DUST Search - Vehicles: Who represents the pilots?

Cross Atu wrote:

One Eyed King wrote:

What about, as a general question, what they view the role of scouts as a whole on the battlefield?

I think where people want adjustments made definitely reflects what they think the role should be. Such as those that think scouts should be recon only.

Two part response to this, first is a more direct answer second part is (in my view) the more important one.

1st - My current impression is that the light suit excel at roles within eWar and/or mobility.
That can be scans/intel, that can be covert assassinations and disruption, objective harassment, infiltration (such as getting behind hostile lines to deploy links et al), flanking/skirmishing either to pick of stragglers or in support of a friendly push, etc.
Ideally I don't think that any role, regardless of frame type, should be only one thing on the battlefield, and in that sense I wouldn't say scouts should be only recon. To me such assessments are a bit of an oversimplification.

2nd - While I fully understand asking each candidate what their view on roles is I think there's some context that's important, that being who they (we) think defines the nature of a role. In my view I am not qualified as a single player to define the entirity of any role. Not the HAV a have a few mill into, not the scout I'm just coming back to, not the support Logi I have proto in every race. It is not the place for any single individual within the community, CPM or no, to define a role. Nor is it the place of a CPM to enforce their views on a role over that of the community.

As a CPM I would state my own point of view to CCP, because calling out my own bias and understanding matters, but I would not substitute my view for that of the community regardless of whether I agree with or understand the community view being presented. My job in such cases is to inform CCP about what the community voice is and to provide them with information about where they can look for a deeper description of that trend/stance. Any less than that, it seems to me, directly defeats the purpose of having a CPM in the first place.

