DUST Search - Announcement:Vehicle Changes and Beyond

Zat Earthshatter wrote:

Spreadsheets! Big smile

I'll add new posts if I have comments on the other spreadsheets, but for now i'll focus on the weapons.

In general
>Blasters: All about RoF! Small blasters will behave like miniguns with very small clips, while Large Blasters act like small-caliber repeater cannons. Very high DPS potential, especially if you invest SP into reducing heat buildup.
>Railguns: with lower heat costs and respectable mag sizes, railguns appear to be designed for longer bursts of fire on heavily-defended targets.
>Launchers: Basically, both sizes of launcher spit out the same direct damage per missile. The Large Launchers spit them out at a much faster rate, but with less splash damage and radius per missile.
NOTE: Large Missile Turrets aren't listed as "burst fire" on this spreadsheet, so I assume that the entire magazine can be fired off at once in this post

Time per magazine (heat isn't accounted here), and the damage that would cause
>Small Blasters: All 120 rounds would fire in exactly 8.4 seconds, and you would do 3,000 potential damage in that time.
>Large Blasters: 205 rounds in 28.7 seconds, doing 21,525 potential damage

Railgun calculations account for the charge time only for the first shot, in-line with current mechanics
>Small Railguns: 24 rounds in 10.25 seconds, doing between 5,640 and 7,332 potential damage
>Large Railguns: 9 rounds in 18.35 seconds, doing between 13,050 and 16,965 potential damage

missile calculations assume all direct hits, splash isn't accounted
>Small Missiles: 8 rounds in 9.6 seconds, doing between 3,200 and 4,160 potential damage
>Large Missiles: 12 missiles in 1.8 seconds, doing between 4,980 and 6,474 potential damage

burst DPS based on above data - does not account for reloads
>SB: 357.14
>LB: 750

>SRg: 550.24 to 715.32
>LRg: 711.17 to 924.52

>SM: 333.33 to 433.33
>LM: 2766.67 to 3596.67

Now we add a reload and second magazine to try to calculate true DPS. reloads based on unskilled user

>SB: 4s reload. 6,000 damage for two magazines. 8.4+4+8.4 = 20.8 total seconds(Ts). 6,000/20.8 = 288.46 true
>LB: 8s reload. 658.26 true

>SRg: 4s reload. 460.41 to 598.53 true
>LRg: 8s reload. 583.89 to 759.06 true

>SM: 4s reload. 275.86 to 358.62 true
>LM: 10s reload. 732.35 to 952.06 true

End result:

>Blasters: both turrets have lower DPS numbers, but they can sustain it more easily than the other weapon types. This is because it has relatively fast reloads and rapid cooling. Small is good against infantry, while the Large Blaster is useful to keep the pressure on an enemy vehicle.

>Small Railguns: SRg's combine a missile's alpha damage with a moderately fast firerate. If efficiency ratings remain good, this will be an effective AV weapon for smaller vehicles.
>Large Railguns: LRg's have very high alpha damage, but reload slowly. Use it like you would any true "tank gun"

>Small Missiles: as SMs don't overheat, they can put good mid-range DPS on targets. They mostly rely on splash for infantry and direct damage for vehicles, so don't worry too much about near-misses.
>Large missiles: The king of burst DPS. There is very little that can withstand the punishment that 12 direct hits dish out. Know, however, that a Large Missile HAV will be extremely vulnerable waiting for the 10-second reload.

effects on HAV strategy (based on turret type)

Large Blaster: a strong platform for mowing down infantry and nearby vehicles, but loses effectiveness at range. Keep this HAV away from open spaces, and you'll do very well.
An Ammo Expansion Unit is a useful module, as you will eat up ammunition very quickly.

Large Railgun: Best at long ranges, as closer ranges leave you vulnerable to a Blaster HAV.
Damage modifiers will increase your Alpha damage, which is a very good thing to have on this.

