DUST Search - Militia Vehicles

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Militia Vehicles

» 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 - 1 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 2861	Posted - 2014.06.19 07:32:00 - [1] - Quote Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Haerr Legio DXIV 854	Posted - 2014.06.19 07:45:00 - [2] - Quote How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles.
I-Shayz-I I-----I 3738	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:00:00 - [3] - Quote With mlt infantry suits it's still possible to fit prototype modules and items, it's just insnaely hard because of the limited fitting space you have to work with even with your electronics and engineering skills maxed. But because vehicles only have standard and mlt, for now a fitting space decrease would probably work well. The only other option I see would be to increase fitting space on standard vehicles, while increasing fitting costs of vehicle mods at advanced and proto. While this is probably a better solution, it's not a simple task at all and would require way more work than what you're proposing. 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! List of Legion Feedback Threads!
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15535	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:10:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? I think slots should match (while I would like to see the mlt ones buffed; nerfing military grade ones is an option as well) the combine this with a militia fitting reduction to the point that to have all slots full requires significant investment in both skills and fitting modules to make militia grade vehicles lugging around prototype level gear. Similar to our current militia dropsuits. Also I cannot stress this enough but the flight controls for all three grades of Dropships need to be more closely unified. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
MINA Longstrike 895	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:10:00 - [5] - Quote Increase the isk cost on proto weapons Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10830	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:22:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? I am unfamiliar with this issue. Players are making MLT Tanks too powerful? Through the use of Proto Type Modules on MLT Tanks? That is not the issue at all. Its that MLT tanks require little to no ISK, no SP investment, and can effectively negate massive amounts of SP investment into vehicles with MLT grade modules. This may not be such an Issue no due to your changes but I rarely find that MLT tanks are too powerful for hand held AV to tackle. The Issue I see with HAV is that players do not have to spend much SP in HAV skills at all to receive massive benefits. Emphasis in HAV command is placed on the hull itself, and now that modules have effectively had their tiering destroyed in favour of quicker cycle times ( the short term benefits of module far outweighing the long term negatives) even a low 1-3 Million SP toon can make themselves and game breaking menace on the battlefield. Because that Emphasis on power lies in the hull of the vehicle and the turret mounted, AV cannot effectively break down HAV's using their current damage models. In regards to balancing HAV against hand held AV I have always said needs to lie in changes to the HAV's themselves and or the skills associated with HAV Command. The easiest way I see how to do it is break down the current HAV's power into most SP sink skills meaning players have to skill into and build up their characters skills in their chosen vehicle role to achieve comparable Power gains. A Basic Swarm Launcher should be doing effective quantities of damage to MLT hulls which suffer from lesser PG and CPU values due to their lack of skill requirements, like wise they should do damage to STD hulls where the pilots have little to no skill investments. With more investment of SP into Tanking related skills the higher the tier of AV required to eliminate the tank. Currently much of the issue surrounding HAV power vs ISK cost lies in the lack of competitive modules in our line ups. Intially the meta was Hardeners with 40% (for armour) and 60% (for shield) resistances to damage. These were inevitably nerfed. Then the meta was Heavy Repair Units, these have now just been nerfed........ There is a trend here. The emphasis and power gains lies in the modules, not the skills associated with the modules, as they do in EVE, and as a result in most cases if I want to have peak ISK efficiency to power output ratios I stack only Standard Modules. Cheaper PG and CPU, same efficiency, cheaper ISK wise. Issue is not High tier modules on low tier hulls. You can barely fit a basic module or turret in each slot on a Madrugar, even with then high SP I have invested into fitting skills, its that low tier modules perform essentially the same way if not better than higher tier modules. "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10830	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:24:00 - [7] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Increase the isk cost on proto weapons No Malleus that is not the way to achieve a balanced out come. All it does in de-incentivise the use of high tiered modules on vehicles in favour of lower tiered ones that fundamentally function in the exact same way with the exact same efficiencies, creating yet another slew and meta of low cost vehicles with high power out puts for little to no SP investment. "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
Argetlam Thorson Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 64	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:24:00 - [8] - Quote I honestly think MLT tanks should just be removed. It doesn't take much to get into a STD tank and MLT tanks are, quite frankly, OP against infantry. If I need to spec into and pull out a fit dedicated to removing you as a threat, then you should have to spec into it to be one. It would also make the ground vehicle skill requirements more like the air vehicle skill requirements. You'd have a militia transport vehicle, a std variant of that which is more multipurpose and can be used as a mobile gun(s) or tanked out transport, and then a purely attack vehicle which is expensive and needs at least some skill point investment....or just give us a 150k Militia ADS. Just my 2 ISK.
Thurak1 Psygod9 783	Posted - 2014.06.19 08:31:00 - [9] - Quote Make it so 1 AV can take out militia tanks. Not sure why this seems so mind boggling but 1 av player with advanced gear should be able to take out a militia tank. But CCP loves HAV these days making them cheaper than dropsuits FFS.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1345	Posted - 2014.06.19 09:18:00 - [10] - Quote Fill the small turret slots on militia vehicles with appropriate turrets. Bam, you just ate up pg/cpu Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.

Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3628	Posted - 2014.06.19 09:24:00 - [11] - Quote I would welcome any nerfs you can bring on MLT HAVs. I would also like the addition of higher tiered HAVs at some point; that would be amazing and allow for some more tweaks to lower tiered goods. (I want a missile Falchion!!). For what it's worth, though, I fitted two MLT hardeners and an MLT plate (or something akin to that) to my Sica yesterday. It's still OP. It's arguably more OP than it was before, in fact. MLT tanks (Sicas especially) need a good long looking at. Thurak1 wrote: Make it so 1 AV can take out militia tanks. Not sure why this seems so mind boggling but 1 av player with advanced gear should be able to take out a militia tank. But CCP loves HAV these days making them cheaper than dropsuits FFS. Priciest dropsuit I ever owned was 260k. Ran an ADV fit tank yesterday for 370k a pop. Apples =/= oranges. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 509	Posted - 2014.06.19 09:41:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? To fully fit a militia tank, I have to invest in multiple skills, some on higher levels, to get all my modules at non-militia level, because otherwise they wouldn't fit at all. The issue lies in the scaling of tanks with skill point investments and how PG/CPU requirements sink. The same works for dropsuits, but it's more pronounced for tanks because they only have two tiers and the militia tier is already very powerful. If you just lower CPU/PG, you punish new tankers much more, because there's no valid reason to get a militia tank at low skill level if you can't even fit it. And shouldn't militia be the stuff that you use to either get a taste of something or to save money? Personally, I'd say the best idea is to remove most customizability from militia tanks. Give them irremovable modules that fit their racial playstyle, maybe with variants (Hardened Sica/Boosting Sica/etc.) if necessary, and only allow the turrets to be customized. This gives new players a sense of "Look at those options! And I can't actually change the fitting. Time to get a real tank!", while allowing experienced non-tankers to make a very specific call about shield/armor tank and turret type to react to a specific situation where a cheap tank is required for its turret and HP.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 932	Posted - 2014.06.19 10:56:00 - [13] - Quote The issue isn't at all what was outlined in your OP and is quite the opposite as True already said. The problem really lies with the fact there's hardly a difference between a 20 million SP tanker and a 0 SP tanker in terms of tanks competing. Fitting optimization means nothing when it doesn't effect what you can fit. It just means you'll squeeze another 200 eHP out or maybe 40 more reps. When vehicles were "rebalenced" all that happened is the people who were very very invested in vehicles got screwed over. Before 1.7 there was this thing called diversity in vehicles. Some of us did ridiculous things like 7K shield Vayus with two Charybdis' following it with remote shield boosters. Why? Because "lol an overpriced armor enforcer tank with seven thousand shields". A player with no SP couldn't do anything like this and cumulatively this was probably 40-50 million SP worth of skills in play just to make it all work while in good case, we'd absolutely devastate the enemy team with my tanker going 50/0 on a Skirmish and in others, we'd loose millions of ISK to crazy overpowered AV while still at least having fun. Whenever I get on my dedicated vehicle character, I actually get pretty upset sometimes about the all the changes in 1.7. I haven't had as much fun in a vehicle as I did back in the day. The Amarr scout bonus is like the old Amarr sentinel bonus. No one needed 25% reduction to overheat damage on a heavy;_;
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 365	Posted - 2014.06.19 11:08:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? sounds good
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1886	Posted - 2014.06.19 14:30:00 - [15] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: I would welcome any nerfs you can bring on MLT HAVs. I would also like the addition of higher tiered HAVs at some point; that would be amazing and allow for some more tweaks to lower tiered goods. (I want a missile Falchion!!). For what it's worth, though, I fitted two MLT hardeners and an MLT plate (or something akin to that) to my Sica yesterday. It's still OP. It's arguably more OP than it was before, in fact. MLT tanks (Sicas especially) need a good long looking at. Thurak1 wrote: Make it so 1 AV can take out militia tanks. Not sure why this seems so mind boggling but 1 av player with advanced gear should be able to take out a militia tank. But CCP loves HAV these days making them cheaper than dropsuits FFS. Priciest dropsuit I ever owned was 260k. Ran an ADV fit tank yesterday for 370k a pop. Apples =/= oranges. +1 just for mentioning missile Falchion. I loved that thing with it's stupid movement penalty "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Brush Master HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 1249	Posted - 2014.06.19 14:56:00 - [16] - Quote I can only assume that majority of chassis you are referring to are HAVs since the only time I see militia DS are for 1. Quick Transports or 2. Crash into an opposing DS to kill it. If you are finding militia DS are being fitted with proto, then by all means, cut down cpu/pg and that will quickly disappear. The big reason why you see so many cheap HAVs is because it is cheaper to pull out a militia tank than it is to pull out a fully proto built suit to counter it and you have a high risk in just a dropsuit. Militia HAV > Proto AV build. You are of course bringing some balance to that but it still has more balancing to go. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 357	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:15:00 - [17] - Quote remove the large turret that comes free on millita vehicles. this should remove quite a lot of millita tank spam. say about 50-60k isk for the millita hav hull. then the std price of millita turrets. this would greatly increase the price of mlt vehilces to where spamming is not viable and also a very slight reduction in ehp. proposed values for soma :1000 shield/3600 armour sica :2350 shield/1250 armour. removieng the free turret would add that slight bit of extra cost so the risk of using millita vehilces is larger and spamming is not as cheap. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 357	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:22:00 - [18] - Quote another thought. can we have vehicles put back to the way there were and functioned back in chromosome along with the modules while keeping av where it is and reintroduce marauder tanks and put prices back to where they were. (I had no problem paying 2.5mill isk for a fully fitted surya) quite liked for how powerful it was it was dam expensive and very hard to keep in play as the risk was extremely high but the reward was low (this is what it should be for tanks). *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 27	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:23:00 - [19] - Quote Why not, reducing the PG/CPU could be a good thing. However, I think that what make militia tanks interesting for the old players (i'm among them) is : - the number of modules, you only get one more module by using a standard tank over a militia one. I think you should get two, so people would consider them to be more effective. In order to do that, it could be interesting to remove one of the vehicle slot on each militia tank (low on the sica and high for the soma). For the moment, both are using 2 high and 2 slow which I find ridiculous as no militia dropsuit / LAV / dropship have the same versatility. - add default turrets like for the LP tanks, it would reduce in a way the PG/CPU allowed to the tanks, while showing to the newcomer the potential of a teamplay tank (which is simply awesome). Another point in favor of this is that militia dropship have them and it can be a real problem when you want to do a solo fit. - Like some people, I find that other vehicles are missing. I would like to test the Sagaris that is taking the dust in my hangar. Same thing for the logistic vehicles, it would be good to see them back again so not only the DPS of a tank would count anymore (it is less the case since yesterday, but still too present in my taste). But this has nothing to do with your first question. Dropship pilot
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2436	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:31:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? Pretty much this Cross Atu wrote: Quote from a related thread on HAVs, same type of reasoning applies (also yes to WP for mCRUs) Cross Atu wrote: Considering the current, more slimmed down, development resources I find it vastly important that we get as much possible content and utility out the assets already generated for Dust 514. These other vehicles should most certainly be back in the game. In point of fact restoring their presence would improve the possibility of viable Vehicle vs Infantry balance. It is much harder to balance Proto AV vs STD Vehicles, the degrees are wrong. Right now militia AV is a poor joke while MLT vehicles are are viable and useful simply because there are more degrees within the power curve of AV than of Vehicles. Push MLT AV to be viable in the current meta and the power curve makes Proto AV brokenly OP. The lack of types of vehicle also forces each one into more roles, making balance harder and requires that mods define the power curve very heavily allowing for more "MLT stacking" causing issues with the 'risk v reward' and the value of SP investments. However with a restored vehicle field there are more 'knobs' to fiddle enabling more fine tuning and more diversity. Content, balance, and game play would all be served by including these vehicles once more (and yes, they would need a balance pass... like the entire AV vs Vehicle situation does already). 0.02 ISK Cross Yes you can scale and polish the MLT vehicles, and they likely do need some touch ups but there is a foundational flaw in trying to scale vehicles with so few types and levels of potency against AV with so many meta variations and so much verity in type. Picture trying to balance Scouts with only MLT + 1 on their progression curve vs Assaults with all the types etc that they have now... and then make all their weapons type specific as well TL;DR - Not opposed to the change suggested, however it's unlikely that this, or any other single fix, will bring things properly inline so long as the progression scale of vehicles remains so limited and compressed. 0.02 ISK Cross Cross Atu for CPM1- An emergent candidate

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 593	Posted - 2014.06.19 15:45:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. If the price-tag is your problem then the easiest solution would be to increase the module price while giving the hull a price discount. The resulting scenario: MLT mods on a MLT chassis: The same as ever. CPX mods on a MLT chassis: More expensive than before. MLT mods on a STD chassis: Cheaper than before. (Has to be more expensive than a MLT chassis, though.) CPX mods on a STD chassis: The same as ever. If your issue is that vets in MLT chassis are being more effective than you'd like them to be then I'd ask you why that is a problem. They are obviously less effective than vets in a STD chassis so that's not the issue. Remember that ISK is never a problem in Dust. Vets don't read what stuff costs in ISK. (If you wonder why that is, ask the person who gave everyone from beta ~100-300 mil ISK on release day.)
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 95	Posted - 2014.06.19 16:44:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? bad idea casue if they are already skileld heavly for vehicals it will just nerf what militia vehicals with low skill or 0 skill pilots with militia mods can do against militia vehicals with proto pilots who would have higher pg and cpu anyway to fit adv/proto moduals onto militia or standard vehicals.. my idea is make proto vehical moduals even more expencive to compensate for the use on cheap/weaker vehical hulls and will force them to use standard or higher hulls (even more expencive) to not lose their isk investment Minmatar Logibro in training. Rusty needles anyone? No Mic and no time for "Squeekers" Nerf scout cloak+shotgun
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 95	Posted - 2014.06.19 16:48:00 - [23] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. If the price-tag is your problem then the easiest solution would be to increase the module price while giving the hull a price discount. The resulting scenario: MLT mods on a MLT chassis: The same as ever. CPX mods on a MLT chassis: More expensive than before. MLT mods on a STD chassis: Cheaper than before. (Has to be more expensive than a MLT chassis, though.) CPX mods on a STD chassis: The same as ever. If your issue is that vets in MLT chassis are being more effective than you'd like them to be then I'd ask you why that is a problem. They are obviously less effective than vets in a STD chassis so that's not the issue. Remember that ISK is never a problem in Dust. Vets don't read what stuff costs in ISK. (If you wonder why that is, ask the person who gave everyone from beta ~100-300 mil ISK on release day.) didnt ccp remove isk from every ones wallets and corp wallets after it became a problem with people just spamming proto vehicals and proto suits cause they transfered billions of isk to their dust charaters? Minmatar Logibro in training. Rusty needles anyone? No Mic and no time for "Squeekers" Nerf scout cloak+shotgun
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation 577	Posted - 2014.06.19 17:28:00 - [24] - Quote IMO Reduce standard mods price. Increase advanced/proto mods price.
DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 14444	Posted - 2014.06.19 17:29:00 - [25] - Quote I've said this for a very long time now, the fix is INSANELY SIMPLE Force MLT vehicles to fit turrets. That's it. While you're at it, remove forced turrets from LP vehicles. This is backwards, and needs to be changed. Forcing MLT vehicles to fit turrets will drastically cut into the fits they can field, and if you don't want to fit turrets? Skill into the damn vehicle. I have no sympathy, it's not hard to skill into them, and if you want a one man killing machine, you should have to work at least the tiniest bit for it. A slight boost in price wouldn't hurt either.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2305	Posted - 2014.06.19 17:37:00 - [26] - Quote No, i fit all militia modules on my MLT tank and to make a decent fit you need all the pg/cpu of the tank, you don't even have enough resources for the little turrets. If they can fit higher level modules on MLT hull it's not a problem, they have spent SP on them and they deserve to be effective. It's the same with infantry, with the same suit, i'm 100% more effective than someone with less SP because of my passive skill. I've a tanker alt too, i hate to not be able to fit little turret for a few points. Strongly disagree PSN: ogamega I'm not a chef, i'm just a man who likes to cook.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 942	Posted - 2014.06.19 19:18:00 - [27] - Quote shaman oga wrote: No, i fit all militia modules on my MLT tank and to make a decent fit you need all the pg/cpu of the tank, you don't even have enough resources for the little turrets. If they can fit higher level modules on MLT hull it's not a problem, they have spent SP on them and they deserve to be effective. You shouldn't be able to fit a good militia fit as long as we have vehicle module tiercide. As I've explained before, modules are all just as effective short term. So your fit, which just the hull and modules are upwards of 4 times cheaper are just as effective and they really shouldn't be. There's hardly a reason to run better than standard except for plates, repairers and extenders because they're the only modules that are better apart from cooldown times. The Amarr scout bonus is like the old Amarr sentinel bonus. No one needed 25% reduction to overheat damage on a heavy;_;
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 271	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:05:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? OK as long as milita bpo mods still fit.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1648	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:10:00 - [29] - Quote Add stock small MLT turrets to MLT vehicles. That should eat up fitting space and annoy them with blueberries in their vehicles. While you're at it, could you please remove small turrets from the FW tanks? It really reduces their usefulness.
Evolution-7 The Rainbow Effect 576	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:14:00 - [30] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? I said already, but it always turns on deaf ears as everything, make the militia vehicles have permanent small turrets like LP store ones, problem solved. RIP DUST. You died prematurely: December 2011 to 2nd May 2014

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2636	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:26:00 - [31] - Quote Haerr wrote: How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles. Yet fitting **** on vehicles is hard enough as it currently is click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10855	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:42:00 - [32] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Haerr wrote: How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles. Yet fitting **** on vehicles is hard enough as it currently is I don't know if you are being sarcastic but I have Blaster fitting efficiency to 5, and Small Rails Efficiency to 3. I can barely fit one basic module in each slot on an HAV. You cannot say fitting diversity exists when you are not even attempting to fit a module in every slot. "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2637	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:53:00 - [33] - Quote As I've said many times before, It's quite the opposite for the other end of the line. You are hard pressed to fit a full set of things on a Maddy, no matter if you have 200k SP in vehicles,or 20 mil SP in vehicles. Even making unique fittings is quite hard, seeing as though much of the modules have been removed (most of which nobody understands why), and the layouts themselves were reduced to a simplified (read: worse) layout. So much changed, and for what? vehicles vs. AV stayed broken, and now (slightly) vehicles vs. vehicles is broken. Some things needs to stay (large turrets as they are other than missiles, which needs tweaks, and small blasters and missiles still needs tweaking, ammo for turrets, movement for ground vehicles), but otherwise, we need to go back to how things were in 1.6. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2637	Posted - 2014.06.19 20:54:00 - [34] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Haerr wrote: How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles. Yet fitting **** on vehicles is hard enough as it currently is I don't know if you are being sarcastic but I have Blaster fitting efficiency to 5, and Small Rails Efficiency to 3. I can barely fit one basic module in each slot on an HAV. You cannot say fitting diversity exists when you are not even attempting to fit a module in every slot. wat? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10860	Posted - 2014.06.19 21:30:00 - [35] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Haerr wrote: How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles. Yet fitting **** on vehicles is hard enough as it currently is I don't know if you are being sarcastic but I have Blaster fitting efficiency to 5, and Small Rails Efficiency to 3. I can barely fit one basic module in each slot on an HAV. You cannot say fitting diversity exists when you are not even attempting to fit a module in every slot. wat? Since my Forum Sarcasm detection is at MLT level...... I'll assume you are being earnest and say..... SECONDED! "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 91	Posted - 2014.06.19 21:36:00 - [36] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? reducing pg/cpu would just make it even more difficult for those unskilled in vehicles and testing them out to fit them properly. I would say decrease ehp of militia vehicles so its not worth a skilled merc to run them with better mods since they would pop so easy. basicly if you make all militia lavs blow up to one volley of std swarms and tanks and dropships blow up to one volley of adv swarms you would solve this problem.