0.02 ISK
Cross

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3563	Posted - 2014.06.02 12:33:00 - [1] - Quote Obscured amongst the rage and vitriol of Takahashi KashukenGÇÖs recent posts I found a concern that he expressed which I feel warrants further discussion. CPM1 candidates, what is your experience with, or understanding of, vehicles and the issues which are important to the tankers and pilots of DUST 514? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2617	Posted - 2014.06.02 14:04:00 - [2] - Quote While I believe certain vehicles sit extremely far into the overpowered category in DUST balance, I feel it's extremely important that vehicle users are found a true "role" in DUST. Dropships and LAVs tend to right now, heavily focus on their movement and transport capabilities. The tank, however, is simply a more expensive, far superior dropsuit. Faster, higher damage, harder to kill. I feel that tanks should have a specific role, with both strengths and weaknesses, that makes it a critical and enjoyable part of team composition while ensuring it's ability to dominate gameplay is limited. I won't lie and tell you I have a ton of experience on vehicles, but I'm very open to discussions with vehicle users on how we can make that happen. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2200	Posted - 2014.06.02 15:29:00 - [3] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Obscured amongst the rage and vitriol of Takahashi KashukenGÇÖs recent posts I found a concern that he expressed which I feel warrants further discussion. CPM1 candidates, what is your experience with, or understanding of, vehicles and the issues which are important to the tankers and pilots of DUST 514? I believe my reply elsewhere on the forums regarding the role of scouts applies here as well so I've quoted it. I run scout, just as I run vehicles, which is to say often at my own expense because I believe in spending ISK to further understand the role. I've run both off and on since closed beta, but, as noted in the quote below, I don't believe this makes me the best at either or an expert with the right to define the role, indeed I don't think any one player, or community sub-section, has that right. Cross Atu wrote: One Eyed King wrote: What about, as a general question, what they view the role of scouts as a whole on the battlefield? I think where people want adjustments made definitely reflects what they think the role should be. Such as those that think scouts should be recon only. Two part response to this, first is a more direct answer second part is (in my view) the more important one. 1st - My current impression is that the light suit excel at roles within eWar and/or mobility. That can be scans/intel, that can be covert assassinations and disruption, objective harassment, infiltration (such as getting behind hostile lines to deploy links et al), flanking/skirmishing either to pick of stragglers or in support of a friendly push, etc. Ideally I don't think that any role, regardless of frame type, should be only one thing on the battlefield, and in that sense I wouldn't say scouts should be only recon. To me such assessments are a bit of an oversimplification. 2nd - While I fully understand asking each candidate what their view on roles is I think there's some context that's important, that being who they (we) think defines the nature of a role. In my view I am not qualified as a single player to define the entirity of any role. Not the HAV a have a few mill into, not the scout I'm just coming back to, not the support Logi I have proto in every race. It is not the place for any single individual within the community, CPM or no, to define a role. Nor is it the place of a CPM to enforce their views on a role over that of the community. As a CPM I would state my own point of view to CCP, because calling out my own bias and understanding matters, but I would not substitute my view for that of the community regardless of whether I agree with or understand the community view being presented. My job in such cases is to inform CCP about what the community voice is and to provide them with information about where they can look for a deeper description of that trend/stance. Any less than that, it seems to me, directly defeats the purpose of having a CPM in the first place. 0.02 ISK Cross A note, my current impression of vehicles is that they are badly broken. In PC there's essentially only one type of HAV (nearly one type of fit within that) which is viable (i.e. glass cannon rail). Outside of PC the best counter to a vehicle is a vehicle which is flawed. While I am in no way opposed to the idea that it should take teamwork to eliminate a fully crewed HAV or ADS it is not a sign of balance when a solo gunned vehicle, sometimes costing less in SP/ISK, requires another vehicle just to have a real shot at taking it off the field. We currently have proto AV which struggles heavily against militia HAVs or DS (swarms, when not used by a MinMando, are of minimal effect and even a mediocre pilot such as myself can frequently stay in a combat zone with several swarm users even while running a militia HAV). Triple Rep Mads can outright ignore a single forge gun, and