DUST Search - The basic HAV goal

All Channels

General Discussions

The basic HAV goal

» 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)
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1774	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:27:00 - [31] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Tupni wrote: No. De-nerf AV range, double or triple the ISK cost of tanks/tank accessories, make AV also AP (anti personnel, IE make swarms more than just a pathetic situational weapon or at least make them USEFUL and CAPABLE OF DESTROYING THE THINGS THEY'RE ALLEGEDLY MADE TO DESTROY, same with AV grenades why wouldn't they blow up on personnel? Even with a damage nerf just have them make more SENSE), no less than TRIPLE the WP reward for a tank destruction, at least double general vehicle destructions, don't make dropships immortal flying boxes, GIVE US THE DAMN INSTALLATION TURRETS CCP, block instantaneous stealth recall of vehicles because that's such bullshit that you can get a tank within an inch of its life just to have it magic itself away. Nerfing aiming mobility and speed might not be a bad idea for tanks either, the things are like jackrabbits right now, but I not too much. Piloting a tank SHOULD take SKILL, SCALE IN TERMS OF MONETARY COST and be a CHALLENGE to kill, but also killing it should be FAIRLY REWARDED and ENCOURAGED with FAIR EQUIPMENT. Why not have all of the homing/locking things be linked to Sig Profile? Things with small profiles like infantry should be able to easily break LOS in time to avoid the Swarm lock, slower things (or things with large profiles like Heavies/Vehicles) would have a rougher time of it though it would still be possible. Connect homing distances/lock times to Sig Profiles, with a high enough Sig Profile, AV grenades would home in on dropsuits (same with Prox Mines). I still don't understand why it wasn't set up like this for locks. I believe what they're talking about is lack of swarm dumbfire, and how AV grenades only explode on contact with vehicles. Everyone who was around for dumbfire swarms is probably still afraid of suicide-swarms Oh, I remember. I would immediately go into Passive Accrual status on Dust if it returned. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1774	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:28:00 - [32] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Crew Service is the true solution to all vehicle problems. Why can't CCP see that? You want tanks to have 3x the health and 2x the firepower?.... While I agree with you on Webs, I don't understand where/how you are inferring this from what I am saying. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7593	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:32:00 - [33] - Quote I wish small turrets were easier to fit as it stands now I need maxed skill to fit basic mods and turrets.... how can I have crewmen if my HAV is garbage "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2916	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:49:00 - [34] - Quote HAVs need a purpose is what they need. They need a role of their own, not to compete with infantry to slay infantry one at a time. As long as they compete directly with infantry they will need to be just as vulnerable. Give them a different role and they can be much more.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7596	Posted - 2014.02.26 03:50:00 - [35] - Quote Skihids wrote: HAVs need a purpose is what they need. They need a role of their own, not to compete with infantry to slay infantry one at a time. As long as they compete directly with infantry they will need to be just as vulnerable. Give them a different role and they can be much more. THATS ...WHAT...I LUFF YOU LONG TIME Yeah you are preaching to the choir. I've been suggesting that HAV become the top tier ground based anti vehicle units, and require gunner team work and infantry to be protected from infantry. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4158	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:59:00 - [36] - Quote Skihids wrote: HAVs need a purpose is what they need. They need a role of their own, not to compete with infantry to slay infantry one at a time. As long as they compete directly with infantry they will need to be just as vulnerable. Give them a different role and they can be much more. They actually do have a pretty clear goal right now. However, not only are they too effective at this, but infantry thinks that's their role. HAVs are area-denial for open areas. Infantry are supposed to go where you can't drive. I am your scan error.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1824	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:23:00 - [37] - Quote Keep the current prices and ammo mechanics Bring back the old HAV stats, the active Armor Repper. Balance the old Shield and Armor Tanks, and then you have the HAV game fixed. Looking for a Interesting Character Name? Why Not Zoidberg?
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 280	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:24:00 - [38] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. Honestly lonelies?! Boyo the game itself dont pushing people to coop at all. Look on MAG, that game basicaly gave more point if you was with your squad. BTW lonelies dont winning game, the squad is. And sorry tank should be squad based vehicle with Commander, Driver, Loader and Shooter. For your lonelies there will be other vehicles MTACs, Speeders and Jets. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1825	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:31:00 - [39] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. Honestly lonelies?! Boyo the game itself dont pushing people to coop at all. Look on MAG, that game basicaly gave more point if you was with your squad. BTW lonelies dont winning game, the squad is. And sorry tank should be squad based vehicle with Commander, Driver, Loader and Shooter. For your lonelies there will be other vehicles MTACs, Speeders and Jets. Sorry, I can't find those on the Market yet, can you point me to them? Looking for a Interesting Character Name? Why Not Zoidberg?
