The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1201
   |
Posted - 2014.06.04 01:49:00 -
[1] - 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 -
[2] - 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
|