a well built ADS with a decent pilot is hardly vulnerable to anything outside of a Rail tank or kamikaze DS attack. Meanwhile there are no proto HAVs in the game, despite two types having been deployed in earlier builds (which means, afaik, were they balanced to the current game state they could come back even in the current development conditions) and this distorts full balance even farther by 'flattening' the field. While most aspects have MLT, STD, ADV, PRO, Off, tank types have MLT + 1 more, how do you adequately balance a power arc of 2 vs a progression of 5? How do you provide a sense of accomplishment and development to vehicle HAV pilots who only need 1 point into their main skill to unlock all tank types currently in game. Where are the support roles within Vehicles and what is being done to make them viable? What is being done to make vehicle vs vehicle balance more rock, scissors, paper, and ells 'one fit to rule them all'? I fully support the presence of vehicle play, but just like any other play style it should not be dominant over all others. Any time one role or play style trumps all others it's a good bet balance is weak there and needs to be improved. Cheers, Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3565	Posted - 2014.06.02 16:09:00 - [4] - Quote Let me put more context on the question. Imagine you are sitting in a boardroom in Shanghai talking to CCP and the issue of vehicle balance and the role of HAVGÇÖs comes up. Who among the CPM 1 candidates would be able to give an quick explanation to their colleagues on the TankerGÇÖs perspective, to lay a foundation for further discussion. An example of this type of situation happened recently in the Biomass Podcast (I think it was Episode 4) were they wanted to discuss Scouts, and Mossellia Delt, who was a guest that week, was able to give a clear explanation of the ScoutGÇÖs perspective, which layed the foundation for the rest of the discussion. On outstanding issues you will have time to go consult with experts in the community, but not while in the middle of a conversations with CCP. If there is a role that is not represented on the CPM in some capacity, one of CCPGÇÖs bad ideas might gain too much traction before the folly in it is realized. If we find that none of the leading CPM candidates have a solid familiarity with vehicles, then there is still time for someone to attempt to address that gap. I recently took on this challenge myself. I had long participated in vehicle balance discussions as the author of the Swarm Launcher guide, but I was not sure that I was striking the right balance only having experience with one half of the debate. So I created a HAV alt, and then also skilled my second main into HAVGÇÖs. I spent about a month learning and specializing in HAVGÇÖs (cost me 15 million ISK), and playing with other tanking specialist. Eventually wrote a guide on Rail Tanks. While I donGÇÖt understand the history of HAVGÇÖs in DUST as well as the long time Tankers, I at least can speak from first hand experience when it comes to current vehicle balance. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2205	Posted - 2014.06.02 16:27:00 - [5] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Let me put more context on the question. Imagine you are sitting in a boardroom in Shanghai talking to CCP and the issue of vehicle balance and the role of HAVGÇÖs comes up. Who among the CPM 1 candidates would be able to give an quick explanation to their colleagues on the TankerGÇÖs perspective, to lay a foundation for further discussion. An example of this type of situation happened recently in the Biomass Podcast (I think it was Episode 4) were they wanted to discuss Scouts, and Mossellia Delt, who was a guest that week, was able to give a clear explanation of the ScoutGÇÖs perspective, which layed the foundation for the rest of the discussion. On outstanding issues you will have time to go consult with experts in the community, but not while in the middle of a conversations with CCP. If there is a role that is not represented on the CPM in some capacity, one of CCPGÇÖs bad ideas might gain too much traction before the folly in it is realized. Well we'll know before we're flying out to Shanghai and I personally believe it is incumbent upon us to actively seek out feedback from the community on the state of each role (from those who play the role, and those who play against it) prior to hitting the tarmac for the summit. That being said, I'm not trying to dodge the thrust of your question, and what you describe is why I'm making my best effort (and have been since closed beta) to run every role in the game to the best of my ability (which is not to say my gun game always lets me run them well ). Every weapon, fit, role, hull, etc looks and feels different when you've used it than when you've had it used against you and a well rounded perspective requires a foot in both ponds. It is my specific intention to have as much of that as possible both with regards to my own in game play time and when considering the feedback from the community. Quote: If we find that none of the leading CPM candidates have a solid familiarity with vehicles, then there is still time