Large Missile: Be keenly aware of any cover you can use for shoot-and-scoot combat, as you will need to be in cover while you reload your next 12-shot volley. Devastating at mid-range, which is close enough for most of the missiles to hit while the Blaster HAV won't have maximum DPS output.
As you want to be in cover, try to fit a Fuel Injector to scoot back behind a building or rock when you've fired your magazine. This will reduce the amount of time you are exposed to the enemy.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 0	Posted - 2013.10.06 02:24:00 - [1] - Quote Currently, a Madrugar can have multiple 20% Armor Hardeners and activate them both for a nearly 40% reduction in damage, especially after passive resistance. Paired with some plates, a Madrugar can have ~8000 armor, too. Then, you can slap on a repairer with three Blasters and call it a day. If we use those guns with the new Madrugar, we can fit Enhanced 120mm Armor Plating, an Enhanced Heavy Armor Repaired and a Complex Armor Hardener with a Complex CPU mod and a Basic CPU mod. Take the old set up, condense the hardeners into one, remove some armor due to slot reductions and add a passive armor repairer that is about as fast as the old active armor repairer. There, the new Madrugar. The best three-blaster armor tank set up I could make dies around 25% faster, even with hardeners on. Beyond being frailer, you'll be running out of hardeners more and at that point, at which point you could be destroyed by a single dude with a Proto swarm in one clip. The old Madrugar could take more than one clip of Proto swarms due to its constant double-hardener and more slots for plates. This one can't even take a single clip once its pants are down. Simply shoot a swarm at a tank, then when it's hardeners run dry later unload your clip on it. On one hand, this forces the pilot to play strategically, while on the other hand, it'll probably make pilots hide behind buildings and recall their tanks even more than before. Who cares about losing your massive buffs when you can just ship the tank home after a single encounter? Also, I don't see how weapon mods restore "parity" when used against hardeners. Let's say I have an armor hardener and you have a weapon mod. Well, I'll be doing 100% damage while you're doing 78% damage (60% * 130%). So, you slap a second one on there. You're now at 96%. Say you get both. You're now going to have to ditch a ton of armor or guns to make up the cost. You'd need to find a way to ditch over a hundred CPU and PG worth of gear to replace the low CPU mod in the set at the beginning of this post with a damage modifier. There are really only two valid builds with any bulk. All armor, like the one I made (maybe with two plates) above or a tank that ditches the small guns to replace the Basic CPU mod with a Weapon Mod. I'm afraid armored HAV fitting will become "X amount of armor hardeners and X amount of plating lasts the longest, so use that," and everyone will be driving around in identical tanks, with some sacrificing their blueberry buddies on the small turrets for a damage mod for themselves. I don't think the changes are going to make vehicle combat worse than it is now. Right now, everyone just fills their tank with plates and recalls it whenever it gets damaged. The update should, in theory, make vehicle play more engaging. However, my problem with vehicles in general has always been a lack of variety in customizability. Most armored vehicles are the same. Modules? A repairer, a hardener and as many plates as they can fit, with shield users doing the same with shield extenders. Everyone's just trying to max out their eHP until multiplicative resistances are better, then swap to those. Occasionally someone drives by with a CRU (which is useless since the clones spawn INSIDE the tank, meaning they never want to leave the tank, meaning it's completely useless after two spawns) or a heat sink. Weapons? You either use blasters up close or railguns from farther away. Really, vehicles lack variety. Imagine if everyone in a dropsuit either used the Sniper Rifle or Heavy Machine Gun and only armor plates and shield extenders existed. It'd be terrible. Well, that's tanks, and even dropships. On the other hand, this is all just speculation based on the statistics released. It does look like the missile turrets will be useful this time and making the large missile turrets full auto seems like a good idea. Finite ammo will place a larger emphasis on supply depots. As a start, having removed everything but the skeleton, this could work out well. Hopefully, when this is expanded on, we'll have some nice variety in the vehicles. Assaulting enemies from a dropship amounts to trying to keep the ship steady while blueberries try to get a direct hit with a railgun, or flying low with a blaster trying not to crash. They need bombs to drop or something. Why use an airship that costs a million dollars that can be shot down when you can use a few 50k ISK LAVs and get there in no time with little risk? Everyone I see use one lands it on a tower and recalls it. They use it as icarus wings for one man more than an actual dropship or for actually assaulting things. Honestly, the LAVs are the only vehicles I think are well balanced at the moment. They do their job well and don't feel particularly deficient in any area. They're cheap, unlike tanks and airships which cost several hundred thousand to a couple million bucks, so they get the chance to be a bigger part of the game. Sorry for the extremely long post. Hopefully the update makes vehicles more enjoyable to use so that we see more of them on the battlefield. Cheers. :)
