DUST Search - Announcement:Vehicle Changes and Beyond

NINJAPIRATEROBOTZOMBIE wrote:

CCP Logibro wrote:

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.

Full Complete 100% Refund of all SP and Full 100% Refund of all BPC items. This should be what is talked about and the complete revamp of AV to run parallel to the upcoming vehicle changings. For once lets see you guys "CCP" put out a product that is worth logging on and enjoying. There is more to add like the outcome of this change and what it will effect for vehicles. I request also that a second respect be afforded once you hammer out all of the issues with this rollout as well. Putting points into something to only have it nerfed to oblivion isn't cool and you will find more that would rather make it rain in GTA V vise on these forums with QQ from all the no lube friction they receive from faults made by CCP. Pirate


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2212	Posted - 2013.10.02 19:44:00 - [1] - Quote You are missing the perfect opportunity to shift to a Cap system with it's greater flexibility and future expansion opportunities. It's inherently more difficult to keep track of several cool-down timers than it is one capacitor level. The hit-and-run engagement style of play does give vehicles the opportunity to be beefy without remaining in god-mode constantly, but the relative lengths of time are going to have to carefully balanced. Make the attack time too short and they won't be good for anything, and if you make the cool-down too long you risk significant boredom. I'm a dropship pilot rather than a tanker, but I'm concerned for their ability to get back to safety on these small maps with the mobility AV has. I can picture one or two LAV's called in specifically to chase down and kill a tank once it withdraws from battle. A dropship would also be perfect as a chase/kill vehicle because it's so difficult to get away from. The dropship would just sit and wait for the tank to go into cool-down and swoop in for an easy kill. You might actually require a dropship or LAV to cover the withdrawal of a tank. Hmmm, that could actually encourage multi-unit tactics.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2216	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:07:00 - [2] - Quote To really test the balance and get rid of the noise AV will lo have to be stripped down to the STD versions just like vehicles. This isn't a nerf whine, but rather a realistic testing requirement unless you are trying to balance STD vehicles against PROTO AV.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2236	Posted - 2013.10.04 16:53:00 - [3] - Quote This cries out or a test server. You want pilots to put millions of ISK on the line for your test, but already gun-shy pilots either can't or won't empty the last of their wallets for something they consider insane. Dropship numbers will be even more skewed because so many of us veteran pilots opted out in the last respec. With no SP in vehicles we simply can't test. You will end up with a very skewed data set if experienced pilots sit out the test and let the inexperienced lose all their ISK. How much effort would it take to release a copy of the current client that connects to Singularity? Am I missing some technical hurdle that makes this costly in time or money? What problem could Sony have with directing a copy of an already approved client to connect to a server you already used back in closed beta if you made it invitation only?
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2236	Posted - 2013.10.04 17:19:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: 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. I assume the the anticipated chaos is one of the factors in why the change has been delayed a couple more months. An overpowered HAV or dropship could wreck pub matches and mess up PC before they could be reigned in.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2238	Posted - 2013.10.04 19:06:00 - [5] - Quote NINJAPIRATEROBOTZOMBIE wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: 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. Full Complete 100% Refund of all SP and Full 100% Refund of all BPC items. This should be what is talked about and the complete revamp of AV to run parallel to the upcoming vehicle changings. For once lets see you guys "CCP" put out a product that is worth logging on and enjoying. There is more to add like the outcome of this change and what it will effect for vehicles. I request also that a second respect be afforded once you hammer out all of the issues with this rollout as well. Putting points into something to only have it nerfed to oblivion isn't cool and you will find more that would rather make it rain in GTA V vise on these forums with QQ from all the no lube friction they receive from faults made by CCP. That's an interesting request and something you should seriously consider if you desire a good testing population. You want as many experienced vehicle operators testing as you can get, and as it stands many are looking at this as an opportunity to bail. You could force pilots to stick around by only partially refunding vehicle SP, but that risks embittering many. If instead you made a full refund of vehicle SP and promised a second refund when balancing was complete you would remove a huge risk pilots would otherwise need to take to participate. There's still a matter of the ISK risk, but it's not nearly as critical as investing months worth of SP into a path that just doesn't work.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2238	Posted - 2013.10.05 14:11:00 - [6] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: CharCharOdell wrote: Damage mods need to be VH Ammo cache needs to be VL Because masrugars have blasters and only get 600 rounds they fire at over 700RPM Gunlogis have missiles and rails which need super high damage to be able to break through madrugar armor at range, while also having their own jardeners. I'm gonna go make some spreadsheeets tonight and see which has a better DPS/EHP/RESISTANCE ratio. They are VH and VL according to the pic How can either option work when shield tanking and armor tanking rely upon opposite slots? Any choice is going to favor one mode over another.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2275	Posted - 2013.10.15 18:49:00 - [7] - Quote I had asked for the ability to duct tape a MD onto a small turret in my dropship months ago when small missiles were crushed by the nerf hammer. The minuscule blast radius of a missile made it next to impossible to get a kill from a moving platform. Turret mounted weapons should be a multiple of handheld weapons. Anti-infantry missiles should have a large blast radius by design. Who in their right mind would design a missile with less killing power than a MD round? I get it that dropships were invincible killing machines back in precursor, but that was largely due to ineffective swarm pathing that has since been fixed. The new maps are also much more infantry friendly with significantly more cover.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2370	Posted - 2013.10.31 17:35:00 - [8] - Quote cheezy burning burrito wrote: Since Dust is removing the Veteran and Elite Packs it means no more BPOs. No BPOs means people need to use ISK/AUR to purchase LAVs. If people need to spend large amounts of ISK to outfit LAVs, can we at least get a DOOR LOCK. There is not a player that has either been carjacked or carjacked someone else's LAV. I don't care if they are manual or electric I want a door lock. Really? Will there be any replacement option to run standard boosters for the $16.7/month you could do with the Elite pack and booster combos from the marketplace? I'd like to keep running boosters, but I'm not spending more than that.