MINA Longstrike 900	Posted - 2014.06.19 22:43:00 - [37] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: The issue isn't at all what was outlined in your OP and is quite the opposite as True already said. The problem really lies with the fact there's hardly a difference between a 20 million SP tanker and a 0 SP tanker in terms of tanks competing. Fitting optimization means nothing when it doesn't effect what you can fit. It just means you'll squeeze another 200 eHP out or maybe 40 more reps. When vehicles were "rebalenced" all that happened is the people who were very very invested in vehicles got screwed over. Before 1.7 there was this thing called diversity in vehicles. Some of us did ridiculous things like 7K shield Vayus with two Charybdis' following it with remote shield boosters. Why? Because "lol an overpriced armor enforcer tank with seven thousand shields". A player with no SP couldn't do anything like this and cumulatively this was probably 40-50 million SP worth of skills in play just to make it all work. In a good game, we'd absolutely devastate the enemy team with my tanker going 50/0 on a Skirmish and in others, we'd loose millions of ISK to crazy overpowered AV while still at least having fun. Whenever I get on my dedicated vehicle character, I actually get pretty upset sometimes about the all the changes in 1.7 still. I haven't had as much fun in a vehicle as I did back in the day. As an addition: You see similar things in infantry that do you with vehicles. For the longest time, you see people in heavy suits with light weapons. Less so as the HMG is god mode now but it happens none the less. It stems from the "I need to win at least one fight" mentality which is exactly what happens in vehicles. People are fitting militia tanks for the purpose of killing one tank and recalling and everything they did in 1.7 just fed this mentality. Their militia damage modifier works just as well as a complex damage modifier and it's not like they'll need it after they three hit that 450K ISK tank, they're just going to hop out and recall right after. Prettymuch this. 1.7 killed diversity and screwed people who had specced heavily into vehicles as you could get by just fine (and for the most part still do) with 0 SP investments. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10860	Posted - 2014.06.19 23:04:00 - [38] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: The issue isn't at all what was outlined in your OP and is quite the opposite as True already said. The problem really lies with the fact there's hardly a difference between a 20 million SP tanker and a 0 SP tanker in terms of tanks competing. Fitting optimization means nothing when it doesn't effect what you can fit. It just means you'll squeeze another 200 eHP out or maybe 40 more reps. When vehicles were "rebalenced" all that happened is the people who were very very invested in vehicles got screwed over. Before 1.7 there was this thing called diversity in vehicles. Some of us did ridiculous things like 7K shield Vayus with two Charybdis' following it with remote shield boosters. Why? Because "lol an overpriced armor enforcer tank with seven thousand shields". A player with no SP couldn't do anything like this and cumulatively this was probably 40-50 million SP worth of skills in play just to make it all work. In a good game, we'd absolutely devastate the enemy team with my tanker going 50/0 on a Skirmish and in others, we'd loose millions of ISK to crazy overpowered AV while still at least having fun. Whenever I get on my dedicated vehicle character, I actually get pretty upset sometimes about the all the changes in 1.7 still. I haven't had as much fun in a vehicle as I did back in the day. As an addition: You see similar things in infantry that do you with vehicles. For the longest time, you see people in heavy suits with light weapons. Less so as the HMG is god mode now but it happens none the less. It stems from the "I need to win at least one fight" mentality which is exactly what happens in vehicles. People are fitting militia tanks for the purpose of killing one tank and recalling and everything they did in 1.7 just fed this mentality. Their militia damage modifier works just as well as a complex damage modifier and it's not like they'll need it after they three hit that 450K ISK tank, they're just going to hop out and recall right after. Prettymuch this. 1.7 killed diversity and screwed people who had specced heavily into vehicles as you could get by just fine (and for the most part still do) with 0 SP investments. Indeed I used to run the following fits post 1.7 Competitive Madrugar 2x Armour Repair Units 1x Armour Hardener 1x Neutron Blaster 1x Scanner 1x Nitrous Competitive Gunlogi 2x Basic Damage Mod 1x Shield Hardener 2x Armour 120mm Plates 1x Particle Cannon Both fits cost about 400-500K ISK and require very little SP investment. Prior to 1.7 1x Compress 80GJ Neutron Blaster 2x Small Missile Launchers 180mm Polycrystalline Armour Plates 1x ADV Armour Hardener 1x Standard Armour Hardener 1x Low Pulse Repair Unit 1x Damage Control Unit 1x Heat Sink This fit cost be about 1 Million - 1.5 Million ISK per frame......but I had so much more enjoyment fiddling around with the customisability of HAV...infact I used to run a Soma Hull called a LST (Light Scouting Tank) which made use of Nanofibre Hulls, lighter plates for added mobility, a scanner, and a Heat Sink. Now your options are dead, and fitting outside the standard competitive fits is pointless. "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 946	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:05:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: -snip- This is exactly what I'm talking about. His pre-1.7 fit was very different to mine. I would run: 180 Poly 2 Carapace hardeners Heavy efficient armor repairer Scattered Neutron blaster For the most part there wasn't a one fit to rule them all like we have now. The Amarr scout bonus is like the old Amarr sentinel bonus. No one needed 25% reduction to overheat damage on a heavy;_;
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 2308	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:05:00 - [40] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: shaman oga wrote: No, i fit all militia modules on my MLT tank and to make a decent fit you need all the pg/cpu of the tank, you don't even have enough resources for the little turrets. If they can fit higher level modules on MLT hull it's not a problem, they have spent SP on them and they deserve to be effective. You shouldn't be able to fit a good militia fit as long as we have vehicle module tiercide. As I've explained before, modules are all just as effective short term. So your fit, which just the hull and modules are upwards of 4 times cheaper are just as effective and they really shouldn't be. There's hardly a reason to run better than standard except for plates, repairers and extenders because they're the only modules that are better apart from cooldown times. This leads to the conclusion that tanking was better before 1.7 PSN: ogamega I'm not a chef, i'm just a man who likes to cook.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10867	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:16:00 - [41] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: -snip- This is exactly what I'm talking about. His pre-1.7 fit was very different to mine. I would run: 180 Poly 2 Carapace hardeners Heavy efficient armor repairer Scattered Neutron blaster For the most part there wasn't a one fit to rule them all like we have now. I used to have a lot of fun rolling around with a Single nanofibre hull, Scanner, Heat Sink, 120mm Armour plate, and passive resists. "You are weak Ouryon....weakness serves not the Empire. I shall teach you strength." -Yurius of the Brutor to Ouryon
The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA The DOT MAFIA 25	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:27:00 - [42] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? No, this will only hurt those that ARE trying to fit into ANTI-tank roles. Instead increase CPU-PG requirements of proto modules and increase proto vehicle's CPU-PG baselines. This will induce players to use armor to counter armor, and mid level invested players better by enticing them with mixed proto fittings.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10868	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:31:00 - [43] - Quote The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? No, this will only hurt those that ARE trying to fit into ANTI-tank roles. Instead increase CPU-PG requirements of proto modules and increase proto vehicle's CPU-PG baselines. This will induce players to use armor to counter armor, and mid level invested players better by enticing them with mixed proto fittings. Why when tankers can barely fit a single standard module in each of their slots? That doesn't make sense. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
deezy dabest Sacred Initiative of Combat Killers 640	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:37:00 - [44] - Quote I feel like this is a problem that starts with the vehicle skill tree. Vehicles should work much like dropsuits do where they start with a fairly low pg / cpu and armor / shields and these are increased through the skill tree along side skilling up the modules. Right now the progression through the vehicle tree is just plain bad. If you make any temporary changes to pg/cpu on tanks it should be with the intent to redo the tree within the next few hotfixes. Laser focused in a room full of mirrors. Everything you ever wanted coming SoonGäó just keep buying boosters.