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 1	Posted - 2013.10.06 02:56:00 - [2] - Quote Jackof All-Trades wrote: Are there no armour resistance plates? My dropship survives off them! I only see active resistance plates.
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 1	Posted - 2013.10.06 06:10:00 - [3] - Quote Zat Earthshatter wrote: Spreadsheets! I'll add new posts if I have comments on the other spreadsheets, but for now i'll focus on the weapons. In general >Blasters: All about RoF! Small blasters will behave like miniguns with very small clips, while Large Blasters act like small-caliber repeater cannons. Very high DPS potential, especially if you invest SP into reducing heat buildup. >Railguns: with lower heat costs and respectable mag sizes, railguns appear to be designed for longer bursts of fire on heavily-defended targets. >Launchers: Basically, both sizes of launcher spit out the same direct damage per missile. The Large Launchers spit them out at a much faster rate, but with less splash damage and radius per missile. NOTE: Large Missile Turrets aren't listed as "burst fire" on this spreadsheet, so I assume that the entire magazine can be fired off at once in this post Time per magazine (heat isn't accounted here), and the damage that would cause >Small Blasters: All 120 rounds would fire in exactly 8.4 seconds, and you would do 3,000 potential damage in that time. >Large Blasters: 205 rounds in 28.7 seconds, doing 21,525 potential damage Railgun calculations account for the charge time only for the first shot, in-line with current mechanics >Small Railguns: 24 rounds in 10.25 seconds, doing between 5,640 and 7,332 potential damage >Large Railguns: 9 rounds in 18.35 seconds, doing between 13,050 and 16,965 potential damage missile calculations assume all direct hits, splash isn't accounted >Small Missiles: 8 rounds in 9.6 seconds, doing between 3,200 and 4,160 potential damage >Large Missiles: 12 missiles in 1.8 seconds, doing between 4,980 and 6,474 potential damage burst DPS based on above data - does not account for reloads >SB: 357.14 >LB: 750 >SRg: 550.24 to 715.32 >LRg: 711.17 to 924.52 >SM: 333.33 to 433.33 >LM: 2766.67 to 3596.67 Now we add a reload and second magazine to try to calculate true DPS. reloads based on unskilled user >SB: 4s reload. 6,000 damage for two magazines. 8.4+4+8.4 = 20.8 total seconds(Ts). 6,000/20.8 = 288.46 true >LB: 8s reload. 658.26 true >SRg: 4s reload. 460.41 to 598.53 true >LRg: 8s reload. 583.89 to 759.06 true >SM: 4s reload. 275.86 to 358.62 true >LM: 10s reload. 732.35 to 952.06 true End result: >Blasters: both turrets have lower DPS numbers, but they can sustain it more easily than the other weapon types. This is because it has relatively fast reloads and rapid cooling. Small is good against infantry, while the Large Blaster is useful to keep the pressure on an enemy vehicle. >Small Railguns: SRg's combine a missile's alpha damage with a moderately fast firerate. If efficiency ratings remain good, this will be an effective AV weapon for smaller vehicles. >Large Railguns: LRg's have very high alpha damage, but reload slowly. Use it like you would any true "tank gun" >Small Missiles: as SMs don't overheat, they can put good mid-range DPS on targets. They mostly rely on splash for infantry and direct damage for vehicles, so don't worry too much about near-misses. >Large missiles: The king of burst DPS. There is very little that can withstand the punishment that 12 direct hits dish out. Know, however, that a Large Missile HAV will be extremely vulnerable waiting for the 10-second reload. effects on HAV strategy (based on turret type) Large Blaster: a strong platform for mowing down infantry and nearby vehicles, but loses effectiveness at range. Keep this HAV away from open spaces, and you'll do very well. An Ammo Expansion Unit is a useful module, as you will eat up ammunition very quickly. Large Railgun: Best at long ranges, as closer ranges leave you vulnerable to a Blaster HAV. Damage modifiers will increase your Alpha damage, which is a very good thing to have on this. Large Missile: Be keenly aware of any cover you can use for shoot-and-scoot combat, as you will need to be in cover while you reload your next 12-shot volley. Devastating at mid-range, which is close enough for most of the missiles to hit while the Blaster HAV won't have maximum DPS output. As you want to be in cover, try to fit a Fuel Injector to scoot back behind a building or rock when you've fired your magazine. This will reduce the amount of time you are exposed to the enemy. Nice job, you saved me quite a bit of work. So, a Madrugar with hardeners like