|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2466
   |
Posted - 2013.10.02 13:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi guys,
We said the other day that we would share the stats for the vehicles and now that day has finally come! These are the current stats that we are testing with in our internal build of the game. Here you will find base stats for the vehicle types, the modules, the skills and the turrets. They are not set in stone, we are still actively working with them so weGÇÖll be interested to hear your feedback. To put this in some context IGÇÖd like to take a sec to reiterate what I ran through before.
Short version: WeGÇÖve stripped out a lot of the GÇ£noiseGÇ¥ so that we can focus on building a solid foundation for the vehicles that we can expand on. Central to this is the balance between active and passive bonuses creating what weGÇÖve been referring to as GÇÿwaves of opportunityGÇÖ in combat (be it with AV infantry or other vehicles).
Long version: Many of you will have read this before but I think it bears repeating because it really covers everything that weGÇÖve done here:
THE PLAN
The goal is a simple one, make vehicles fun! The plan, however, is somewhat more intricate and will be implemented in a number of stages over the coming days and weeks, with the aim being for the changes to see release after 1.6.
Remove GÇ£noiseGÇ¥ so that we can focus on the core archetypes.
Right now there are simply too many things doing too much all at once. Module offerings will be streamlined to just the most necessary archetypes. Once weGÇÖve established a solid foundation weGÇÖll start to introduce types and build back out. Similarly, vehicle variations will be reduced and then re-implemented properly once the base interactions are working well. Skill bonuses will be adjusted.
Rebuild with a clear combat philosophy in mind.
There are a number of issues with vehicle combat at the moment, but most of these are symptomatic of a bigger issue: vehicles have no clear role on the battlefield. Vehicles need to be powerful, but not overpowered. They need to be vulnerable, but not weak. TheyGÇÖve been all of these things at various points in DUSTGÇÖs development, but theyGÇÖve never quite found their niche. We hope to correct that by:
Make base vehicles susceptible. An unfitted vehicle is little more than a weak hull. Base HP does not make a vehicle powerful. Only through fitting can a vehicle become a true threat on the battlefield.
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.
Clear usage profiles for modules so players intuitively know and understand why itGÇÖs better to use a particular module or set of modules in a given situation.
Proper feedback so that itGÇÖs easier to understand what is happening (e.g. an HAV has activated shield hardeners) and how to counter it.
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.
Expand
Once we're 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.
Click the image for full-size version.
Click the image for full-size version.
Active vs. Passive modules
WeGÇÖre rebuilding everything with the idea that active modules will allow a vehicle to survive a single encounter, while passive modules increase its long-term surviveability across multiple encounters. Active modules will provide very significant bonuses, but once used their long recharge times leave a lone vehicle vulnerable to any follow-up attacks. Passive modules on the other hand provide permanent bonuses that are comparatively small. The breakdown is as follows:
Active
Large, temporary bonuses
High PG/CPU costs
Single encounter survivability
Passive
Small, persistent bonuses
Comparatively low PG/CPU costs
Multiple encounter surviveability
Module Types
These are the modules that weGÇÖll be focusing on in our first-pass rebalance:
Armor/Shield Hardeners (A): Massive, temporary reduction to damage received.
Used to survive short, high-DPS situations. Long cool down times discourage overuse.
Armor Plates / Shield Extenders (P): Small permanent HP increase
Increases long-term sustainability at the expense of the base hullGÇÖs inherent strength (shield recharge time in the case of shields and speed in the case of armor)
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.
Armor Repairers (P): Speed up HP recovery outside of combat
Used to make running repairs between battles (too slow to be of real use in the heat of battle)
Damage Amplifiers (A): Massive, temporary increase to damage dealt.
Used to GÇ£punch above your weight classGÇ¥ or to restore something like parity to the playing field when hardeners are used.
Ammo Cache (P): Increases the amount of on-board ammunition available to turrets.
Used to increase ammo capacity. Useful when not near a supply depot.
Armor vs. Shields<...
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2472
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 13:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
The Logistics and Assault Dropships are going to be taken out temporarily, but they should be returning in the future. As was said in the first post, we want to go back to basics and get the core interactions working first. Then we can look at branching back out once we have a solid foundation.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2485
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 14:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:The Attorney General wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I mean seriously, armor we could get with one plate and one repper is less than 6000.
Armor resists look to be staying at about what they are now. Skill based resist and two carapace hardeners works out about the same as the new 60% modules, although the current have better active times and shorter cooldowns. So all in all an armor nerf, which is just what most of us feared. Without an AV nerf, tankers should all just quit. What two hardeners are you talking about? A plate and a repper, if we can fit them, then one hardener if we have anything left. Likely nothing in the highs. I don't see any PG expansion units, or diagnostic units. Screwing over shield, again.
Powergrid Upgrade Unit and CPU Upgrade Unit. They're there still.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2514
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hey guys
Yes, the Blaster damage numbers are likely a typo. I'll poke Wolfman and get some updated numbers when I can.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2578
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Couple of things to keep in mind guys:
AV weapons should also be getting work done to them to bring them in line with the new numbers. Those will be posted at a later date. For now, try to focus on vehicle vs vehicle interactions.
Small arms shouldn't be able to disrupt shield recharging. I don't have the exact number for the threshold off the top of my head, but it should be enough to prevent someone from pinging you with an assault rifle to stop the recharge.
On another note, CCP Wolfman is out of his cave for a short time, so it might be a little while before he pops his head back into the thread. Keep the feedback rolling in though to make sure he's got a nice list of things to talk about when he gets back (and don't worry, there will be enough time for talking when he gets back)
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2578
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:CCP Logibro wrote:Couple of things to keep in mind guys:
AV weapons should also be getting work done to them to bring them in line with the new numbers. Those will be posted at a later date. For now, try to focus on vehicle vs vehicle interactions.
Small arms shouldn't be able to disrupt shield recharging. I don't have the exact number for the threshold off the top of my head, but it should be enough to prevent someone from pinging you with an assault rifle to stop the recharge.
On another note, CCP Wolfman is out of his cave for a short time, so it might be a little while before he pops his head back into the thread. Keep the feedback rolling in though to make sure he's got a nice list of things to talk about when he gets back (and don't worry, there will be enough time for talking when he gets back) He posted on this thread? Where?
Just because he hasn't posted yet doesn't mean he hasn't looked.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2580
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 23:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
As far as partial respecs/refunds for vehicle related stuff goes, they are on the table. No details yet, but that's because we're still discussing how we want to do it. We will let you know when we've decided how it will go down.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2597
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 13:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
As far as the removed vehicle types go, we are looking to return them. However, we need to battle test the base variants first so we have a solid platform to work from.
As far as modules go, we will also looking at returning some (but not necessarily all) of them. Again, we need to cut down and get the basics battle tested before we can throw back in all sorts of good stuff.
As good as number crunching and internal playtesting may be, it's not as good as you guys fighting each other with these vehicles live.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
2605
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 17:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
We would love to have a test server, but at current there are a number of factors and considerations that are preventing us from running one.
Additionally, based on your feedback it seems you really want the Assault Dropship and Maurader to make quick returns. I'll make sure that gets passed on.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro |
|
|
|
| |
|