DUST Search - Should AV add Debuffs on vehicles?

All Channels

General Discussions

Should AV add Debuffs on vehicles?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 11176	Posted - 2013.12.10 23:47:00 - [1] - Quote Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Rail and Combat Rifle =// Unlocked
Joel II X Lo-Tech Solutions Ltd 309	Posted - 2013.12.10 23:50:00 - [2] - Quote Yes. I still want 200m on my Swarm Launcher due to Tanks' speed. Even with 3 swarm launchers locking on, we can't kill it because it runs away by the time we can get the second lock on.
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 448	Posted - 2013.12.10 23:52:00 - [3] - Quote Or, now that active mods are king, EWAR equipment. Grenades that reduce "capacitor" (the time left on the module running). AoE Hives/Webifiers that slow vehicles/nullify nitrus boosts(could be activated when run over at high speed Just a few ideas. Dropship Specialist: AKA Clinically Insane Kills- Incubus: 3; Pythons: 0; Logistics: 0; Militia: 19; Tanks: 4
AP Grasshopper The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 54	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:00:00 - [4] - Quote No, reduce the speed of vehicles. What was CCP thinking when they increased speed 10 fold. Doubling vehicle speed would have been a significant change. They went way over board.
Galthur CrimeWave Syndicate 176	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:01:00 - [5] - Quote I support the PLC sticking and applying a damage in a small radius after impact, It's a really good buff for the weapon. Make it do say 50 damage per second for 10 seconds to objects within a 1 foot radius. Don't despawn until after the 10 seconds so you can use multiple shots to block infantry in tight corridors and deal real damage to vehicles thus discouraging vehicles from getting close. Level 18 [======== ] Pure Gallente - Preferred Gamemode: PVE
Volgair Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 300	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:01:00 - [6] - Quote No, These effects would be better served if they were inflicted by new, non-damage based equipment or weapons. That way we could have two forms of man portable AV, Direct Damage and Spec War (e-war), mixing the two will only lead to abuse and cause that "Tank-Infantry pendulum" to have a plum point that is even harder to discern. "Paper is OP, scissor's are fine." -Rock
Galthur CrimeWave Syndicate 176	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:05:00 - [7] - Quote I would say proxy mines/remote explosives should slow vehicles, more specifically RE's if you preferred Proxys to do other things. Level 18 [======== ] Pure Gallente - Preferred Gamemode: PVE
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 102	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:07:00 - [8] - Quote Its almost like we need something to counter vehicles.... you know like how vehicles (tanks specifically) counter infantry.... Like a Rock to the scissors that is tanks.......
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1487	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:08:00 - [9] - Quote Get ewar in: problem solved "HP needs no buff, certain weapons need nerf. Or else all other become obsolete." GÿåForum warrior lvl.1Gÿå
RECON BY FIRE Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 320	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:17:00 - [10] - Quote No, put AV damage back where it was, give the Swarm 200 to 300m lock range with 600m travel, and scale the speed back down. Tanks go so fast now it makes my eyes hurt a bit to actually drive one at full speed. Im not sure about forges, probly put them back to pre-nerf as well. I didn't really see much of a problem with them to begin with. Stuff....?

Cody Sietz Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 1763	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:21:00 - [11] - Quote I'd like my flux grenades to slow down or stop a tank, but that's mostly if CCP plans to keep current tank speed. That or give the swarm launch a alt fire webifier thing to slow down tanks. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 803	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:23:00 - [12] - Quote I don't know about armor tanks, but shield tanks feel really good. I can tank whatever they care to throw at me for 25 seconds after that I'm all squishy and any AV could take me down for 60 seconds. but I have my speed to save my sorry butt. the shield regen is also really good. I don't have to sit out half the match waiting for a passive regen. and I only have 1 mill SP in them so there is much room for improvement! shield tanking... 8/10 will do again. "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Alpha 443-6732 266	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:31:00 - [13] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. Webifiers are needed. AV grenade variants that also slow are needed. Infantry based E-War is needed. AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender Public Disorder. 51	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:31:00 - [14] - Quote I like the idea of different forms of debuffs and such from AV weapons in some cases it makes sense like plasma it is just a shot of plasma and you'd think it'd have a kind of acidic damage effect. Also the force from forge guns knocking modules out for a longer cool down seems like a cool idea aswell. I do believe being a tanker myself that range should be increased a bit for swarms and that if damage will be this low that there be effects from infantry weapons that make vehicles vulnerable or weak. Something to give infantry a chance or even an advantage at points. CEO of Knights of Ender, Pro Jack of All Traits Corporation Website: http://koe.shivtr.com Skype: MRBH1997
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 4128	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:34:00 - [15] - Quote can we please not the repeat the "dropships and lavs are in a good place against AV, but tanks are a bit OP, lets buff AV. Oh look, now Dropships and lavs are dying too easily, ah well at least tanks are okay" rather than buff av, just do something about tanks specifically, dropships finally feel good again, hell all of the old dropship guys have come out of the woodwork and i have seen nothing but praise so far for the dropship changes. whatever you do, don't buff AV (well maybe buff swarms a tad), reduce tanks speed whatever instead. Lv 4 forum warrior Bringer of Bacon Knight of AMV's
ladwar Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1921	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:36:00 - [16] - Quote always pushing this idea IWS... nothing new here folks. just IWS normal tricks. Level 2 Forum Warrior, retired vet. I shall smite Thy Trolls with numbers and truth not looking for a corp, don't ask.