for someone to attempt to address that gap. I recently took on this challenge myself. I had long participated in vehicle balance discussions as the author of the Swarm Launcher guide, but I was not sure that I was striking the right balance only having experience with one half of the debate. So I created a HAV alt, and then also skilled my second main into HAVGÇÖs. I spent about a month learning and specializing in HAVGÇÖs (cost me 15 million ISK), and playing with other tanking specialist. Eventually wrote a guide on Rail Tanks. While I donGÇÖt understand the history of HAVGÇÖs in DUST as well as the long time Tankers, I at least can speak from first hand experience when it comes to current vehicle balance. Yes, as above, I fully agree some first hand experience with anything under debate is valuable, in that sense it's fortunate that we have some candidates with high SP totals because it allows for versatility. I main support Logi, but I have several million SP into vehicles, Heavy weapons, and I'm currently running an uncloaked dragonfly with a mlt shotgun (my goal being to have a 1.0 KDR while breaking 1500 WP so I can get a better sense of play as it stands now, how harsh a world is it for a scout with less than 300 HP and no cloak?). I know Pokey has a respectable background in vehicles, while also running fits such as a PLC Commando, hacking scout et al and it is my understanding that we're not alone in this among the candidates. I suppose end of the day what I'm saying is that I agree with the foundation of your point, diversity is valuable when discussing these things, and that I think we've a robust field of candidates for providing that. 0.02 ISK Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2098	Posted - 2014.06.02 16:42:00 - [6] - Quote While I am not the best vehicle pilot in the game, I have extensive knowledge of vehicles, particularly HAVs, LAVs, and fitting in general (I'll admit I've yet to really master Dropships, I'm best suited for combat on the ground). I originally specced into vehicles back in the E3 build, specifically Gallente Dropships and Caldari HAVs. As the builds came and went I extensively worked with all of the vehicles as well as AV in order to gain the deepest level of understanding I possible could between the two. To the best of my knowledge, I was one of the first back in early Closed Beta to pioneer more advanced meta tactics with vehicles such as Spider Tanking. I've specced into vehicles heavily every build and seen the rise and fall of vehicles and AV many times over the past 2+ years and it has been really interesting to see how the community handles the Vehicle & AV balance, both on a social and in-game level. So while I pride myself in being a player who actively plays all roles and playstyles, my personal focus has always been on vehicles. It comes to no surprise that people don't really know I'm a vehicle specialist is because I usually play as infantry in pub matches most of the time, and really only pull out my tank to kill an enemy tank that is being problematic. Like I said before I like to test all aspects of the game and broaden my horizons as much as possible (Except sniping, I'm waaay too horrible at that), so while most of my SP is into HAVs and LAVs specifically (I'm still getting the hang of flying, I don't know how some of those pilots manage), I don't limit myself to ONLY playing vehicles. So long story shirt, if you're looking for a guy who knows vehicles (and particularly avoids abusing them) on the CPM, I'm the guy to talk to. I also believe that Black Jackal is a vehicle specialist, though I can't comment on his experience. Like my ideas? Pokey Dravon for CPM1
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3568	Posted - 2014.06.02 17:16:00 - [7] - Quote Thanks Pokey. I am sure the vehicle specialist out there will a glad to know there is someone running with your depth on knowledge on the vehicle front. Pokey Dravon wrote: I'm still getting the hang of flying, I don't know how some of those pilots manage Yeah, my respect for Dust Fiend went up 3 notches when I tried flying Assault Dropships myself. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2099	Posted - 2014.06.02 17:27:00 - [8] - Quote haha it's not something I flaunt since like I said, I play all roles all the time, vehicles are just my guilty pleasure. Nothing is more satisfying than blowing up an enemy tank, may it be with an HAV, an LAV, or AV weapons. Like my ideas? Pokey Dravon for CPM1
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 13940	Posted - 2014.06.02 17:46:00 - [9] - Quote My immediate reaction to the thread title is Black Jackal. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. Cross Atu for CPM1
Appia Vibbia Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2734	Posted - 2014.06.03 13:48:00 - [10] - Quote My main had Assault dropships skilled for a month and a half until the vehicle respec' of 1.7 I've got an alt character that currently has Python and Madrudgar I stayed away from the Charybdis. I've got personal experience with the current meta-game of tanks while I'm in contact with many tankers Appia Vibbia for CPM1 AppiaVibbia(at)gmail(dot)com AKA Nappia, AKA Mathppia

