players shouldn't think LOL what a waste of money, that guy is a fool when someone spawns a tank. This game seems to cater to assault classes and everyone else is left in the dirt to rot. For god sakes, sentinel suits still have the broken suit bonus that only effects laser rifles. They don't even have a light weapon slot. Either release a heavy laser weapon or change the bonus. It's amazing what's left broken for such long periods.
Anoko Destrolock THE NUCLEAR KNIGHTS 9	Posted - 2013.10.16 01:14:00 - [4] - Quote The most important thing is to make tanks cheaper. The biggest frustration with tanking is when you lose 1, you know itll take a ton of games in militia fits to pay for it. If tanks are cheaper in the future and more sustainable, instead of an isk pit, tanks will be a lot of fun. OMG the Large Missile launcher sounds REALLY fun with fully auto, i just hope its buffed enough to be able to use it. As it is now, with 1.5 m blast itll take all 12 shots to kill 1 guy and then you have to reload for 10 secs (lol)
Anoko Destrolock The Phoenix Federation The Ascendancy 12	Posted - 2013.10.22 01:47:00 - [5] - Quote saxonmish wrote: so, what about the Veyu's and the Falchion's are these getting changed or will they still be 5 low 3 high? If you read the OP..... Enforcers are being removed. So no way of knowing until next year at the earliest. If they are ever added back they'll prolly have 10 slots with 200 CPU and 900 pg lolz
Anoko Destrolock The Phoenix Federation The Ascendancy 12	Posted - 2013.10.22 02:04:00 - [6] - Quote large missiles need a blast radius buff Shield extender and armor plates need a buff so that the increase in hp is significant relative to base hp. Turret reload speed should be relevant but NOT crippling as is the case with large missiles Missile tanks would be VERY fun if you could actually hit people or cause splash Dmg consistently But if a missile tanks has a smaller blast radius that core flaylock a and 1/5 the radius of a mass driver that's just eff'd up CCP, can you clarify the blast radius for large missiles and if you are trolling us.
Anoko Destrolock The Phoenix Federation The Ascendancy 12	Posted - 2013.10.22 02:15:00 - [7] - Quote KenKaniff69 wrote: CCP, do you realize what these pathetic regen/rep rates and absurd cool down times will do to vehicles? I mean come on it is pathetic how long they will be-even with skills. Tanks will no longer roam the battlefield, neither will dropships be unsustainable in combat. It isnt very fun to sit in the redline waiting two minutes for all of the modules to recharge or ammo to regen. ^ This is what I'm afraid of. Long cd times will force tanks to retreat and sit idle for long durations to prevent massive isk loss
Anoko Destrolock The Phoenix Federation The Ascendancy 12	Posted - 2013.10.24 01:08:00 - [8] - Quote CCP, NO ONE enjoys putting millions of sp into skills just to unlock them. I want to see a reason to reach rank 5 in a skill regardless of whether you use basic or complex modules / turrets / hulls. The new skills list has 20 unlock skills, 9 of which are for turrets. This is what I propose (per rank): Vehicle Upgrades +1% Acceleration for all vehicles Armor Upgrades +2% armor Shield Upgrades +2% shields Core Upgrades +1% CPU / PG Electronics +2% CPU Engineering +2% PG LAV Operation +1% Speed / Acceleration HAV Operation +1% armor & shields and / or +1% large turret dmg Turret Operation +1% Turret Dmg or +2% rotation Speed Large Turret Operation +1% Large Turret Dmg or +2% rotation Speed
Anoko Destrolock The Phoenix Federation The Ascendancy 12	Posted - 2013.10.24 15:13:00 - [9] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: Anoko Destrolock wrote: LAV Operation +1% Speed / Acceleration HAV Operation +1% armor & shields and / or +1% large turret dmg But where is dropship operation? That's for the pilots to figure out. I don't fly those death traps.