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 1169	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:39:00 - [17] - Quote How about an AV Weapon of some sort that deactivates all modules and reduces speed by 25%? It would do no damage, and using multiple would have the same effect as using one. Make it work like a Proximity Mine. It would use an equipment slot and have a fairly high PG/CPU cost, about as much as a scanner of the same tier. [+ªa¦Ç+¦++-ö-Å94] Level 1 Forum Warrior The Plasma Cannon is not underpowered
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1264	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:41:00 - [18] - Quote Yes, though I also feel that we should be able to specifically target, tank tracks, lav wheels and dropship thrusters. EWAR mods and Void Grenades too.... Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 900	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:44:00 - [19] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Yes, though I also feel that we should be able to specifically target, tank tracks, lav wheels and dropship thrusters. EWAR mods and Void Grenades too.... Ohhh This is SO much better idea. If it's doable, that is. Feeling the scanner is too simple and off balance? The fix:
The-Errorist 550	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:30:00 - [20] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. Awesome ideas; here's what I would like them to be like: Anti-vehicle grenades - Slow down vehicles Flux grenades and Forgegun shots - Reduce Active duration of modules by 1 second and increase their cooldown by 1 second. Missiles from swarm launchers, remote explosives, and proxy mines - Reduce armor rep rate They should also get a buff to their explosive force, so they can disrupt steering and flight even more. Plasma Cannon shots - Reduce shield regeneration rate The projectiles also becomes sticky and does damage over time to the target that gets directly hit.

Defy Gravity Knights of Eternal Darkness League of Infamy 227	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:39:00 - [21] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. I like the idea of the forgegun stoping use of modules. & like sort of an EM effect upon impact with the vehical? Amarr FW Supporter. "I will melt you with my scrambler rifle Minmatar filth!"
ResistanceGTA D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 363	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:39:00 - [22] - Quote Could we get Webs already?!? These are interesting ideas, though I think some simple DoT would be amazing for variants of weapons (and all Plasma Cannons). Why exactly can't they program in Damage over Time abilities? I know a Dev explained it, but, vehicles used to burn, couldn't that programming be modified to do less damage and over X number of seconds. Also adding some form of 'extinguisher' module for vehicles to stop the effect could add some variety. DoT works through Hardners (if hit before hardner was activated) and also cancels out regen, or at least slows it down. I don't act like I know vehicles, I fly ADSs, but, I don't know anything, so mighty tankers, please treat me with pity if you tear this post apart, I just asked 2 questions. xSivartx is my Heavy. There are many like him, but he is my own... So, other Logi's back off, those are my Warpoints!
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1927	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:42:00 - [23] - Quote Shooting the Main gun reduces the hardeners effect by 1% on blasters, 15% on Rails, and 3% on missiles. Because you Wanted to be Something your Not.
The-Errorist 550	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:43:00 - [24] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Shooting the Main gun reduces the hardeners effect by 1% on blasters, 15% on Rails, and 3% on missiles. Bad idea and it isn't even relevant to what the OP is talking about or asking.