the one I posted before would last roughly 15 seconds to a large blaster turret, excluding cool down time. 11 seconds if the opponent has a weapon mod. Which level of gun did you derive this information from? Basic, enhanced, complex? Also, at the moment, the OP states there is a typo in the blaster damage section. Not hard to figure that out, I suppose, when every blaster has the same stats. Were corrected ones posted anywhere? ._. I just realized that Logibro (the TC, not the role in a squad ) pointed out that AV was also getting reworked, so I guess my other posts about Swarm damage will become irrelevant. In which case, going by the DPS numbers you posted, tanks will have decent durability against each other. Although, against three blaster turrets with a damage mod, my 11000~ HP after hardeners would be gone in 6 seconds, provided the turrets don't overheat in that time and disregarding the hybrid to armor/shield modifier. Yeah. That doesn't sound great.
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 3	Posted - 2013.10.06 21:23:00 - [4] - Quote First off, thanks Zat. I figured you used the militia blasters, as it seemed most logical. Thanks. --- Again, sorry for another obscenely long post no one will read. I have a tendency to ramble on when it comes to game design. Below are just some observations I've made. Some are similar to previous ones, obviously; I think I enjoy analyzing Dust more than playing it. --- Well, playing with armor tank load outs a bit more, it seems like the best armor set for a blaster Tank is still Enhanced 120mm Plates, Complex Armor Hardener and an Enhanced Armor Repairer. One of each seems to be the most efficient. Upping the plate quality requires downing everything else, getting more plates sacrifices the repair unit, which, in a moderate length tank battle, will heal as much as another pair of plates would've added (plus you pretty much NEED passive healing), and a Hardener's bonus being multiplicative on the whole thing means it's also required. I'm not sure how effective running dual-hardeners is. You could also alternate to keep two Enhanced Armor Hardeners up constantly. Shield tanks have much stronger hardeners, so stacking there is probably more effective, considering their extenders are worse than plating while their hardeners are better than armor hardeners. Based on the DPS chart posted by Zat, a 145 HP repper only heals 20% of the damage done by a Large Blaster turret per second. Obviously, the turret will need to stop firing to prevent itself from overheating, but the worst-case scenario makes it far worse in combat than a hardener with a single repair unit, unless the turret is only hitting you half the time, so multiple of those makes little sense. Plus, while the hardener scales with the damage and absorbs more of the DPS the higher it gets, since it's a percentage, the repair unit only gets worse and worse since it doesn't scale at all. With a single enhanced repair unit, you can heal the 6450 armor of the Madrugar + Enhanced Plates in 53.75 seconds. Notice that the cooldown of an Enhanced Armor Hardener is 52.5 seconds. It seems to me like they've been designed in synch so that a tank with one hardener, one repair unit and one set of plates, all at the same level, will always finish fully restoring its armor by the time its hardeners are ready to be put up again. A weapon mod versus a hardener tank will always lose the DPS war. However, a weapon mod tank with a hardener might be worth it against all the hardener junkies. Against a double hardener tank, a hardener + damage mod tank would deal around the same damage as its opponent, right? I haven't done the math, but if so, it could be a good way to counter the inevitable hardener stacking. Whereas the double hardener tank needs to sacrifice either a large chunk of its armor or be completely unable to repair itself, the weapon mod tank only needs to make its hardener take longer to charge and slightly lower its healing capabilities. If that worked out, it would further make the game "all of one thing, or one of everything" due to most mods modifying armor or damage. Really, one thing that makes this system feel so restricted is the balanced costs. The CPU is the worst bottleneck and all the Armor mods have around the same CPU cost within the same tier. For example, Enhanced 120mm Plating and and Enhanced Armor Repairers both cost 105 and Enhanced Armor Hardeners cost 109. You can't really swap around what types of modules you have to gain better guns, or open up more module slots, without dropping tiers. Thus, it simply becomes a mathematical game of what lasts the longest. And, mathematically, as is common in most games, it seems to be one of each. Really, there need to be modules that branch out the roles of vehicles. Currently, it feels like Black Ops, where everyone either had to have Juggernaught or Stopping Power. Juggernaught lasted longer against people with nothing, Stopping power killed people faster with nothing while any combination of the two ended in everyone going down at the same rate. That was not customization; that was slot filler. However, even CoD games have skills