DUST Search - A General Idea For Specialist HAVs

DarthJT5 wrote:

Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:

Takahashi Kashuken wrote:

Wont happen

We had the Sagris and Surya and they have never come back

Asking infantry to use teamwork let alone 3 of them to use AV is a top joke, they cant use teamwork and consistantly throw a militia swarm launcher at me expecting it to kill me on the 1st volley then complain and send me hate mail that im OP

Its not going to happen, infantry wont allow it to happen unless they are useless from the get go and actually if they do there job then they will just get nerfed anyways like everything else

Look, I know that, you know I've been around for a while now.

I want them back, and I'm trying to find ways to leverage their return. If you have any good ideas, I'd love to hear them.

For the record, the infantry have repeatedly said that they'd be happy for HAVs to take multiple persons to kill if they took multiple persons to operate. So that's what I'm thinking should happen.

Come to my thread in General, The Official Vehicle Re-introduction Petition. We will get them back.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3685	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:22:00 - [1] - Quote Infantry < Marauders < Enforcers < Infantry, and Basic HAVs can be fitted to slot in anywhere. Essentially what I'm thinking is make Marauders a hyper-durable hull, in the order of 2-3x as durable as a traditional HAV. Balance by separating the turrets. Give tighter dispersion on all turrets as a reward for levelling, as well as passive resistance (say 5% per level), and a flat nerf of say 30% to Large Turret damage output, like the old LLAVs. The durability of these vehicles would make them superior to a generalist-fit Basic HAV, but inferior to a fitting designed to destroy them. They would also require teamwork to operate, balancing them against the potential for two HAVS more traditionally. I'd perhaps consider adding medium turrets as the passenger's weapon, to differentiate them from the Pilot and the Gunner. Their natural counter would be the Enforcer, which would have a comparable, but slightly inferior durability to traditional hulls, with tighter dispersion, somewhat greater range and a significant damage bonus, say, 10% per level. It would be somewhat more mobile than the traditional hull, as a compensation for its price and relative lack of durability. Like the Marauder, it would have a separated turret/pilot. Essentially, all of these vehicle hulls would be equivalent to 2 Basic HAVs, as justified by their greater co-operation necessitated by the split away layout. It would be possible for a competent pair of tankers to defeat the combined might of a competent Specialist crew, but it would be comparatively easy for a Specialist Crew to deal with its counterpart. The issue here of course would be the lack of adequate infantry response to a Marauder team, although competently combined arms would serve to drive it off, and I would recommend that three proto-AV wielders could efficiently destroy a Marauder. An Enforcer would optimally be destroyed by a single (highly) competent proto-AV user, with two easily destroying it. This would hopefully allow the use of Marauder hulls to breach as infantry support, but requiring competent infantry AV support to survive Enforcer challenges. (This is really a WIP at the moment; I'm considering recommending Black Ops hulls as the third part of the triangle instead of infantry, while recommending that infantry AV and Basic HAVs could slot in at any point based on fitting) CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3685	Posted - 2014.06.22 10:00:00 - [2] - Quote I'm not really a fan of recommending new modules; I'm even a bit iffy of new control schemes let alone total reworks like Capacitor would require. At the moment I'm really trying to work out how Marauders and Enforcers could be reintroduced into DUST and not be either blindingly OP, blatantly UP or utterly pointless, and the only way I can conceive of that is split functions and significant passive bonuses. As far as the 'three primary facets of armoured warfare', I've talked about those before, but I really don't think our TTK is high enough to make an emphasis on one of the three possible, or even advisable. I think a focus on durability would leave us with a vehicle unkillable by infantry AV, or be worthless because it's more expensive for no gain. A focus on firepower would lead us to being either shatteringly powerful or shockingly fragile (although it's this role that I think is most viable in the current meta without upsetting things too much), but it really doesn't have that much of a point without changing things to increase TTK. And mobility? Well, that's actually part of the problem with the rest of HAVs at the momentS Dramatic (and I mean like 50-70%) cuts to acceleration and huge changes to the functionality of Fuel Injector modules would actually allow all of these changes to be meaningful and relevant, hopefully in conjunction with a cut to all AV output (including vehicle-borne) by like 25% to allow for relevantly large bonuses to firepower allowing for specialisations to be useful. I think that the only way to change this meta in such a way as to not require a rework but simply involve the adding of new hulls would be separating the turrets. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3687	Posted - 2014.06.22 11:32:00 - [3] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Wont happen We had the Sagris and Surya and they have never come back Asking infantry to use teamwork let alone 3 of them to use AV is a top joke, they cant use teamwork and consistantly throw a militia swarm launcher at me expecting it to kill me on the 1st volley then complain and send me hate mail that im OP Its not going to happen, infantry wont allow it to happen unless they are useless from the get go and actually if they do there job then they will just get nerfed anyways like everything else Look, I know that, you know I've been around for a while now. I want them back, and I'm trying to find ways to leverage their return. If you have any good ideas, I'd love to hear them. For the record, the infantry have repeatedly said that they'd be happy for HAVs to take multiple persons to kill if they took multiple persons to operate. So that's what I'm thinking should happen. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3700	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:25:00 - [4] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: Wont happen We had the Sagris and Surya and they have never come back Asking infantry to use teamwork let alone 3 of them to use AV is a top joke, they cant use teamwork and consistantly throw a militia swarm launcher at me expecting it to kill me on the 1st volley then complain and send me hate mail that im OP Its not going to happen, infantry wont allow it to happen unless they are useless from the get go and actually if they do there job then they will just get nerfed anyways like everything else Look, I know that, you know I've been around for a while now. I want them back, and I'm trying to find ways to leverage their return. If you have any good ideas, I'd love to hear them. For the record, the infantry have repeatedly said that they'd be happy for HAVs to take multiple persons to kill if they took multiple persons to operate. So that's what I'm thinking should happen. Come to my thread in General, The Official Vehicle Re-introduction Petition. We will get them back. I was here first, and also your thread is in the wrong spot. You come here :) CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3702	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:47:00 - [5] - Quote I agree, so here's a clean slate. I'll edit OP with dot points outlining my ideas. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3702	Posted - 2014.06.23 03:57:00 - [6] - Quote First of all, I like long posts. Anyway, to the point. The Enforcer hulls were irrelevantly different to the base hulls. To all intents and purposes they were more expensive variants of the basic frame. The Enforcer's defensive attributes were not significantly lower but their speed was poor enough that they weren't really useful. Now, it may have been that the Falchion was different, but the attributes of the Vayu were such that it was actually a more versatile hull, despite it's lower fitting capabilities and lower HP. Its blaster damage increase wasn't significant enough to give it an actual role. The answer that springs to mind first of course is simply that the hulls should have a larger bonus. However, this leads us right back to where we were in 1.6, where it was practically impossible for a new player to 'get in' to tanking, thanks to the large SP grind before having a useful fitting (about 4M from memory). A Vayu with a 25% passive bonus to blaster damage and range would dominate the field from a vehicle perspective, and a Falchion would be near-instantly destroying the vast majority of targets inside seconds, while thanks to the continued power of shield hardeners (they're still pretty ace) would be very difficult to kill before he escaped. You could cut movement speeds, of course, but that would make the vehicle nothing more than a sitting duck. And as far as Marauders were concerned... Well, they were just straight upgrades to the base hull. Inbuilt resistances and damage mods, plus extra slots, fitting and base EHP? No, that's a bit much. I'm a forge gunner too, as you know, and the thought of fighting a flat upgrade from the current vehicles makes me a bit uncomfortable. No, I don't think simply reintegrating the specialist hulls as is would be wise. Now, I'm not proposing an AV rework generally speaking; I also think AV is in a pretty good place at the moment, as a general rule. It's undeniable, though, that a hull like the Marauder would end up with AV like 1.7 as opposed to now, and that an Enforcer would defeat the purpose of nerfing damage mods etc. As such, I think that splitting the turrets is the only reasonable way to have an objectively superior hull like that in play; that it must require two or more persons to kill simply because it takes two or more persons to operate. I'd also mention that I would like team-tanking to be viable at a high level, which it currently is not (FW IS NOT A HIGH LEVEL), and making team-tanking required for some superior hulls seems like a good way to go about it. Anyway, that's my more-than-two-cents. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3703	Posted - 2014.06.23 05:10:00 - [7] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: -snip- I'd just like to point out that clearly CCP is going for a tiericided look to the vehicle trees; we can see that through the constant paring away they've had since inception. The issue with the Marauders was that they didn't fit in with that ideal, and it's why they were removed. It's pretty well accepted that the FG is well balanced against HAVs and DSes, and PLC and SL are on their way. It's a delicate balance that's taken months and months to find. Stuffing in a HAV that's objectively superior in every measurable way like the Marauder would do one of two things: either render HAVs OP and unkillable by anything except other HAVs, which is a situation that is generally undesirable as far as the community is concerned, or we'd have PRO AV that's balanced to Marauders and consequently either Marauders aren't worth getting because of only fractional differences in gank and tank, or they're the only thing worth using and we're right back to 1.6, only tanks are less fun to drive. The way around that, the way to include a vehicle that is objectively superior and takes multiple people to kill under even the best circumstances, is by making it require two people to drive. I haven't yet seen any argument convincing me that this isn't the case, and I doubt I will. Essentially, we're balancing infantry AV around two hulls; the Marauder, which is equal to 2+ Infantry, and the Basic HAV, which is equal to just over one infantry AV. Enforcers would be designed as tank destroyers; with that numerical balance in mind they'd be able to eliminate 1x Marauder + 1x Basic, quite comfortably, but in the interests of giving Marauders a chance, and also promoting multiple vectors of support, they'd be approximately as durable as a Basic HAV. One thing is for certain; if all we want from our variant hulls is 'better performance', we're not getting it. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!
Lorhak Gannarsein Legio DXIV 3704	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:00:00 - [8] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Well either way, I'm not spending any SP into vehicles that I can't operate and shoot at the same time, at least while I got better stuff to skill into and upgrade. I don't want to invest SP into something that requires another player that's also similarly skilled and on comms. That's your right, and it's also why I don't like the idea of a flat upgrade to the vehicles - I don't like the idea that an object of that value (this includes protogear) can be profitably run solo. CCP Rattati Best Dev AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5 CalLogi, you're next!