The-Errorist 550	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:46:00 - [25] - Quote ResistanceGTA wrote: Could we get Webs already?!? These are interesting ideas, though I think some simple DoT would be amazing for variants of weapons (and all Plasma Cannons). Why exactly can't they program in Damage over Time abilities? I know a Dev explained it, but, vehicles used to burn, couldn't that programming be modified to do less damage and over X number of seconds. Also adding some form of 'extinguisher' module for vehicles to stop the effect could add some variety. DoT works through Hardners (if hit before hardner was activated) and also cancels out regen, or at least slows it down. I don't act like I know vehicles, I fly ADSs, but, I don't know anything, so mighty tankers, please treat me with pity if you tear this post apart, I just asked 2 questions. It's not that easy as taking the burning effect that vehicles had; based on what they said it would require new code which they don't have to time and resources to make (sounds like BS). Also an extinguisher module already existed in the test server and I don't think DoT damage would or should be that deadly to warrant dedicating a module slot to deal with it.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 1476	Posted - 2014.03.07 04:48:00 - [26] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Or, now that active mods are king, EWAR equipment. Grenades that reduce "capacitor" (the time left on the module running). AoE Hives/Webifiers that slow vehicles/nullify nitrus boosts(could be activated when run over at high speed Just a few ideas. I like the way you think.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1238	Posted - 2014.03.07 05:05:00 - [27] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? They already do that... those explosion effects slow down my framerate considerably when I'm in first person view as they pretty much cover up my entire screen with blinding particle effects. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Billi Gene 496	Posted - 2014.03.07 05:28:00 - [28] - Quote 1. webber grenade's/deployable equipment(ala prox mines) AV and AP variants (one type cannot affect both vehicles and infantry[?]) 2. ewar: tracking disruptor handheld equipment, "energy neut" handheld equipment (drains remaining time on active mods.) only affects turrets (installation and vehicle mounted) 3. stackable DoT forge gun variants (low alpha damage, UI warning of DoT for driver), larger clip, faster RoF 1 and 2 together with any other form of AV will reduce blaster tank spam or idiocy. With scouts getting another equipment slot, these would open the door for double scout AV teams, or for a scout to be an advance AV unit, scramming HAV's till the heavy hitters rock up. 3 provides anti redline rail tank answers. >.< Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 809	Posted - 2014.03.07 05:38:00 - [29] - Quote Change AV nades to stop whatever modules are currently active? Something along those lines. Tanks should be nigh unkillable when hardeners are on. It'd be fair for AV nades to force those modules off and make the tank vulnerable as opposed to the crap damage they have now/ Best PVE idea I've seen.
The-Errorist 561	Posted - 2014.03.14 05:47:00 - [30] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Change AV nades to stop whatever modules are currently active? Something along those lines. Tanks should be nigh unkillable when hardeners are on. It'd be fair for AV nades to force those modules off and make the tank vulnerable as opposed to the crap damage they have now/ That, even though isn't doing damage to vehicles, is in my opinion, it's not the best alternative. What if there was an enemy caldari LAV around you that was passive tanking that has a gunner. A non damage dealing grenade that only stops the currently active module, would be useless. However, during tank fights, it would be an "I Win grenade". As proposed my others and I, having AV grenades do damage as well as slowing down vehicle, would be great.

I-Shayz-I I-----I 2493	Posted - 2014.03.14 08:19:00 - [31] - Quote Just make hardeners impossible to cycle. Hardeners make you invincible for way too long, and skilled tankers can literally just sit there taking hits all day because of their hardeners. Oh, and the armor reps need to be fixed too. An armor tank should not be able to heal themselves faster than a shield tank -_- Links: List of Most Important Threads I make logistics videos!
AmlSeb Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 45	Posted - 2014.03.14 15:52:00 - [32] - Quote I guess all that can wait for now. 1) 1.8 and full set of suits 2) balancing all the full suit and weapon sets 3) full sets of niche weapons including av 4) balancing of the niche weapon sets 5) e war 6) balancing of e war against dropsuits 7) full set of vehicles 8) balancing of vehicle sets and vehicle vs AV/ewar Between each step there should be like a month @AmlSeb on Twitter BPO exchange: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1852003
Charlotte O'Dell Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors 2142	Posted - 2014.03.14 16:17:00 - [33] - Quote I like where this is going I think having webifiers would be very good thing to have. Perhaps a plasma cannon change that slows vehicle top speed by 20% at sfd, then 30%, then 35% at proto with a stacking effect so a team can immobilize a vehicle for 5seconds. Also having a mine that stops a vehicle dead in its tracks for 1 second no matter what speed it moves at Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Hoover Damn H.A.R.V.E.S.T. Legacy Rising 68	Posted - 2014.03.14 19:56:00 - [34] - Quote AP Grasshopper wrote: No, reduce the speed of vehicles. What was CCP thinking when they increased speed 10 fold. Doubling vehicle speed would have been a significant change. They went way over board. The speed is fine. Actual tanks are faster, and they run on diesel! I don't think I've ever seen a game get that right before. It's irritating but there are better ways to deal with it than taking the lazy approach and making them perform like something that went obsolete in the 1940s. Now, what players need is ways to wear them down. Something that infantry can use to ambush a tank and lock it down so they can destroy it would be ideal. Could be a webber device or something as simple as damage over a certain threshold gumming up the treads. Or both, even.