Adelia Lafayette WarRavens Final Resolution. 796	Posted - 2014.06.03 15:02:00 - [11] - Quote I haven't flown my dropships for a while because its nearly impossible to get wp to make your money back on them without everyone on voice coms due to a lack of in game communication options. I have also stopped flying my incubus because current meta is python for anti infantry rail incubus for anti vehicles and it would take me another 3-4mil sp to make an incubus worth the cost so I've put them away, but I do love flying transport and support dropships. I've gotten into blaster tanking lately running a brawling madruger that I enjoying jumping rail tanks with and killing but a lot of vehicle problems stem from the maps being designed without accounting for vehicles along with the limited unbalanced AV. The maps are set up with a static map type with varying sockets and open ground in between the sockets. I'm hoping the blaster tweaks in hotfix alpha make the blaster more challenging for AI but still keep their AV effectiveness. I also personally hate the collision damage between LAV's and HAV's and dropships collision damage with anything. I can take a railgun projectile but the slightest tap with an HAV going 20m/s and BOOM Assault dropship gets blown up.... (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ "Kitten this I'm out"... ..."I'm back"
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3574	Posted - 2014.06.03 15:25:00 - [12] - Quote Good, it looks like there is likely to be both HAV and Dropship experience among the representatives on the Council. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mossellia Delt Militaires Sans Jeux 1500	Posted - 2014.06.03 16:08:00 - [13] - Quote I ran hav's from chromo till 1.7 and i'v ran dropships since chromo. I'm not the best pilot but I have knowledge about them. Delt for CPM1
Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2014.06.03 18:23:00 - [14] - Quote Disappointing answers None of the answers fill me as a vehicle pilot with any confidence in any of you so lets throw some questions at you and see how you fair Q: How many SP have you invested in vehicles/turrets and which can you use and to what level? Q: How long have you been using vehicles for on a regular basis? Q: How long have you been using vehicles in PC? These 3 questions say to me how much you know about vehicles and if you have used them in a competitve gamemode, to me pubs is not a good indication due to shoddy matchmaking in general and ambush tankers and how easy it can be Take me, 20mil SP+ invested in vehicles and played in PC for the last year give or take with the full variety of vehicles while being up against and playing with the best the game has to offer Im looking for someone who can recognize and understand the problems of pilots and tbh would prefer if they had 1st hand experience and are actually good at the game aswell to boot So some more questions now, your choice if you want to answer Q: Do vehicles have a role? Q: Do you think the problem between vehicles and AV is just vehicles and AV or is there other issues involved? Q: Would you balance vehicles for pubs or PC? Or both? How would you do this so that vehicles are not useless in 1 mode? Q: Do you see piloting as a main playstyle? If not why? Q: Infantry have access to skills such as Shield/Armor/PG/CPU skills which offer a passive 5% per level, vehicles used to have these skills but were removed, do you think this is fair? Do you agree with adding them back in? If not why? Q: Vehicles do not have adv/proto tier hulls, but if tiercided we would get the slot layout/shield/armor/PG/CPU of a proto tank, so which would you pick? Should we be allowed adv/proto vehicles? Q: Would you bring back any of the old vehicle hulls/modules that got removed and never came back? Q: Do you think we should add capacitors to vehicles? Q: Do you think it should take 2/3/4+ to operate a HAV? As a consequence should it take 2/3/4+ AV players to kill the vehicle? Q: Would you split the main gun from the driver? Would this be a new specalized vehicle in your opinion? Would you still keep the current HAV with a driver/gunner combo so a pilot can still solo? Q: Would you remove railguns? Q: Do you think MLT is too powerful in general for 0SP investment? Q: Pilot suits, yay or nay? why? Q: How do you see AV working? Q: AV, should FG be the main AV weapon as CCP wants? Q: Are 'Jihad jeeps' fair game or cheap to use? Q: How many AV users do you think it should take to destroy each vehicle? Q: Are AV weapons working as intended? If not why? How would you improve them? Q: Should vehicles follow EVE lore ie Shield regens even when taking damage or that shield extenders increase shield passive recharge
Deep Shallowness Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 17	Posted - 2014.06.03 18:39:00 - [15] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: ....snip.... I was kind of supporting you cause you had some fire so I looked up your past posts. So.. your a troll then. Support withdrawn. Also.. posting after a warning of further bans NOT to alt post, and after a locked thread... really? Hardly CPM worthy.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1201	Posted - 2014.06.04 01:49:00 - [16] - Quote Reading the thread, and this seemed an appropriate place to start. Nice list of questions. Q: How many SP have you invested in vehicles/turrets and which can you use and to what level? 25 million + I drive a Gunloggi, Maxed out Shield Skills, Maxed out Large Missile turrets, maxed out Rail gun, Maxed out Damage Modifications, Maxed out Dropships (as needed) Nearly maxed out ADS, Small Missile turrets are slightly below maxed out. And LAV, of course. Q: How long have you been using vehicles for on a regular basis? Since the beginning of Uprising, and in Chromosome, E3, and Replication Builds. Q: How long have you been using vehicles in PC? Since Uprising Launch I have been one of the primary Vehicle Drivers of The Southern Legion and often ringed in for allies. Q: Do vehicles have a role? Currently they do, but it's not the role they should have. All they are at the moment is 'better slayers' than Infantry. Larger, able to shrug off incidental small-arms fire, but capable of dishing out high levels of damage in return against anything. Q: Do you think the problem between vehicles and AV is just vehicles and AV or is there other issues involved? I've stated many times that the primary problem in my mind between AV and Vehicles is not the numbers. At least not alone. I believe that map design is the true key to unlocked a much better vehicle balance. Q: Would you balance vehicles for pubs or PC? Or both? How would you do this so that vehicles are not useless in 1 mode? Newer map designs that would be used in both Public, and 'End-Game' matches would balance these both across the board. Q: Do you see piloting as a main play style? If not why? Of course! All I did from the Start of Uprising was skill into Vehicles it was all I wanted to do in the beginning, and