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 703	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:33:00 - [40] - Quote the solo tanker can die pretty fast with out support from the team. how ive managed to use my tank is to help punch a hole through a fortified position. as in a bunch of rail rifles camping at an entry way just slaughtering the blue berries. in some matches ive managed to suppress them and kill enough of them for the blue berries to finally push them back. but when they bring out av i normally get pushed back away and infantry end up temporarily losing their tank support from me. and if their getting their asses kicked without the support theyll start getting pushed back until they establish a foot hold in the area. so tanks are technically team based in this way. those that just drive around randomly looking for random reddots to gun down rnt using the tanks properly. because doing that would most likely result in getting killed by another tank.or a competent aver.

Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2568	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:35:00 - [41] - Quote Obodiah Garro wrote: Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Ok heres one lore based reasons Those are capsuleers piloting those ships and even then the capsule just cuts down on the people required to operate the ship rather than eliminating a crew altogether aside from the smaller ships Remember boys and girls, when you want to use lore to defend an ass backward position get the lore right and dont forget that dust mercs =/= capsuleers I'll start my own war, with hookers, and blackjack! In fact forget the war and the blackjack.
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 280	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:35:00 - [42] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Make them squad based vehicle - Driver, Shooter This is a terrible idea for a couple reasons. First: It completely alienates lone-wolf players. Second: Communication, not everyone has a mic. You can't tell me that one person can drive and one person can man the main turret effectively without verbal communication between them. So it also alienates those without a mic. Honestly lonelies?! Boyo the game itself dont pushing people to coop at all. Look on MAG, that game basicaly gave more point if you was with your squad. BTW lonelies dont winning game, the squad is. And sorry tank should be squad based vehicle with Commander, Driver, Loader and Shooter. For your lonelies there will be other vehicles MTACs, Speeders and Jets. Sorry, I can't find those on the Market yet, can you point me to them? Copy/Paste from my post: "For your lonelies there will be other vehicles MTACs, Speeders and Jets." Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7769	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:36:00 - [43] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Over the entirety of my time playing Dust, HAVs were ALWAYS broken. However, it wasn't always the same problem. HAVs have been broken in several different ways, which we need to remember and avoid. The first HAV issue I encountered on Dust was that HAVs were very expensive and difficult to skill into, but very difficult to destroy The issue with this was that tanking was for the elite vets only; AVers couldn't take them down, noobs couldn't skill into or afford a decent HAV, and only another vet could afford the means to take one down (another HAV) Later, they were easier to skill into, reasonably easy for AV to destroy them, but expensive. The problem with this is that nobody really used HAVs except pubstompers. The reason behind this being that any AV coordination (or proto AV) could set you back hundreds of thousands of ISK just by destroying one fit. On top of that, AVers didn't get much as far as WPs (Vehicles were rare), so it was a lose-lose situation. Currently, the problem is that HAVs are relatively cheap, but very difficult for anything but another HAV to destroy (well, if they have hardeners) It's incredibly easy for a tanker to make a profit (they've always been WP cows), and now they don't really have to worry about losing much. The goal we should all be aiming towards as far as balance is an HAV that is both easy to destroy AND won't burn a hole in your pocket if you lose one. If HAVs are cheap and easy to destroy: Noobs can get into them It's viable to be a full-time tanker because of cost It's viable to be a full-time AVer because there are plenty of targets The average infantry aren't completely screwed over, because AVers will do population control AVers will make for easy targets, encouraging snipers to aim for them. If snipers kill AVers, they're actually contributing to their team Would rather burn a hole in my pocket and have good tankers rolling around on the maps than what we have now. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1792	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:39:00 - [44] - 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 -_-
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1792	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:42:00 - [45] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Ok heres one lore based reason Those are capsuleers piloting those ships and even then the capsule just cuts down on the people required to operate the ship rather than eliminating a crew altogether aside from the smaller ships Remember boys and girls, when you want to use lore to defend an ass backward position get the lore right and dont forget that dust mercs =/= capsuleers Most frigates and destroyers have no/little crew (some cruisers even, and if you're a good enough Cap', even the larger ships can have no crew). Also, since how it is designed, they probably use something kin to a pod (that explains how we got camera drone vision that's looks like actual sight). Yes, you should get lore right, but not just bits and pieces. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4160	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:46:00 - [46] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Ok heres one lore based reason Those are capsuleers piloting those ships and even then the capsule just cuts down on the people required to operate the ship rather than eliminating a crew altogether aside from the smaller ships Remember boys and girls, when you want to use lore to defend an ass backward position get the lore right and dont forget that dust mercs =/= capsuleers Most frigates and destroyers have no/little crew (some cruisers even, and if you're a good enough Cap', even the larger ships can have no crew). Also, since how it is designed, they probably use something kin to a pod (that explains how we got camera drone vision that's looks like actual sight). Yes, you should get lore right, but not just bits and pieces. I doubt HAVs have pods. It doesn't even make sense why we just vanish into them without so much as an opening. Do we disappear into turret installations? No Can we hide inside CRUs? No I am your scan error.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1792	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:52:00 - [47] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Ok heres one lore based reason Those are capsuleers piloting those ships and even then the capsule just cuts down on the people required to operate the ship rather than eliminating a crew altogether aside from the smaller ships Remember boys and girls, when you want to use lore to defend an ass backward position get the lore right and dont forget that dust mercs =/= capsuleers Most frigates and destroyers have no/little crew (some cruisers even, and if you're a good enough Cap', even the larger ships can have no crew). Also, since how it is designed, they probably use something kin to a pod (that explains how we got camera drone vision that's looks like actual sight). Yes, you should get lore right, but not just bits and pieces. I doubt HAVs have pods. It doesn't even make sense why we just vanish into them without so much as an opening. Do we disappear into turret installations? No Can we hide inside CRUs? No Then explain how we vanish into LAV's and DS's (which probably has a pod for the pilot as well). It makes perfect sense. Especially if the pilot suit was required to pilot vehicles (probably will be that way once the pilot suits come based on its description, if they do come.) Anyways, if I remember correctly, you used to sit inside large turret installations, and CRU's you are supposed to walk out of them. So both times you're wrong lol. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4163	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:08:00 - [48] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Obodiah Garro wrote: Namely because in the Eve universe, a clone is able to handle the operation of a moon sized star ship which normally would take hundreds of thousands of people to man. Yea swing around the lore on how 1 clone cant handle a vehicle. Also LAVs were designed for multiple users, same with DS, who actually knows what the insides of a HAV look like? Ok heres one lore based reason Those are capsuleers piloting those ships and even then the capsule just cuts down on the people required to operate the ship rather than eliminating a crew altogether aside from the smaller ships Remember boys and girls, when you want to use lore to defend an ass backward position get the lore right and dont forget that dust mercs =/= capsuleers Most frigates and destroyers have no/little crew (some cruisers even, and if you're a good enough Cap', even the larger ships can have no crew). Also, since how it is designed, they probably use something kin to a pod (that explains how we got camera drone vision that's looks like actual sight). Yes, you should get lore right, but not just bits and pieces. I doubt HAVs have pods. It doesn't even make sense why we just vanish into them without so much as an opening. Do we disappear into turret installations? No Can we hide inside CRUs? No Then explain how we vanish into LAV's and DS's (which probably has a pod for the pilot as well). It makes perfect sense. Especially if the pilot suit was required to pilot vehicles (probably will be that way once the pilot suits come based on its description, if they do come.) Anyways, if I remember correctly, you used to sit inside large turret installations, and CRU's you are supposed to walk out of them. So both times you're wrong lol. LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing I am your scan error.
ReGnYuM Escrow Removal and Acquisition 2336	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:11:00 - [49] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I'd rather HAV, top tier ground units be difficult to skill into properly. I miss the thrill of a Sagaris kill as 2-3 players were desperatedly trying to gun it down........... I don't... Official Imperfect Title: Supreme Leader of the Endless Sunset I Slay, for thy Empress Do you even PC... Brah
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1792	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:23:00 - [50] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing Then explain the camera. If it was a regular cockpit, they would've designed it to look like one, which they didn't; same as the HAV's. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2959	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:39:00 - [51] - Quote It's simple. You can't balance tanks as long as their role is AI and still have them recognizable as tanks. They can be used solo as AI, so they have to be just as vulnerable as any other player in a one-on-one fight or they have a clear advantage making them the required fit to win. As long as they are operated solo in the role of AI they are just another suit and can't be any better than the others. That's nearly where they were last build and tankers didn't like it. CCP can't do it and make everyone happy. Either they give tanks a role more inline with what real tanks do where they don't compete with the infantry soldier or require a crew of three to operate it in exchange for having the health and firepower of three infantry.