Charlotte O'Dell Sooper Speshul Ponee Fors 2143	Posted - 2014.03.14 20:41:00 - [35] - Quote How about each subsequent hit to a tread reduces top speed by 20% for 10s. If 5 hits to a tread are achieved in 10 seconds, the tank is immobilized for 20 seconds. A damage minimum of 900 Alpha is required to affect mobility. This could really give the PLC a niche. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8236	Posted - 2014.03.14 21:09:00 - [36] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. I would prefer they not, and not simply because I am a tank pilot, but because I think AV could benefit from more equipment and roles. I would rather we see the development of equipment items to slow down HAV rather than layer debufs on AV, if necessary and such debuff are required because tanks are moving too fast, or hardeners are too long and powerful....then changes should be made to the modules. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
The-Errorist 563	Posted - 2014.03.14 21:11:00 - [37] - Quote No 1 has any feedback on this version or anyone else's version of Iron Wolf Saber's ideas? The-Errorist wrote: Anti-vehicle grenades - Slow down vehicles Flux grenades and Forgegun shots - Reduce Active duration of modules by 1 second and increase their cooldown by 1 second. Missiles from swarm launchers, remote explosives, and proxy mines - Reduce armor rep rate They should also get a buff to their explosive force, so they can disrupt steering and flight even more. Plasma Cannon shots - Reduce shield regeneration rate The projectiles also becomes sticky and does damage over time to the target that gets directly hit.
Temias Mercurial ANGEL FLEET 12	Posted - 2014.03.15 04:29:00 - [38] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. 15 av shots... that's really hard to believe, unless you had an extremely high rep. Even militia forge guns will put a dent into tanks, unless they have a high regen, which could receive adjustments. Perhaps a 2/3 (this is just an estimate, not saying it should be 2/3) reduction to shield regen/armour rep when hardeners are active, just so they don't sit there and IMMEDIATELY start recovering? I like the ideas of specific weapons effecting certain aspects of vehicles, but to simply balance tanks, to have a significantly reduced regen/rep would do wonders. If this same penatly was applied to dropships, it would cripple them. Maybe we could have two hardener types. Heavy Hardeners, strictly for tanks or very difficult to fit on anything else, and Light Hardeners for LAVs, dropships, future ground MAVs, and light ships. Heavy Hardeners could have the penalty for the same current reduction in damage, along with reduced overall regen/rep, while Light Hardeners could receive little to no penalty (like a 15 - 20% reduction, just for estimation). We already have Heavy and Light Extenders, 60mm and 120mm plates, so why not Heavy and Light hardeners?
GVGMODE WorstPlayersEver 142	Posted - 2014.03.15 04:34:00 - [39] - Quote Might as well remove vehicles from Dust, since everything will cripple you. Pilot: (Tanks / Assault Dropships) Skype: GVGMODE
Galvan Nized Deep Space Republic 807	Posted - 2014.03.15 09:13:00 - [40] - Quote Hoover Damn wrote: AP Grasshopper wrote: No, reduce the speed of vehicles. What was CCP thinking when they increased speed 10 fold. Doubling vehicle speed would have been a significant change. They went way over board. The speed is fine. Actual tanks are faster, and they run on diesel! I don't think I've ever seen a game get that right before. It's irritating but there are better ways to deal with it than taking the lazy approach and making them perform like something that went obsolete in the 1940s. Now, what players need is ways to wear them down. Something that infantry can use to ambush a tank and lock it down so they can destroy it would be ideal. Could be a webber device or something as simple as damage over a certain threshold gumming up the treads. Or both, even. Disagree. Tanks are far too fast and get up to speed far too quickly. Tanks today may be fast but I also think AV weapons today are light years ahead of anything in Dust. Let's leave the real life discussions out of the game. There also needs to be ways to tear tanks down. I think adding the effects to weapons now is the lazy way to do it but I'll take it. Instead let's add webifiers and EMPs to slow and cease active mods. Also quit allowing for stacked/cycled hardeners. Hardeners need some kind of drawback...Not just unlimited invincibility as they are now. In the very least stop reps while hardeners are active. Also, remove the 360 3rd person view from all vehicles (dropships could keep it). If a tank gets it for some reason, why does my dropsuit not? Limit it so you have blind spots.