beyond damage mods that you need to balance. Hardline earns killstreaks (like orbital strikes) faster, Blast Shield/Flak Jacket lowers explosive damage, Last Chance let's you survive a mortal blow, etcetera. These all have unique effects beyond "deal more damage, take less damage." Obviously, Dust 514 is an MMO. However, it has failed to take on the better mechanics of modern day shooters, making it feel like it's just an MMO, beyond customization and management and onto the battlefield. Hopefully, when new modules are added back in, they will have substantial effects that will make them worth using. It doesn't NEED to be a stat balancing game. I can think of dozens of changes that could be made to make tanks fun, useful and affordable. After this patch, it seems like they'll be a little more enjoyable to use while still maintaining the exact same core functionality and types of loadouts. Tanks are, currently, big battering rams with machine guns on them. They take no damage from normal weapons and die way too quickly to a few grunts with anti-vehicular weaponry. The "balance" is created by a lack of diversity in relationships between players of different types, creating boredom.
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 8	Posted - 2013.10.06 23:53:00 - [5] - Quote Keri Starlight wrote: Detailed post and comprehensive opinions. However, I feel like the limited HP ceiling and the lack of passive resistance will cause a massive amount of tanks to be destroyed by sudden and unexpected long range AV attacks (or railgun strikes either) without any possibility for the pilot to react fast enough. I predict much more raging among tankers... This is an important observation. To use an active hardener effectively and not waste it, you can only activate it when you know you're going to be attacked. This means a rail gun turret from halfway across the map or a few protoswarms will inevitably get through before you can activate hardeners.
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 16	Posted - 2013.10.07 03:45:00 - [6] - Quote Big Burns wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I'm really happy to see CCP take the positive steps in allowing the community to provide feedback regarding these changes before they are actually implemented. I hope this will become the norm in the future and not the exception. What does "CPM", stand for? Crowd Control Missives. It's what CCP posts to control the angry riots that occur anytime something is delayed, or screwed up.
Borne Velvalor BLACK-DRAGON-SOCIETY 28	Posted - 2013.10.08 02:12:00 - [7] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I really hate that dropships will not get any WP for people spawning on them. Drop-uplinks get WP for people spawning on them. Drop-Uplinks Can deploy multiple uplinks at the same time. Cost PG/CPU and an equipment slot to fit mCRUs Costs lots of PG/CPU Only applied to one location (the vehicle) Logi Dropships Costs lots more than a drop-uplink Cost a lot more SP to use than a drop-uplink CCP, why do you hate dropships so much? The 1minute WP commission that's there 1 after transporting 100m thing is not a good replacement for giving WP for people spawning in. What if your dropship is hovering less than 100m over an objective for people to spawn in and capture it? In that scenario the pilot will not get any WP for helping out the team and would need to fly around then stop periodicly to try to get WP. If you think its a good way to prevent a person from WP farming, that's the wrong way of looking at it. Also its much easier to WP farm with uplinks than a vehicle with a CRU and far less costly. HAVs have even more problems with them. I used to run a mCRU on a Soma for a (relatively) cheap spawn point and mobile shield with supportive fire. At only around 160k, I could afford to call one in every battle and break even, even if it were blown up. Almost every time a player spawned in the HAV, even though it was a really crappy Militia HAV, they refused to get out. They'd just sit there on the default missile turret shooting at the enemies swarming the objective that I had just flanked, instead of getting out and taking the objective while I supported them. This brings us to the next problem: capacity. Currently, if you've fitted a mCRU into your Dropship, it's not going to max out. On a LAV/HAV with two seats? Yeah, that sucker is going to max out immediately if it is in a good location. Even if two or three guys get out of the vehicle, after several spawns it will be full and no one will be able to spawn there. Several sounds like a lot, until you realize you could've gotten out of your vehicle for 3 seconds and placed an uplink, get the same amount or more spawns, free up slots/PG/CPU and get WP for doing so. Plus, if you like to have gunners with you in your HAV, the mCRU is LITERALLY useless. It does nothing, ever, in that case. TL;DR: The mCRU is really a Mobile Gunner Replacement Unit (mGRU), especially for HAVs. This makes it useless. Just TRY to run in a squad doing pub matches with a mCRU. Enjoy as your turrets get filled by blueberries and none of your squad can actually use it to SPAWN.