DUST Search - Vehicle feedback from a professional tank/dropship pilot

bogeyman m wrote:

Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:

CELESTA AUNGM wrote:

....Well,... er I'm not exactly sure what a "PROFESSIONAL Dropship Pilot" actually IS (

if there was such a thing in real life as a Dropship Pilot, then you'd have some sort of reference to go by). But OK, Agent Overkill... I won't try to pull your leg about that.

Kallas and Agent Overkill, you both have put together a great debate about how to further balance the vehicle module and AV stats in the game, but I'd like to propose this thought to you both:

Agent Overkill, you have used an ADS dropship, and described how easy it is for your fit-out to help you linger in the combat zone much longer than what is intended in CCP's "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that CCP's construct for the AV and the vehicle modules should be further tuned to achieve CCP's goal.
I say NO, it doesn't mean that CCP's construct should be improved--and what you did with your DS was NOT easy. You studied the stats using personal initiative to discover an individual fit-out, while many other pilots beg for CCP charity. Your bird is now a unique adaptation, with and strengths on the map that not everyone else in the DS community is going to be able to "clone". ROCK-On!

Kallas, you have used a home-recipe of Hardeners, and orchestrated-timing when activating them, to get around the "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that the Hardeners and similar modules should be "weakened" with longer cooldowns in order to better achieve the CCP-intended way modules should be used.
I say NO, it doesn't mean that their intended "Waves" idea should be improved--and you DIDN'T undermine their concept. You used an individually sharp awareness of the module's math, and found you can use it in conjunction with TEMPORAL math, to make a unique strength by "sequencing" the module-use. A substantial chunk of pilots will never be able to keep a picture of that timing in their minds, so their DS will never benefit from that hardener-sequence technique with the same prowess as your DS does. THAT is Cold Beer Time!

Notice in both cases, I don't want to further improve the module construct CCP is creating. I am completely OPPOSED to the "Waves of Opportunity" layout--I don't agree with it at all. (NOOO, CCP, I don't pack this module aboard planning to use it THAT way!). But I'm willing to play ball in their construct, so long as I can still see SOME small room to scheme MY OWN adapted innovation of the modules (even if it's counter to "The CCP Way" to use the modules),...

The reward becomes an individual's vehicle with a UNIQUE value in the game:
(...The corp spokesman says, "I don't know what the hell CELESTA did to get 4913 Armour HP on her DS, but it's the reason we definitely need her on our team--hers is the only ship that can get us all the way to the hack point through all that AV!"...
...And CELESTA says, "That's right, BABY--now let's talk dollars"... Bear

)

I'm worried that, if CCP's "Waves" arrangement gets more perfect and bulletproof, any room for the individual achievement I just described and both of you displayed, will be squashed.

Though I admire the ability to think outside the box to "surpass" expectations, you're sounding as if you are one of those that believe that Infantry AV should not be a threat to vehicles unless they get really lucky. Either that or you're on the side that says Infantry AV need to be un-nerfed. With the current team size, one cannot rely on numbers.

Infantry AV is no longer the paper to the vehicular rock, and really hasn't been for a while. But now, even more so, Infantry AV has become the smudge of wood pulp that makes no difference on the surface of the looming vehicular boulder.

What I wouldn't give for my forge to have a five hundred meter range again. LOL

As an aspiring AVer, I fully agree that one should not (necessarily) be able to solo mid-to-well equipped tanks and derpships. However, we should ALWAYS be a real threat/distraction to be considered (non-proto fits included) - currently, we are not.