bamboo x Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 228	Posted - 2014.03.15 10:02:00 - [41] - Quote Yeah. If tankers are going to cry about losing HP, infantry should be able to cripple their other abilities. hackable ladders ftw
Shadow Archeus OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 330	Posted - 2014.03.15 14:34:00 - [42] - Quote gbghg wrote: can we please not the repeat the "dropships and lavs are in a good place against AV, but tanks are a bit OP, lets buff AV. Oh look, now Dropships and lavs are dying too easily, ah well at least tanks are okay" rather than buff av, just do something about tanks specifically, dropships finally feel good again, hell all of the old dropship guys have come out of the woodwork and i have seen nothing but praise so far for the dropship changes. whatever you do, don't buff AV (well maybe buff swarms a tad), reduce tanks speed whatever instead. edit: as to the whole buff/debuff idea, EW sounds cool, but lets make sure we have some way to counter/reduce its effect as well. I would also bring lavs down a bit in HP.....a proto forge should ohk melt and std lavs... grenades need the old throw distance back and in nerf swarm range....tada fixed av......dropship are fine as is Real heavies use lasers
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1870	Posted - 2014.03.15 15:32:00 - [43] - Quote I'll leave this here 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
GVGMODE WorstPlayersEver 144	Posted - 2014.03.20 20:01:00 - [44] - Quote I honestly dislike the idea,but... If it is applied, it should be in line with all vehicles (lavs,ads,ds, tanks, rdv, etc...) reducing mobility/speed overall and in the case of dropships it should limit the height at which they can fly. Might as well add to infantry because a crippled soldier shouldn't be able to run like usain bolt after receiving damage. Then we should also be more specific on the place it is being shot, just like it could be applied to infantry. If shot in the... Leg(s) = The player vannot run Arm(s) = 1 arm will only increase recoil and 2 arms will not allow the player to shoot the weapon/use equipment/throw grenades Chest = Limit the player's regeneration systems Head = 1 shot makes the player dizzy and 2 shots kills it regardless of caliber Pilot: (Tanks / Assault Dropships) Skype: GVGMODE
Aqil Aegivan The Southern Legion League of Infamy 290	Posted - 2014.03.20 22:46:00 - [45] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. I strongly agree with this statement. I suspect that part of the problem CCP has experienced in satisfactorily balancing vehicles is that between the light, medium and heavy vehicles we see a lot of different behavior that still needs to be countered by the same few weapons. As I said last year: Aqil Aegivan wrote: On the AV side of things I understand the need to focus on changing values for testing, rather than time consuming code changes, but I still think that we won't see much improvement in game play without looking at the mechanics. Static damage application between light, medium, and heavy vehicles will always struggle for balance. AV homing radius should respond to vehicle profile, as should swarm lock time. Larger Swarm launchers should be heavier and should track more slowly. Anti-tank missiles should be guide by wire not fire and forget. Let LAVs and dropships speed and signature tank and give scout LAVs and assault dropships a role at the same time. I agree that focusing heavily on EHP/DPS is unnecessary given the range of effects that can be implemented to provide more balanced damage application for AV weapons. My problem is that I can't think of many debuffs that don't hurt other vehicles more than they hurt tanks. My preference would be to better separate the balancing of AV weapons against differing vehicle classes through more dynamic damage application prior to implementing debuffs.
crazy space 1 GunFall Mobilization 2206	Posted - 2014.03.21 00:49:00 - [46] - Quote Please remember I'm seriously running for CPM 1 I'm on the fence on which way to go. On one hand you can add debuffs to all AV weapons I fear they will be useless, 1 second? On the other hand introducing 2-3 brand new EW equipment would require art production and effects, lots of other busy work and would take more time away from other features like new Minmatar LAV and HAV. I would argue it's a waste of arts time. I would propose a middle ground. Using existing AV weapons lower the production and time needed to deliver. Web Swarm launcher 0 Damage 150 range too much? velocity lowered by 50% for 3/5/7 seconds, multiple shots reset the timer skill for 5% per level more duration Web Prox mine 0 Damage Velocity lowered by 50% for 5/7/9 seconds same skill bonus What else do we need? I'm serious I can't think of anything more important. Also Why do tanks move so fast uphill while LAVs slow down while going uphill? That's not fair... Anyways let me go on. Other effects like a low damage forge gun that saps cap would be awesome, but CCP needs to introduce cap mechanics into dust. Lets just focus on two forms of web warfare using weapons already in the game is genius. If you put small debuffs on normal weapons you create more balance issues than you even want to have to waste time on.