The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA The DOT MAFIA 25	Posted - 2014.06.20 00:52:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? No, this will only hurt those that ARE trying to fit into ANTI-tank roles. Instead increase CPU-PG requirements of proto modules and increase proto vehicle's CPU-PG baselines. This will induce players to use armor to counter armor, and mid level invested players better by enticing them with mixed proto fittings. Why when tankers can barely fit a single standard module in each of their slots? That doesn't make sense. ? sipping and nibbling much..lol
ratamaq doc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 655	Posted - 2014.06.20 01:24:00 - [46] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Fill the small turret slots on militia vehicles with appropriate turrets. Bam, you just ate up pg/cpu This YouTube
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10871	Posted - 2014.06.20 01:26:00 - [47] - Quote The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA wrote: True Adamance wrote: The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? No, this will only hurt those that ARE trying to fit into ANTI-tank roles. Instead increase CPU-PG requirements of proto modules and increase proto vehicle's CPU-PG baselines. This will induce players to use armor to counter armor, and mid level invested players better by enticing them with mixed proto fittings. Why when tankers can barely fit a single standard module in each of their slots? That doesn't make sense. ? sipping and nibbling much..lol by mixed proto, I meant proto tank with mixed modules. We don't have proto tanks, nor can you fit even basic modules in all slots as I said. Why is it encouraged that players do not all of their slots, or have the capacity to do so, instead focusing less of supporting HAV and more on selfish Pure EHP fits. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
ratamaq doc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 655	Posted - 2014.06.20 01:27:00 - [48] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: I've said this for a very long time now, the fix is INSANELY SIMPLE Force MLT vehicles to fit turrets. That's it. While you're at it, remove forced turrets from LP vehicles. This is backwards, and needs to be changed. Forcing MLT vehicles to fit turrets will drastically cut into the fits they can field, and if you don't want to fit turrets? Skill into the damn vehicle. I have no sympathy, it's not hard to skill into them, and if you want a one man killing machine, you should have to work at least the tiniest bit for it. A slight boost in price wouldn't hurt either. And this for the reasons described. If you want to run cheap MLT fits then you have to deal with the blues locking your ability to recall. When I kill you, I want the extra kills. You want a one man killing machine? Invest some skill and ISK. YouTube
The-DON of-DOT-MAFIA The DOT MAFIA 25	Posted - 2014.06.20 01:34:00 - [49] - Quote ratamaq doc wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Fill the small turret slots on militia vehicles with appropriate turrets. Bam, you just ate up pg/cpu This All this does is hurt novice and intermediate level vehicle users. In everything an upwardly mobile and thriving middle class is best.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1012	Posted - 2014.06.20 01:42:00 - [50] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? After playing with a proto forge, prof 2, and 3 enhanced damage mods, I SAY STOP. Militia tanks pose NO problem for a lone forge gunner. Those with skills in tanks that choose to cheapen their tanks (a very small decrease between hulls and a single slot decrease) are still easy pickins. So I ask you, please stop nerfing tanks. You have already made the blaster nearly useless on the maddie (via severe armor rep nerf), the rail gun is still king, and the gunnlogi is way up. But all in all, gunnlogis are STILL easy pickings to AV (plasma cannons murder) and the maddie is a joke to my forge gun. SO PLEASE, just stop already. Evaluate what you have done (which mostly isn't positive) before you go nerfing something that is already far beyond where you wanted things to be. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10882	Posted - 2014.06.20 03:17:00 - [51] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? After playing with a proto forge, prof 2, and 3 enhanced damage mods, I SAY STOP. Militia tanks pose NO problem for a lone forge gunner. Those with skills in tanks that choose to cheapen their tanks (a very small decrease between hulls and a single slot decrease) are still easy pickins. So I ask you, please stop nerfing tanks. You have already made the blaster nearly useless on the maddie (via severe armor rep nerf), the rail gun is still king, and the gunnlogi is way up. But all in all, gunnlogis are STILL easy pickings to AV (plasma cannons murder) and the maddie is a joke to my forge gun. SO PLEASE, just stop already. Evaluate what you have done (which mostly isn't positive) before you go nerfing something that is already far beyond where you wanted things to be. Edit: Or I might say that it's just right, as from the AV side, Tanks FEAR AV far more than usual. I heard tale that ADV swarms were being trouble (what bugs did you fix exactly) I know I do...... I can't shoot back at them any more between dispersion and the awkward HMG aiming reticule. True Adamance's reasonably good accuracy that used to allow him to snipe stupid snipers or AV at 170+m decreased by 100% " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
danie braz Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 51	Posted - 2014.06.20 07:54:00 - [52] - Quote Haerr wrote: How about you change the fitting skills instead? A change to them would only hit the high level players and not people trying out vehicles. Make it so passive bonus will not apply like dropsuits? Have fixed variables will make an even battlefield. Makes some sense. Fluoride uranium carbon potassium bismuth technetium helium sulfur germanium thulium Molybdenum neon yttrium