have fun doing it. Q: Infantry have access to skills such as Shield/Armour/PG/CPU skills which offer a passive 5% per level, vehicles used to have these skills but were removed, do you think this is fair? Do you agree with adding them back in? If not why? With the changes made to Vehicles in the 1.7 Patch, the utility of those skills was redefined by the roles, and other balancing aspects. i fully expect their return, once the 'balance' issues are sorted out. but be prepared to give up something in return. This would elevate 'skilled' pilots above the 'MLT Pilots with little to no SP investment. Q: Vehicles do not have adv./proto tier hulls, but if tiercided we would get the slot layout/shield/armour/PG/CPU of a proto tank, so which would you pick? Should we be allowed adv./proto vehicles? I believe the entire 'Tier' System for suits is ill-advised as is, so no. I do not believe that we should have varying levels of HAV. Progression in HAV usage should be purely SP based, not gear based. Q: Would you bring back any of the old vehicle hulls/modules that got removed and never came back? I used to love my Enforcer. It was a hull that was mocked, especially the Falchion since Missiles at that time were.... ineffective. And though i would love to see a return, I would only like to do so in a specialised form. They must give up something of equal weight against their specialization. As an example, you take a Main Battle Tank, and an Infantry Fighting vehicle. Similarly designed via armour, tracks, etc., but the IFV has a small calibre, high ROF gun for taking out infantry. That gun has little to no effect on another armoured vehicle. Vice Versa, the MBT larger gun 'can' be used ineffectively against Infantry, but it's primary purpose is taking out enemy armour. This is the kind of specialization that is required. Not simple HAVs that are 'better' than the basic hulls. Q: Do you think we should add capacitors to vehicles? No. Capacitors are a mechanic that, while it works in EVE, would have the same effect as the current Cool down System, but require a greatly increased Development Cycle. Cool downs work well enough to fit future roles of the HAV / Vehicles. And can be more easily applied to modules not normally capacitor draining (damage modules and such). Q: Do you think it should take 2/3/4+ to operate a HAV? As a consequence should it take 2/3/4+ AV players to kill the vehicle? However many people are required to operate a Vehicle, that same number of people should be required to take it out. The primary dichotomy from this is that if you have 1 gunner in your HAV, or Dropship, you are not 'that' much harder to kill. While 2 tanks on the field, operated by 2 different people, are much harder to kill. That is the primary issue we need to address. Q: Would you split the main gun from the driver? Would this be a new specialized vehicle in your opinion? Would you still keep the current HAV with a driver/gunner combo so a pilot can still solo? Q: Would you remove rail guns? No. Rail guns are, and should be, one of the Anti-Tank weapons of choice. Q: Do you think MLT is too powerful in general for 0SP investment? Indeed. The fact that their is little separating a 'skilled' HAV driver and a non-skilled HAV driver in terms of SP investment is a serious issue. It also leads to HAV spam by people who have no SP, and use it as the above mentioned 'better slayer'. Q: Pilot suits, yay or nay? why? It's only natural. Something for us to wear, while playing our 'role' on the field, that supports our role. Q: How do you see AV working? Anti-vehicle should not rely solely on destruction and damage. These are two aspects of what should be the AV toolkit. Things such as blockades, ability to damage tracks, disable, or slow the HAV / Vehicles should be highly considered. The Black Jackal for CPM1
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1201	Posted - 2014.06.04 01:50:00 - [17] - Quote Q: AV, should FG be the main AV weapon as CCP wants? Definitely not. The Forge Gun is one tool. The Swarm launcher should be given as much attention, but refined to a different role to the Forge Gun, same with the Plasma Cannon. The Heavy is not the only one to give up a 'Primary Weapon' to fit AV. Q: Are 'Jihad jeeps' fair game or cheap to use? Being a Pilot means that I have been the victim of jihad jeeps multiple times. the jihad jeeps are too cheap, and easily used. However, the fault doesn't lie with the jeep itself. it lies with a lack of regard to your character / fitted gear. I'm all for minimizing ISK Vs. Profit margins, but the margin here seems too large. Q: How many AV users do you think it should take to destroy each vehicle? 1 Dedicated AVer should be able to take out a Vehicle 'from favourable circumstances'. The issue is we have no favourable circumstances for AV at this time. At least none easily achieved. 1v1 Gameplay should reward the 'smart' player. Not simply the one with a 'better gun'. Q: Are AV weapons working as intended? If not why? How would you improve them? I believe they are. With some minor tweaks here and there (Swarm launcher lock-on range for one, and Plasma Cannon Damage) they could be coupled with greater circumstances in order to be much more effective. What's needed is to create those opportunities. Q: Should vehicles follow EVE lore ie Shield regens even when taking damage or that shield extenders increase shield passive recharge No. I think the 'Wave of Opportunity' system that is used now is one of the better ways to go. It prevents massive passive tanks (Imagine a Drake-like Tank) but encourages smart play and activation of modules with correct timing and skill. I do, however, believe that ALL passive repairs (not just the Shield ones) should be hampered by incoming damage. The Black Jackal for CPM1
Tesfa Alem ACME SPECIAL FORCES RISE of LEGION 134	Posted - 2014.06.05 01:29:00 - [18] - Quote If you're asking for eperience well I fly all of the gallente ships quite regularly,and i can tank with either a maddy or a gunlogi. I have seen the good days of tanking post 1.8 and the bad days of tanking pre 1.8,when the scourge of wyrkamis and lai dais clensed dust of all of the most stubborn tankers. I can relate to every pilot in the sense of what it takes to become as good as evo 7, or judge, or many other pilots and tankers that are very good but not famous. Red198, Serra Staples, hell ghazbaran is a very good pilot better known for his plasma cannon videos. Lots of time lots of SP and lots and lots of ISK But its irelevant because i cannot say i will represent one group against the other. Its better to see what kind of propsoals come up and have a solution that benifits all of the players, not just AV and not just Pilots. I see the CPM as for the community, not for a smaller community as opposed to a large one, or vice versa. Its better to find out whats fair for all rather than creating advantagse for one vs the other. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.


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