The-Errorist 570	Posted - 2014.03.23 00:44:00 - [47] - Quote crazy space 1 wrote: Please remember I'm seriously running for CPM 1 I'm on the fence on which way to go. On one hand you can add debuffs to all AV weapons I fear they will be useless, 1 second? On the other hand introducing 2-3 brand new EW equipment would require art production and effects, lots of other busy work and would take more time away from other features like new Minmatar LAV and HAV. I would argue it's a waste of arts time. I would propose a middle ground. Using existing AV weapons lower the production and time needed to deliver. Web Swarm launcher 0 Damage 150 range too much? velocity lowered by 50% for 3/5/7 seconds, multiple shots reset the timer skill for 5% per level more duration Web Prox mine 0 Damage Velocity lowered by 50% for 5/7/9 seconds same skill bonus What else do we need? I'm serious I can't think of anything more important. Also Why do tanks move so fast uphill while LAVs slow down while going uphill? That's not fair... Anyways let me go on. Other effects like a low damage forge gun that saps cap would be awesome, but CCP needs to introduce cap mechanics into dust. Lets just focus on two forms of web warfare using weapons already in the game is genius. If you put small de-buffs on normal weapons you create more balance issues than you even want to have to waste time on. You should put that you're for CPM 1 in your sig. The none of the de-buffs proposed here IMO sound useless. Also the debuff where it cuts down the current active module duration and increases cooldown time for 1 second, would be stackable; with each hit it would apply that effect. Adding de-buff to AV would make using teamwork to take down vehicles much easier as it would make the vehicle less functional with each consecutive hit as well as do damage. Also your solution isn't that great as it's just adding de-buffs to AV weapons, but having it as a variant, but not letting it do any damage. That, in my opinion would make the de-buff variants very underpowered as it can't be used to kill anything or at least damage it, which makes it just an equipment instead of a weapon. After thinking a little more about this, I changed my mind on having the base variant have de-buffs; the base should just be pure damage dealing weapon and their should be a de-buff variant that supports AV and isn't under or overpowered. If there were going to be variants that add debuffs, these stats seem better: Web Swarm launcher Damage: 50% less than base variant Range: Same as regular swarm launchers De-buff: Lower current speed, max velocity, and acceleration by 10% per missile for 5 seconds. Multiple shots reset the timer and the de-buff stacks. It should also uses the same skill as the regular swarm launcher since its a variant and not a completely different weapon. Web Proxy mine Damage: 50% less than base variant De-buff: Lower current speed, max speed, and acceleration by 50%
neolutumus The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 2	Posted - 2014.03.23 01:26:00 - [48] - Quote Galvan Nized wrote: Also, remove the 360 3rd person view from all vehicles (dropships could keep it). If a tank gets it for some reason, why does my dropsuit not? Limit it so you have blind spots. This. Or give me EWAR that messes up the pilot's view in HAV's for a few seconds (as I don't see any window for the pilot to see through, it must be a electronic control of sometype, with camera/video screen, and should be able to be disrupted for a small time via flux grenades). Tank speed would be ok if there was a player way to eliminate it. Webifiers, inertia damp grenades, or even anti-grav mines that completely stop the vehicle). CCP should quit hardfixing things and just put modules in the game that allow the player to deal with said problems (for the most part). completely agree with what is being said about swarms. lock range should be longer (or dependent on skill), and missiles should have MUCH higher velocity. there's no reason a dropship w/o AB could outrun rockets (maybe put in countermeasures as an active low mod to help dropship pilots defend against the more effective missiles?).
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 168	Posted - 2014.03.23 02:38:00 - [49] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. You haven't yet met the wrath of Dre Preach then ;) He tears up Nyain's tanks, I'm sure he could do the same to yours ;) Click Here to set up a Character that will get an AR, SMG, and a Caldari BPO
Gabriella Grey The Neutral Zone 108	Posted - 2014.03.23 17:04:00 - [50] - Quote gbghg wrote: can we please not the repeat the "dropships and lavs are in a good place against AV, but tanks are a bit OP, lets buff AV. Oh look, now Dropships and lavs are dying too easily, ah well at least tanks are okay" rather than buff av, just do something about tanks specifically, dropships finally feel good again, hell all of the old dropship guys have come out of the woodwork and i have seen nothing but praise so far for the dropship changes. whatever you do, don't buff AV (well maybe buff swarms a tad), reduce tanks speed whatever instead. edit: as to the whole buff/debuff idea, EW sounds cool, but lets make sure we have some way to counter/reduce its effect as well. I agree with gbghg! AV vs LAV's and Dropships are very balanced. I think the issue is HAV's and forge guns are in their own bracket when it comes to balance.HAV's have always had way too much Health points, and could use a tad decrease in speed. I think what really upsets the balance is that an HAV can tank damage while dishing out damage with no drawbacks.Rail HAV's have long range while still being able to tank a ton of damage.Highly specced dropship pilots may can kill tanks but I myself find that it is very much a hassle. I have chased HAV's all around maps and they can ignore anything I am doing because of hardeners, tons of armor, boosters, and repair modules. Most players in favor of the tank staying the way it is forgets there has not been the showing of enforcer or marauder HAV's back within the game. If these HAV's are going to be making a comeback, this is a serious broken vehicle mechanic. I do also hope at some point as stated by many in the community that they will come out with dropship equivalents of these vehicles as well. After all Dust is pushed as "The thinking persons FPS," with RPG aspects that really make people stay in this game. I can not count how many chats and squads I have been with where people talk about how they enjoy the Dust/Eve community online. *Always Grey Skies*

