DUST Search - My Thoughts On Fixing The V/AV Problem

All Channels

General Discussions

My Thoughts On Fixing The V/AV Problem

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7137	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:54:00 - [1] - Quote Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7137	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:04:00 - [2] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7138	Posted - 2014.02.17 00:13:00 - [3] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree on some points but their solutions do not benefit both side mutually, only AVers. Really? I thought an alarm system, flares, and countermeasures benifited pilots as well. Anything I should add in? Perhaps, I missed the countermeasures. Still I feel that's not consider future medium vehicles and their own lesser shield and armour values. I would hope that MAV's would have a higher acceleration and top speed as well as better handling to compensate. I am not suggesting that they be faster/as fast as LAVs, but I do think that they should be closer in those regards to LAVs than HAVs. Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models. This is what most QQing AVers don't consider. As it see it LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Meduim Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7145	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:38:00 - [4] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: IDK, I think you are underestimating the effects chaff will/could have. I picture it as being similar to hardeners except that while "active" it will fire off chaff once incoming missiles have reached a distance threshold. So if I am running along in my MAV and I have my Chaff mod active, when Swarms got within 20m or so, it would fire off a number of flares based on the tier of the mod (thinking Swarm equivalency here). Each flare would attract a single missile and pull it off course from the MAV to the flare itself. There could also be some version of CIWS for vehicles too I would imagine. I don't know why...and its not your post...maybe how I am interpreting that post...but it made no sense to me..... could you elaborate further...sorry to ask.....I have the 3pm fuzzies. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7150	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:14:00 - [5] - Quote Venerable Phage wrote: I like the suggestions. It would be nice to improve swarms vs LAVs while not dominating HAVs. It would also be nice to have specialist flux missiles, anti module missiles and and armour missiles so that a squad of AVers could created their own waves of oppoutunity. At this point its not even about dominating HAV....its about dominating MAV and MTAC in the future of the game. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7153	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:31:00 - [6] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: NK Scout wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: All of that seems reasonable to me. I do however, still think that the Driver and Main Gunner should be separate seats in the HAV. Minimum two needed to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. The option for the two secondaries should remain. This would mean that you could run the HAV solo if you liked though you wouldn't be moving and shooting at the same time, if you brought a single friend, you can move and shoot and if you brought more than one friend, you'd have a better chance of killing any infantry resistance. NO I love how it is always a simple "NO". Never an explanation of why outside of childish demands to have their own solo pwnmobile. You might as well have just typed "NUH-UH STAMPS FEET WHILE WALKING OFF". I think it is hilarious too since it would amount to a larger buff to vehicles than the one CCP gave in 1.7. No way in hell im lettingnrandoms shoot or drive Im not going to squad up every time in dust, I like playing solo and it makes my framerate better. Indeed its a valid concern. No other game with vehicles requires the main cannon to be manned by a secondary play as it taks half the fun out of the shooter element of the game..... However even you must believe it is ridiculous to put such potent anti infantry weapons as the Large Blaster while we have 6000+ HP platforms to work off of, that not only move faster than infantry but also have massive damage resistances to our primary weaknesses. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7157	Posted - 2014.02.17 03:51:00 - [7] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Nerf blasters, simple We can now begin the "cleansing" if you know what I mean. Hmmmm why not change the blaster to a heavy plasma cannon? "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7185	Posted - 2014.02.17 20:21:00 - [8] - Quote Smooth Assassin wrote: Patrick57 wrote: No. Whats you're debate? What's your debate? You are immediately disqualified from debating for poor grammar. Seriously get out of here. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7368	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:06:00 - [9] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models. This is what most QQing AVers don't consider. As it see it LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Medium Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP I'm pretty sure that MAVs and other LAV variants would be balanced around the buffed AV model, akin to how If CCP ever introduced ADV/PRO vehicles, AV would be buffed around the new model. Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them. What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced. That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large turret damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts.... Oh and down with the Large Blaster! "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7368	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:12:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them. What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced. That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large blaster damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts.... Oh and down with the Large Blaster! I've yet to see an AV counterpart of the Blaster Turret, but the only way an 80GJ Blaster buff would be balanced is if you were to increase dispersion and decrease the RPM Also, AV weapons are high alpha, while 20/80GJ Blasters are machine guns. Why wouldn't it make sense? I would simply scrap the Large Blaster in Favour of a Large Plasma projector, the racial variant of the Railgun, high alpha, longer range, slower turret tracking, low ammo counts, less infantry massacres, less QQ. It could still retain its graphical model but instread modify its firing animations to mimic plasma cannon. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7369	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:24:00 - [11] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them. What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced. That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large blaster damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts.... Oh and down with the Large Blaster! I've yet to see an AV counterpart of the Blaster Turret, but the only way an 80GJ Blaster buff would be balanced is if you were to increase dispersion and decrease the RPM Also, AV weapons are high alpha, while 20/80GJ Blasters are machine guns. Why wouldn't it make sense? I would simply scrap the Large Blaster in Favour of a Large Plasma projector, the racial variant of the Railgun, high alpha, longer range, slower turret tracking, low ammo counts, less infantry massacres, less QQ. It could still retain its graphical model but instread modify its firing animations to mimic plasma cannon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Stop being silly. Yeah the Large Blaster is garbage and tanks should not have both Massive Anti Infantry potential and the huge EHP values we have now at the single gunners disposal, but we could instead have strong anti vehicle and skill shot infantry capacity. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7370	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:37:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 'stops music, puts down controller' You realize that a railgun but shorter range is useless, right? THer's a reason why it fires so fast; it has a really short range. No, it should have higher damage, less ROF, and be harder to track with. Breaking it isn't the solution ever, even if it'll make annoying ass scrubs happy. 'starts music, picks up controller' You failed to address the issue. A shorter range RG variant could be made out of the Large Plasma Projector. Why do you feel the need to have such potent AI power on a vehicle designed to assault other vehicles? "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7373	Posted - 2014.02.20 22:52:00 - [13] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 'stops music, puts down controller' You realize that a railgun but shorter range is useless, right? THer's a reason why it fires so fast; it has a really short range. No, it should have higher damage, less ROF, and be harder to track with. Breaking it isn't the solution ever, even if it'll make annoying ass scrubs happy. 'starts music, picks up controller' You failed to address the issue. A shorter range RG variant could be made out of the Large Plasma Projector. Why do you feel the need to have such potent AI power on a vehicle designed to assault other vehicles? Because a short range railgun is that: a short ranged railgun. You might as well use a actual railgun, and you'll get longer range out of it, longer fire rate, etc. blasters would become useless. also, PLC shots have travel time. That thing would be utterly useless in AV combat, as the most similar would be overall better, and it itself would be terrible it killing anything that's not moving/moving like a slow turd. Like I said, there's a reason why blasters shoot fast like they do now. it needs more alpha, less ROF, less tracking. .... It' seems you're trying to find a way to nerf blasters into uselessness so nobody will use them, and only use rails and missiles, effectively becoming AV only vehicles (although you can still snipe with rails fairly well). If that's the case, you might as well take out HAV's and make Av into that. But if that's the case, I want my $60 bucks back. HPP would then have equivalent matching DPS at short range, but each projectile would be the equivalent of 10 or so blaster rounds. HOw hard is that to comprehend. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7373	Posted - 2014.02.20 23:12:00 - [14] - Quote Villanor Aquarius wrote: The large blaster range is the only issue with it. The range model it currently has it what autocannon turrets should do but the autocannon turrets should have less dps. Then the current blaster can get slightly more damage and significantly faster damage falloff. It is a blaster afterall. AutoCannons meanwhile can have less dps than blasters but the range of current blasters. Also Autos should have same DPS but higher ROF so lower Damage per shot. Artillery turrets should have higher damage per shot than rails with a shorter optimal but a super long falloff region, their DPS should be slightly below railguns and their traverse should be a bit worse. Agreed, I would like to see a simple rebalancing of turrets to accommodate future content releases like MAV, MTAC, Racial turrets and vehicles, and more importantly, giving the HAV a role on the battlefield, that makes it more of a niche vehicle than a jack of all trades, master of all. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

Copyright © 2013-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20241121/1821
EVE-Online™/DUST514™ and EVE/DUST514 imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.