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4163	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:46:00 - [52] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing Then explain the camera. If it was a regular cockpit, they would've designed it to look like one, which they didn't; same as the HAV's. 3rd person vehicle views are standard. Dust just happens to have magical floating cameras and cameras on guns I am your scan error.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1792	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:50:00 - [53] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing Then explain the camera. If it was a regular cockpit, they would've designed it to look like one, which they didn't; same as the HAV's. 3rd person vehicle views are standard. Dust just happens to have magical floating cameras and cameras on guns magic is your answer? LOL. Go read up on tech lore bro. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4163	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:55:00 - [54] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing Then explain the camera. If it was a regular cockpit, they would've designed it to look like one, which they didn't; same as the HAV's. 3rd person vehicle views are standard. Dust just happens to have magical floating cameras and cameras on guns magic is your answer? LOL. Go read up on tech lore bro. Lore is just every game studio's explanation for a mechanic, and holds no weight because it can be changed with a short official paragraph. I am your scan error.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2961	Posted - 2014.03.01 02:02:00 - [55] - Quote Third person view is there in EVE because its the only way to enjoy the pretty spaceship you bought and there is no real need for the immersion of first person. Navigation is all point and click. Magic drone cameras are a convenient explanation that isn't questioned because it doesn't really matter. DUST is a FPS. That FP stands for "First Person". We fly our ships directly with a controller and it really matters if we can look out of our ships or if we have to look through them from behind or overhead. The magic camera drone is a real immersion breaking hindrance to accurate flight.
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1379	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:06:00 - [56] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Over the entirety of my time playing Dust, HAVs were ALWAYS broken. However, it wasn't always the same problem. HAVs have been broken in several different ways, which we need to remember and avoid. The first HAV issue I encountered on Dust was that HAVs were very expensive and difficult to skill into, but very difficult to destroy The issue with this was that tanking was for the elite vets only; AVers couldn't take them down, noobs couldn't skill into or afford a decent HAV, and only another vet could afford the means to take one down (another HAV) Later, they were easier to skill into, reasonably easy for AV to destroy them, but expensive. The problem with this is that nobody really used HAVs except pubstompers. The reason behind this being that any AV coordination (or proto AV) could set you back hundreds of thousands of ISK just by destroying one fit. On top of that, AVers didn't get much as far as WPs (Vehicles were rare), so it was a lose-lose situation. Currently, the problem is that HAVs are relatively cheap, but very difficult for anything but another HAV to destroy (well, if they have hardeners) It's incredibly easy for a tanker to make a profit (they've always been WP cows), and now they don't really have to worry about losing much. The goal we should all be aiming towards as far as balance is an HAV that is both easy to destroy AND won't burn a hole in your pocket if you lose one. If HAVs are cheap and easy to destroy: Noobs can get into them It's viable to be a full-time tanker because of cost It's viable to be a full-time AVer because there are plenty of targets The average infantry aren't completely screwed over, because AVers will do population control AVers will make for easy targets, encouraging snipers to aim for them. If snipers kill AVers, they're actually contributing to their team Nope. There would be even less a reason to skill into them than there is now. Seeing as how the idea with this game is to skill into things it defeats the purpose. There is a difference in a skilled and non skilled tanker as far as why they are using a tank. There is no difference in terms of effectiveness. A skilled up tanker should rule the field and be hard to kill from just one guy who happens to be running a proto AV fit. A mil tank fit should be weak even when hardened or dmg modded. The answer to balance lies with the turrets. Particularly the large blaster. I think simply adding a RoF skill to turrets would keep the blaster infantry killing down. Make the blaster have a crap RoF against infantry at lvl 0 skill. Make that RoF skill a third or fourth tier skill. Apart from the meganerf that the rail turret needs for CQ effectiveness that should do it. A tank just rolling around on the field shooting at vehicles is hardly a problem. AV players complaining about wanting to koll a tank just to do it have lost all credibility. The only real threat to infantry game play is that large blaster being an infantry killing weapon at zero skill. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4166	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:18:00 - [57] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Over the entirety of my time playing Dust, HAVs were ALWAYS broken. However, it wasn't always the same problem. HAVs have been broken in several different ways, which we need to remember and avoid. The first HAV issue I encountered on Dust was that HAVs were very expensive and difficult to skill into, but very difficult to destroy The issue with this was that tanking was for the elite vets only; AVers couldn't take them down, noobs couldn't skill into or afford a decent HAV, and only another vet could afford the means to take one down (another HAV) Later, they were easier to skill into, reasonably easy for AV to destroy them, but expensive. The problem with this is that nobody really used HAVs except pubstompers. The reason behind this being that any AV coordination (or proto AV) could set you back hundreds of thousands of ISK just by destroying one fit. On top of that, AVers didn't get much as far as WPs (Vehicles were rare), so it was a lose-lose situation. Currently, the problem is that HAVs are relatively cheap, but very difficult for anything but another HAV to destroy (well, if they have hardeners) It's incredibly easy for a tanker to make a profit (they've always been WP cows), and now they don't really have to worry about losing much. The goal we should all be aiming towards as far as balance is an HAV that is both easy to destroy AND won't burn a hole in your pocket if you lose one. If HAVs are cheap and easy to destroy: Noobs can get into them It's viable to be a full-time tanker because of cost It's viable to be a full-time AVer because there are plenty of targets The average infantry aren't completely screwed over, because AVers will do population control AVers will make for easy targets, encouraging snipers to aim for them. If snipers kill AVers, they're actually contributing to their team Nope. There would be even less a reason to skill into them than there is now. Seeing as how the idea with this game is to skill into things it defeats the purpose. Right now, there is a difference in a skilled and non skilled tanker as far as why they are using a tank. There is no difference in terms of effectiveness. A skilled up tanker should rule the field and be hard to kill from just one guy who happens to be running a proto AV fit. A mil tank fit should be weak even when hardened or dmg modded. The answer to balance lies with the turrets. Particularly the large blaster. I think simply adding a RoF skill to turrets would keep the blaster infantry killing down. Make the blaster have a crap RoF against infantry at lvl 0 skill. Make that RoF skill a third or fourth tier skill. Apart from the meganerf that the rail turret needs for CQ effectiveness that should do it. A tank just rolling around on the field shooting at vehicles is hardly a problem. AV players complaining about wanting to kill a tank just to do it have lost all credibility. The only real threat to infantry game play is that large blaster being an infantry killing weapon at zero skill. Remember, the big picture is to have other vehicle types as well as other heavy weapons, pilot suits (which I'm sure will cost a lot)' proto tanks (which would be specifically powerful, not generally more powerful) and hopefully bigger maps. Turret tiers are definitely not the key; expanding vehicle tiericide is. To differentiate between an SP investment and someone without one, simply give more weight to skillbooks. I am your scan error.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1794	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:28:00 - [58] - Quote Skihids wrote: Third person view is there in EVE because its the only way to enjoy the pretty spaceship you bought and there is no real need for the immersion of first person. Navigation is all point and click. Magic drone cameras are a convenient explanation that isn't questioned because it doesn't really matter. DUST is a FPS. That FP stands for "First Person". We fly our ships directly with a controller and it really matters if we can look out of our ships or if we have to look through them from behind or overhead. The magic camera drone is a real immersion breaking hindrance to accurate flight. Are you saying that the camera drones (which are not magic, they're a real thing, even today, just these are far more advanced) should be removed, only allowing for the turret camera? lolno. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1794	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:31:00 - [59] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: LAVs have an obvious seat (too lazy to make an entrance animation) and last time I checked, dropships had a door going into the cockpits. they're just closed. HAVs have nothing Then explain the camera. If it was a regular cockpit, they would've designed it to look like one, which they didn't; same as the HAV's. 3rd person vehicle views are standard. Dust just happens to have magical floating cameras and cameras on guns magic is your answer? LOL. Go read up on tech lore bro. Lore is just every game studio's explanation for a mechanic, and holds no weight because it can be changed with a short official paragraph. Then you would have to change a lot of ** to explain it, as it would make no sense. it's like a house a card, but a leg missing, and you say ** it, it doesn't matter. That's immersion breaking. Anyways, the pods makes sense, and making me have half a squad just to use something that I alone skilled for, bought, and fielded is silly. Infantry better be happy that I put turrets on (if CCP is willing to actually fix the fittings on Gallente HAV's so I can actually fit the smalls on the HAV ). 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4166	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:45:00 - [60] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: it's like a house a card, but a leg missing, and you say **** it, it doesn't matter. Wtf did you just try to say? I am your scan error.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.