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 1556	Posted - 2014.06.20 11:03:00 - [53] - Quote make militia vehicles have static fittings; Cook up some fittings and make people not able to change them; sort of like starter fits where every turret type is represented and make it static. There they can try out a vehicle but they cant abuse it. Keep the price so it's actually cheaper since the new players don't have to invest extra isk for extra modules. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 594	Posted - 2014.06.20 12:05:00 - [54] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Militia tanks pose NO problem for a lone forge gunner. I second this. I haven't had a problem with a MLT tank in quite a while. A MLT HAV that doesn't flee from my position after the first shot is a dead MLT HAV. That is while using an ADV Assault FG (the DAU-A/2 is it, right?) with no damage mods. I never felt the need to upgrade even though I have FG operation 5. MLT HAV power is definitely not the issue. I'm unaware of how swarm launcher are faring though. I never looked at them again after the range-nerf.
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 424	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:26:00 - [55] - Quote There's a simple part of the equation screwing things up: Any turret that has to be operated separately from the driver should eliminate (0 PG/0 CPU) fitting costs. The current setup gives most tank drivers a huge pool of PG/CPU to work with and discourages them from fitting turrets for their teammates to use (which they often don't want to do in the first place because they don't like random new players jumping into their empty turrets). If we instead imagine that the turret plugs into the individual's dropsuit for its PG/CPU (purely for lore reasons), we can make it so that the extra turrets cost nothing to fit and lower total PG/CPU so that fittings can be balanced whether or not the owner-driver fits additional turrets. This may strike some as a weird recommendation, but think about it. You might be surprised how much it helps. What Is Tiericide and Why?
Mortedeamor Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1566	Posted - 2014.06.20 18:43:00 - [56] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? I am unfamiliar with this issue. In fact I find it just he opposite. I can't even fit low tier modules to upper tier tanks....... Players are making MLT Tanks too powerful? Through the use of Proto Type Modules on MLT Tanks? That is not the issue at all. Its that MLT tanks require little to no ISK, no SP investment, and can effectively negate massive amounts of SP investment into vehicles with MLT grade modules. This may not be such an Issue no due to your changes but I rarely find that MLT tanks are too powerful for hand held AV to tackle. The Issue I see with HAV is that players do not have to spend much SP in HAV skills at all to receive massive benefits. Emphasis in HAV command is placed on the hull itself, and now that modules have effectively had their tiering destroyed in favour of quicker cycle times ( the short term benefits of module far outweighing the long term negatives) even a low 1-3 Million SP toon can make themselves and game breaking menace on the battlefield. Because that Emphasis on power lies in the hull of the vehicle and the turret mounted, AV cannot effectively break down HAV's using their current damage models. In regards to balancing HAV against hand held AV I have always said needs to lie in changes to the HAV's themselves and or the skills associated with HAV Command. The easiest way I see how to do it is break down the current HAV's power into most SP sink skills meaning players have to skill into and build up their characters skills in their chosen vehicle role to achieve comparable Power gains. A Basic Swarm Launcher should be doing effective quantities of damage to MLT hulls which suffer from lesser PG and CPU values due to their lack of skill requirements, like wise they should do damage to STD hulls where the pilots have little to no skill investments. With more investment of SP into Tanking related skills the higher the tier of AV required to eliminate the tank. Currently much of the issue surrounding HAV power vs ISK cost lies in the lack of competitive modules in our line ups. Intially the meta was Hardeners with 40% (for armour) and 60% (for shield) resistances to damage. These were inevitably nerfed. Then the meta was Heavy Repair Units, these have now just been nerfed........ There is a trend here. The emphasis and power gains lies in the modules, not the skills associated with the modules, as they do in EVE, and as a result in most cases if I want to have peak ISK efficiency to power output ratios I stack only Standard Modules. Cheaper PG and CPU, same efficiency, cheaper ISK wise. Issue is not High tier modules on low tier hulls. You can barely fit a basic module or turret in each slot on a Madrugar, even with then high SP I have invested into fitting skills, its that low tier modules perform essentially the same way if not better than higher tier modules. personally i agree with you//..and ide also like to note that the issue is not what ccp rattati said but what you said here. however i also feel obligated to point out that the model you describe is chromosome style vehicle skills and they were knocked out for a reason. they were tiericided for a reason..although personally i wouldnt mind going back at all thats because i am cruel
Argetlam Thorson Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 71	Posted - 2014.06.21 17:51:00 - [57] - Quote Take the Gunnie and Maddie and make ADV and PRO versions. You already have the models, obviously. Just make ADV have a 3/3 slot layout for both, and PRO have 4/3 and 3/4 respectively. Make them fairly expensive and give them appropriate PG and CPU. Also, what if you replaced militia tanks with milita APC's? Take the tank model without the Large turret while retaining the two smalls and give it 6 seats inside like a DS. Give it faster speed, slightly less HP, and less slots than tanks and give it the first person view like a LAV. Boom, APC! Is this doable? It would be so sweet...