Oswald Rehnquist 1311	Posted - 2014.03.25 08:11:00 - [51] - Quote You need some AV which is straight damaging and debuffing AV. Modding what has been mentioned in the op. Light AV weapon should have unique features to it, heavy AV weapon should be the source of high alpha/dps. The underline portions are the effect I want added to them. Cyro Swarm Launcher (Debuffer)- Slows down Vehicle and Increases armor Damage done it it within a given time (due to freezing, which would also explain the slowing down) Sticky Plasma Cannon- Medium alpha plus decent DoT, I agree with what you had. Forge Gun- Pure damage AV Grenade- Pure damage (increase damage by a significant margin first though and keep the 2 grenade count, no debuffs) Flux and/or amarr grenade can disrupt active modules Below 28 dB
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3092	Posted - 2014.03.25 18:39:00 - [52] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST Intelligence is OP
The-Errorist 579	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:05:00 - [53] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST 1. You should say how would instead of how does. 2 You can apply the same weird logic to what you're proposing. How does EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors work if they're not in dust? How does a capacitors for all vehicles work in dust when there isn't one 3. The following is the answer to the 3 questions you asked: when CCP adds code for it to work like that; it can be done using math. Furthermore, one could just make up an explanation for how and why these weapons could specifically do such things to a vehicle. The forge-gun's massive kinetic force coupled with the radioactive metal launched at hypersonic speeds, cause hardener's to use up a bit more energy and the vehicles' processing power to give the same level of protection. The explosive ammo used for the swarm launcher is also packed with explosive-resitant nanines encased in a scify tar-like substance that invasively work to work to impepede a vehicle's mobility. For the nade disabling an active module, I don't support it for various reasons.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 13720	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:09:00 - [54] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST Dunno how does an rpg stop a tank from moving? how does a well placed cannon round disable the turret? CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Caldari Assault // Unlocked
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 735	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:14:00 - [55] - Quote just modify the hardeners... make em slow havs down when active. their already invulnerable to most forms of av with such a high defense. this way they CANT run away when hardeners are about to go off. instead they should need to deactivate them in order to run so they will have to run when they are at their weakest. i dont actually want to kill off stacked hardeners. so in terms to add to that lets have making one hardener activate all other hardeners of the same type. lets say i hav a tank with several armor hardeners. activating one activates the others. kills the cycling further adding to ccps windows of opportunity idea..
Gabriella Grey The Neutral Zone 108	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:14:00 - [56] - Quote We don't need any of these effects on the current state of the game. It is not yet fully balanced. Plus as stated by gbghg. LAV's and Dropships are at a comfortable level, HAV's and Forge guns are not. Equipment like this will only break the game further for enjoyment of players in vehicles in general. *Always Grey Skies*
Auris Lionesse Capital Acquisitions LLC Dirt Nap Squad. 561	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:20:00 - [57] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Or, now that active mods are king, EWAR equipment. Grenades that reduce "capacitor" (the time left on the module running). AoE Hives/Webifiers that slow vehicles/nullify nitrus boosts(could be activated when run over at high speed Just a few ideas. Or just add capacitors so Ccp doesn't halfass another eve mechanic into dust. Do it right or not at all. 5 module slots are bad enough. Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Heroes in a half Gank! *TURTLE POWER!!!*
The-Errorist 579	Posted - 2014.03.25 21:28:00 - [58] - Quote Auris Lionesse wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Or, now that active mods are king, EWAR equipment. Grenades that reduce "capacitor" (the time left on the module running). AoE Hives/Webifiers that slow vehicles/nullify nitrus boosts(could be activated when run over at high speed Just a few ideas. Or just add capacitors so Ccp doesn't halfass another eve mechanic into dust. Do it right or not at all. 5 module slots are bad enough. CCP already addressed why they won't add a cap system, will edit this post to have the source and a quote later.
Otavio Martins The Sound Of Freedom Dirt Nap Squad. 223	Posted - 2014.03.26 00:39:00 - [59] - Quote Give me my prototype tanks! ahh... ehh... Give me my prototype tanks!