There are already enough handicaps inherent in the (non-proto) AV role: only a side arm for self defence, can only see out of the left like of our face, a looong time to earn a kill, no damage considerations for WP/SP, slow travelling missiles, not-so-smart missile guidance, slooow lock times, (now) nerfed damage, (now) seriously nerfed lock distance, (now) nerfed AV grenades and proxy mines, (always?) proxy mine alerts to pilots (nerf or alert, pick one)... How about a little balance CCP?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 1	Posted - 2013.12.18 13:57:00 - [1] - Quote I've been a tanker since chromosome and i never thought i would see the day that i would say HAV's are overpowered and AV vice versa, but when myself and driver archedword who are both well known and well feared as tankers and anti-vehicle experts cant take down a soma with proto gear there is a serious problem. (DRIVER= wyrkomi breach forge gun+2 complex heavy damage mods+wyrkomi packed av grenades, ME='HAYWIRE' wyrkomi swarm launcher+2 light complex damage mods+wyrkomi packed av grenades)(proficeincy 3 respective) we both hit simultaneously and were hardly able to get through the shields. A militia vehicle should not be able to survive multiple proto av and a standerd should barely be able to escape occasionally with a decent fit. HAV's move far to fast and regen faster then av can deal damage in the first place now. vehicles need to be put back to where they were pre uprising and av needs to be placed only slightly weeker than Pre uprising. FG=1.6 stats-100dps, av grenades=1.6 stats-100dps, swarm launchers=1.6 stats-range to 150m WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 2	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:50:00 - [2] - Quote I think there should be a cap of how many HAV's can be on the field per team (ex:3 ea) and the prices need to be raised, not excessively, a militia tank should be affordable but not affordable enough that if you happen to lose two-three in a match, you can still go isk positive. That would cause people to use tanks more often, to an extent, however it would no longer be the equivalent of a full enemy team of proto q-sync, and return the battle to the fact that a better skill level and fit is more important than how many sicas/somas you can spam into the match before the enemy team WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 2	Posted - 2013.12.19 13:55:00 - [3] - Quote ReVe-ZePHoS wrote: I've been a tanker since chromosome and i never thought i would see the day that i would say HAV's are overpowered and AV vice versa, but when myself and driver archedword who are both well known and well feared as tankers and anti-vehicle experts cant take down a soma with proto gear there is a serious problem. (DRIVER= wyrkomi breach forge gun+2 complex heavy damage mods+wyrkomi packed av grenades, ME='HAYWIRE' wyrkomi swarm launcher+2 light complex damage mods+wyrkomi packed av grenades)(proficeincy 3 respective) we both hit simultaneously and were hardly able to get through the shields. A militia vehicle should not be able to survive multiple proto av and a standerd should barely be able to escape occasionally with a decent fit. HAV's move far to fast and regen faster then av can deal damage in the first place now. vehicles need to be put back to where they were pre uprising and av needs to be placed only slightly weeker than Pre uprising. FG=1.6 stats-100dps, av grenades=1.6 stats-100dps, swarm launchers=1.6 stats-range to 150m did almost no one read my post, you all just said exactly what i did only a lot more drawn out, av needs to be more of a threat and not just a nuisance to noobs who decide they want to be invincable in militia tanks, av needs to be rebuffed hard, HAV speed needs to be nerfed hard and be more expensive i have 30 mil sp in vehicles and im calling bs WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 2	Posted - 2013.12.19 18:03:00 - [4] - Quote i agree entirely celesta WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 3	Posted - 2014.01.14 00:11:00 - [5] - Quote Agent Overkill wrote: Vehicle hardeners cooldown to fast and I think that if they were lower, it would be a step in the right direction for making vehicles more balanced. Thats why they put in the skill to reduce cooldown time for vehicle modules by up to 25%. However, that cooldown period is so av will actually have a period that the vehicle is "remotely" vulnerable. (only effective av= ASSAULT FG) WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING
ReVe-ZePHoS Paladen Night's 5	Posted - 2014.01.23 23:42:00 - [6] - Quote bogeyman m wrote: Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: CELESTA AUNGM wrote: ....Well,... er I'm not exactly sure what a "PROFESSIONAL Dropship Pilot" actually IS (if there was such a thing in real life as a Dropship Pilot, then you'd have some sort of reference to go by). But OK, Agent Overkill... I won't try to pull your leg about that. Kallas and Agent Overkill, you both have put together a great debate about how to further balance the vehicle module and AV stats in the game, but I'd like to propose this thought to you both: Agent Overkill, you have used an ADS dropship, and described how easy it is for your fit-out to help you linger in the combat zone much longer than what is intended in CCP's "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that CCP's construct for the AV and the vehicle modules should be further tuned to achieve CCP's goal. I say NO, it doesn't mean that CCP's construct should be improved--and what you did with your DS was NOT easy. You studied the stats using personal initiative to discover an individual fit-out, while many other pilots beg for CCP charity. Your bird is now a unique adaptation, with and strengths on the map that not everyone else in the DS community is going to be able to "clone". ROCK-On! Kallas, you have used a home-recipe of Hardeners, and orchestrated-timing when activating them, to get around the "Waves of Opportunity" concept; hence you believe that the Hardeners and similar modules should be "weakened" with longer cooldowns in order to better achieve the CCP-intended way modules should be used. I say NO, it doesn't mean that their intended "Waves" idea should be improved--and you DIDN'T undermine their concept. You used an individually sharp awareness of the module's math, and found you can use it in conjunction with TEMPORAL math, to make a unique strength by "sequencing" the module-use. A substantial chunk of pilots will never be able to keep a picture of that timing in their minds, so their DS will never benefit from that hardener-sequence technique with the same prowess as your DS does. THAT is Cold Beer Time! Notice in both cases, I don't want to further improve the module construct CCP is creating. I am completely OPPOSED to the "Waves of Opportunity" layout--I don't agree with it at all. (NOOO, CCP, I don't pack this module aboard planning to use it THAT way!). But I'm willing to play ball in their construct, so long as I can still see SOME small room to scheme MY OWN adapted innovation of the modules (even if it's counter to "The CCP Way" to use the modules),... The reward becomes an individual's vehicle with a UNIQUE value in the game: (...The corp spokesman says, "I don't know what the hell CELESTA did to get 4913 Armour HP on her DS, but it's the reason we definitely need her on our team--hers is the only ship that can get us all the way to the hack point through all that AV!"... ...And CELESTA says, "That's right, BABY--now let's talk dollars"... ) I'm worried that, if CCP's "Waves" arrangement gets more perfect and bulletproof, any room for the individual achievement I just described and both of you displayed, will be squashed. Though I admire the ability to think outside the box to "surpass" expectations, you're sounding as if you are one of those that believe that Infantry AV should not be a threat to vehicles unless they get really lucky. Either that or you're on the side that says Infantry AV need to be un-nerfed. With the current team size, one cannot rely on numbers. Infantry AV is no longer the paper to the vehicular rock, and really hasn't been for a while. But now, even more so, Infantry AV has become the smudge of wood pulp that makes no difference on the surface of the looming vehicular boulder. What I wouldn't give for my forge to have a five hundred meter range again. LOL As an aspiring AVer, I fully agree that one should not (necessarily) be able to solo mid-to-well equipped tanks and derpships. However, we should ALWAYS be a real threat/distraction to be considered (non-proto fits included) - currently, we are not. There are already enough handicaps inherent in the (non-proto) AV role: only a side arm for self defence, can only see out of the left like of our face, a looong time to earn a kill, no damage considerations for WP/SP, slow travelling missiles, not-so-smart missile guidance, slooow lock times, (now) nerfed damage, (now) seriously nerfed lock distance, (now) nerfed AV grenades and proxy mines, (always?) proxy mine alerts to pilots (nerf or alert, pick one)... How about a little balance CCP? honestly the only way a militia av should be able to destroy an enemy vehicle is with a huge tactical advantage such as high ground and clear line of sight, however, advanced av should be a threat to standard and militia vehicles, while proto av should utterly melt them. the same goes for infantry. THAT is why we put so much TIME and ENERGY into skilling up and building our fittings the way we do, not for someone with militia gear running solo to melt us before we even have a chance to turn around (scouts included). Two or three militia, maybe if organized. Heavies 4-5 militia based on lvl WHEN DUST HITS THE FAN I KEEP PUSHING