Mahal Daj Mahal Tactical Enterprises 69	Posted - 2014.06.21 18:24:00 - [58] - Quote I suggest my "let's all shoot the T-Rex" fix, and make MLT vehicles less resistant to small-arms fire. Fun for all, fair, requires almost no change in the fundamentals. Boost your squad's points by 40%, learn to use the Squad Wheel! I provide training: 1M isk: 90 Minutes of Basic Command
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 35	Posted - 2014.06.21 23:20:00 - [59] - Quote If we had more hulls, we could balance better. An mlt tank should be destoryed by mlt av, std destroyed by std... Etc. just make enforcers and marauders come back, reduce mlt and std stats and boom. Balance. I also like the required turrets idea. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
ACT1ON BASTARD Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2014.06.21 23:54:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? Just remove the militia tanks you should have skills in tanking if you want to tank.Leave the dropships and lavs, theyre mainly used for transportation anyways.

Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 44	Posted - 2014.06.22 00:47:00 - [61] - Quote fair enough SPAWN.KILL.DIE.RESPAWN.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15572	Posted - 2014.06.22 01:15:00 - [62] - Quote The problem is not AVers not killing said militia tanks its said militia tanks rendering higher level tanks worthless. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10967	Posted - 2014.06.22 01:58:00 - [63] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: The problem is not AVers not killing said militia tanks its said militia tanks rendering higher level tanks worthless. Indeed. As you say IWS its that the power of the MLT tank is the frame. So for your 0SP you receive massive power gains for little to no investment, couple that with relatively similar fitting capacity as a standard tank, however only having to distribute that fitting capacity over a large turret and 2 High or Low Slot modules effectively nullifies any advantage a higher SP tanker might have. Its true that this is less prevalent with the changes CCP Rattati has made to Large Turrets and Armour Repairer......however vehicles are still not in place where it feels enjoyable or satisfying to progress through the skill trees. There are a whole 2 tiers of tank, one tier you don't even have to skill for, and the second lacks a role. There are 3 turrets, only two of which are most commonly used. There are less than 5 viable modules in the game that players will use. No inventive to progress to higher levels of turret. And not a great deal of skills and modules that make fitting out your tank really customisable and unique. As I have said back in the only days it felt to me as I skilled through the trees that I was trying to eke out as much efficiency from a fitting by tweaking the meta level of my modules, picking up the Engineering skills, and reducing the CPU or PG of specific modules, all the while skilling into better armour rep efficiency, etc. Tanking feels dumbed down, tanks don't feel unique and have no incentive to be unique aside from player quirkiness...... AKA my 3 Gun 1 repairer Maddy or my 8000 Armour Maddy, neither of which are incredibly competitive. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 35	Posted - 2014.06.22 05:14:00 - [64] - Quote Can we at least get an awnser on getting our hulls back Rattati? Is it possible? Please? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Ld Collins Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 150	Posted - 2014.06.22 05:25:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? Reduce the CPU/PG and force MLT tanks to have small turrets that cannot be removed.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1017	Posted - 2014.06.22 16:41:00 - [66] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: The problem is not AVers not killing said militia tanks its said militia tanks rendering higher level tanks worthless. Those "Higher Level Tanks" are scrubs then. Considering the changes to damage mods and railguns, high level tanks should have no problems dealing with MLT tanks. To those with skills that choose to downgrade to a MLT tank in the effort of saving money, really aren't saving that much, and no doubt lose far more than a tank using either the STD hull fit with pro mods, as opposed to a MLT tank using pro mods. But also consider that making a MLT tank harder to fit via PG/CPU, means that those with prof skills in vehicles will still have a much easier time fitting, while new tankers will have a hellva time on the field against AV. Thing is, RARELY did a MLT tank get me before the changes, regardless of who was driving it, and I can count on one hand the drivers that did manage to take me out that were clearly skilled into them. But those that were skilled also knew how to hunt and stalk, 90% of what tanking is about. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Khemlar Maktaar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 35	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:24:00 - [67] - Quote i think that would be wrong just like the heavy militia nerf which was stupid leave it as be just means there easy to kill since there not realy saving money as they die more and i can fit most my suits easy at std/mlt so i dont see anything wrong with the tanks doing the same the problem was always armor tanking sicas with damage mods and railguns but thats been fixed so there isnt an issue any more.
The dark cloud The Rainbow Effect 3300	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:26:00 - [68] - Quote in my opinion put 2 additional small militia turrets on those tanks. Like with the gorgon or viper where you cant remove them.
Jammer JAMS Dox You. Proficiency V. 33	Posted - 2014.06.22 22:11:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? My thoughts are you already ruined tanks by nerfing the repair rate you ruined the turrets and made swarms hit harder now how more are you going to mess us vehicles because of a few that complain. The whole reason you have skills is to use better stuff.
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 34	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:22:00 - [70] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Just throwing this out there. So we have a problem with high level players creating too powerful, too cheap, vehicle fits using proto modules on militia chassis. Instead of changing anything about weapons or modules, what would be wrong about just reducing PG/CPU on militia vehicles a bit. It won't hurt the new players who want to try vehicles like an ISK increase would but makes those interested have to make an SP investment to become dedicated. Your thoughts? YESSSSSSSS! but not cool stiking the killing blow to shield tanks AGAIN!!!!!!!! now while we were at a dissadvantive now we are just free points rolling around for somas players "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.