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 13755	Posted - 2014.03.26 19:20:00 - [60] - Quote Otavio Martins wrote: Give me my prototype tanks! Complex hardener 3x, run 2 at a time, dont let them underlap while under attack, enjoy your newfound immunity. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Caldari Assault // Unlocked

CLONE117 True Pros Forever 737	Posted - 2014.03.26 22:00:00 - [61] - Quote cycled hardeners are a problem.. make em impossible to cycle and give em the side effect of slowing them down. so they have no hope of running with active hardeners. it should add to CCPs new "windows of opportunity" idea. plus the upside is that it wont create any major foreseeable problems.(note keep them stackable but just take away the ability to cycle.)or else wed have to mess with damage mods and turret types. which is just to much of a hassle to deal with.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3094	Posted - 2014.03.27 10:59:00 - [62] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST Dunno how does an rpg stop a tank from moving? how does a well placed cannon round disable the turret? You tell me its supposed to be your ideas Intelligence is OP
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3094	Posted - 2014.03.27 11:00:00 - [63] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Churning in my head a bit on how to make AV 'threatening' to vehicles considering that I just went a round where I parked a maddy and just ate everything shot at me by infantry. (approximately ate about 15 av shots and only got to half armor and didn't have hardener so there may be a number adjustment needed regardless) As we all know the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth and now the pendulum is back in tank's favor in terms of infantry av vs tanks the problem I honestly feel is that throwing the numbers back is going to constantly just keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. So what if we gave all the current AV weapons some form of 'debuff' that would hurt the targeted vehicles in ways they don't need to be hurt. For example a Plasma Cannon shot becomes sticky and does its damage to the attached vehicle (or unlucky infantry) that get directly struck by it? Forge guns slam so hard they disrupt hardeners biting into a second of effective up time remaining and increasing cooldown by a second for that cycle AV grenades could lock up vehicle modules from activating. (this would require limiting the grenade to 1 throw) Swarm Launchers slowing down vehicles? These are just examples but there are plenty of legs on the stool to kick out aside from HP. like regen, shield delay, sensors, turret cooldown rates, ammo reserves the list goes on. Come up with your own that you might think would make them a viable threat and useful alone or in groups. lolno How does a FG disrupt something thats inside a vehicle? How does a nade lock up a switch? How does a swarm slow down a vehicle? Just more bad ideas again from infantry If you want EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors then add in capacitors for all vehicles, copy and paste from EVE all the mods/skills and transfer into DUST 1. You should say how would instead of how does. 2 You can apply the same weird logic to what you're proposing. How does EWAR and webs and neuts and tracking disruptors work if they're not in dust? How does a capacitors for all vehicles work in dust when there isn't one 3. The following is the answer to the 3 questions you asked: when CCP adds code for it to work like that; it can be done using math. Furthermore, one could just make up an explanation for how and why these weapons could specifically do such things to a vehicle. The forge-gun's massive kinetic force coupled with the radioactive metal launched at hypersonic speeds, cause hardener's to use up a bit more energy and the vehicles' processing power to give the same level of protection. The explosive ammo used for the swarm launcher is also packed with explosive-resitant nanines encased in a scify tar-like substance that invasively work to work to impepede a vehicle's mobility. For the nade disabling an active module, I don't support it for various reasons. Its simple everything is already done in EVE The capacitor, the skills, the ewar, the mods - everything is done - all that needs altering is the numbers and if some of the mods would be like the rep tool or maybe a mine Intelligence is OP
The-Errorist 588	Posted - 2014.03.27 20:30:00 - [64] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Stuff You already made your case and are now just repeating yourself and are bringing nothing new for your arguments. You don't need to go bash other's ideas just because it hasn't already been done in EVE. Also just because something is done in EVE doesn't mean that it would take less time or effort to recreate in Dust as other things that aren't in EVE; Dust is running on a completely different platform and uses different tools. Lastly, when Iron Wolf Saber wrote, "Dunno how does an rpg stop a tank from moving? how does a well placed cannon round disable the turret?" Both those questions were rhetorical questions and you obviously missed the point he was making.
a brackers Vanguardian Remnant 11	Posted - 2014.04.11 15:08:00 - [65] - Quote I don't know what u guys think about this and the numbers need a bit of work but there should be certain areas on each vehicle which cause a"critical hit". I have shown the information I propose in the form where I say what vehicle, where you need to hit on each vehicle, how much damage you need to cause, short term effect, long term effect, number of times activatable. I see these as follows: sica/gunlogi: Location: small box on back between two treads Damage required: 700 short term: removes all shield long term: reduces max shield to 60% No. Of times: 1 soma/madruger: exposed tank treads at rear 600 stops movement for 10s (turret still moves and fires) Reduces max speed to 75 % (50% if done twice) 2 (once per track) gallente dropships: door like hole in back 500 reduces engine power for 10s (forces landing but will not explode on impact) Reduces acceleration by 50% 1 caldari dropships: bar under dropship running from rearmost seat to the front with radioactive symbol on it 500 Loss of all shields and thrusters stuck on 100% for 10 seconds 60% max shields and a 15% gain to acceleration 1 caldari lav: ammo boxes above rear wheel 150 Removes gunner from that seat for 5sec Removes 50% remaining ammo (100% if both sides) 2 (one on each side) Gallante lav: thrusters above each wheel 150 places and nitros etc on cooldown and reduce to 25% speed for 10s 75% top speed (50%) if both hit 2 (one on each side) I feel these will allow av to become a skill game, rather than point and shoot. It will gave a small window where the vehicle is extremally vulnerable and make that vehicle morr vulnerable for the rest of the match. It will also force players to be extremally careful about weak spots ( tanks at rear, dropships below and behind, lav's to the sides) this will also force vehicle drivers to obey what their class is; gallante=stand and fight, caldari = hit and run. I have therefor made each gallante weak spot reduce speed so they cant run, and each caldari reduce strength so they have to run to let shields regen or gun start working again etc. post your comments and suggestions. Btw I am a tank and ads pilot Proto dropship pilot


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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.