DUST Search - Sticky:Hotfix Delta

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:Hotfix Delta - Dropships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2171	Posted - 2014.09.28 15:35:00 - [1] - Quote From my other thread: remove/tone down the hardener animation on the side turrets (this goes for all vehicles). It severely obscures the view of the gunner. A Grimsness can be buffer/rep-tanked with out hardeners, so this may be the reason for the increase Grimsness use over the Myron as the Myron is almost forced to use a hardener to achieve decent ehp values. Honestly, other than that and the agility buff I asked for, they're really good. The can have more instantaneous ehp than any DS with mods active (as shield vehicles should be), as the hardener/booster combo works very well too. Honestly, I think people in the game just have a hard-on for armor vehicles for some reason (I don't like any of them, they're slow and ugly). Dust was real! I was there!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2172	Posted - 2014.09.28 15:47:00 - [2] - Quote Also, reiterating my ideas for mCRUs (+1 new one): The new one: remove the module entirely and make it an innate mod to the STD DSs (and LDSs if they're reintroduced). The fitting on them is too much. Even if you removed the PG/CPU entirely, it's not worth sacrificing, in the Myron's case, 1/4 of all its potential defensive slots. Also, I'm really against using the mod on things like tanks and LAVs. I think this would be the best path, but ONLY if the next two recommendations are met as wellGÇª Toggle-ability. I don't always want blueberries spawning and hanging out in my DS. Until I get the ability to kick them out and/or they can tell me where they want to go, I need a way to prevent them from getting in in the first place. Make it turn on and off with out duration or cool down. [*]Spawn time skill bonus. Currently there's no benefit to skilling up the mCRU skill since there's no bonus or higher tiered mods. Changing the skill to -10% spawn time per level (lvl5 = 5sec, equal to the best links, balanced due because of the skill and hardware requirements) would make the mCRU a powerful logistics asset. Dust was real! I was there!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2179	Posted - 2014.09.29 14:48:00 - [3] - Quote Another thing to consider as to why armor vehicles are so much better than shields is the benefit of defensive skills The limiting factor for fitting for both armor and shield is PG. Rarely do I need a CPU mod and I only need my lvl4 shield fitting for a few fits among all the vehicles in the game. Additionally, because the PG for armor mods is significantly greater than the CPU of shield, the get the same percent but more reduction. The repair boosters are also horribly skewed to benefit armor vehicles. The armor repair is already good, and adding 25% on top of that is a huge benefit. The shield skill is pretty much worthless for a shield vehicle. It only benefits depleted shield delay, which means you're pretty much dead anyway, if not then you're not in any danger anyway so 2-3 fewer sec isn't really much use. Even if it was changed to include a bonus to regular shield regen time, you'll still need to be away from any significant danger for an extended time. Not only is it pretty worthless for shield vehicles, but it benefits armor more because it brings back their shield buffer back quicker, and because their delay is longer, they get more benefit. Lastly, and I never understood why this was brought in, is the armor composition skill. For some reason, this was introduced in HF Bravo with no discussion or mention. It gives a huge 50% reduction to the speed penalty of armor plates, their only penalty. This huge benefit, and yet shield get nothing. It is worth considering considering changing shield and armor skill bonuses, and even introducing another shield skill. Dust was real! I was there!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2186	Posted - 2014.09.29 20:57:00 - [4] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Out of curiosity: In Eve Online, what does a shield tank look like and which low slot modules are used for passive and active tanks? (When I tried Eve for 6 months, I only ever delved into armor tank theory.) [Disclaimer, I am a noob in Eve and this is just the culmination of my admittedly limited experience. For more detailed and accurate data, check a more knowledgable player or perhaps Eve University. Other Capsuleers are encouraged to correct or add on.] For passive buffer tanks, shield extenders are used in combination with what equates to shield hardeners in Dust (though they take cap rather than have on-off durations). Low slots are almost always used for damage mods and fitting mods. (There are almost no shield mods in low slots, and the ones that exist have bad ) .The idea is to have high buffer and higher dps in order to out last the enemy. (This is the opposite philosophy of armor buffer tanking, where you hope to out last the incoming damage while applying your own. This is because damage mods and armor mods are low slots) Though used more for PvE, passive rep tanked shield tanks are also used. These take advantage of the shield regen mechanics, where that shield will always regen for the same amount of time, so having a 100hp tank and a 10,000 hp tank will always regen in the same amount of time for the same ship. This, in combination with a huge buffer tank (shield extenders), regen mods (usually shield power relays because of the lack of need for capacitor, similar to Dust's shield rechargers), and resistance hope to curb the damage done from rats (again typically this isn't possible in a PvP setting). Active tanking requires the use of shield boosters and ancillary shield boosters. Shield boosters require a lot of capacitor to use for extended periods of time but provide a decent boost to shield hp every cycle. They typically use of a cap booster to keep cap level up (mid slot). Ancillary booster work in the same way, providing a much larger boost to hp, but require A LOT more cap. Thankfully, they can be loaded with cap booster charges instead of relying on your own cap (though there is a crazy long reload time). Another mod that is important is the shield boost amplifier that boosts the amount of hp the shield boosts give per cycle. Lows are again used mainly for damage mods. All in all, there are almost no shield mods for low slots, and the only ones that are available reduce base shield hp or max cap. Dust was real! I was there!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2186	Posted - 2014.09.29 21:25:00 - [5] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Thanks for that. I'm fairly certain that adopting Eve-style fitting philosophy in the mid- to long-term is going to improve the situation. Maybe it isn't for the short-term though. I wish CCP would adopt more of Eve's fitting design: less emphasis on hp and more emphasis on resist, more active mod choices, more defined separation between shield and armor fitting philosophies, etc. I'm in the middle of making a huge post that will have pretty much everything vehicle mods need, so we'll see how that turns out. Dust was real! I was there!
Vulpes Dolosus molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 2191	Posted - 2014.09.30 12:28:00 - [6] - Quote You really shouldn't be strafing in an ADS unless you're trying to destroy enemy equipment with a lot of AV on the field. Orbiting is more practical: it makes you harder to get hit by rails, can make it difficult for infantry below you to find you, keeps your velocity up for quick escapes, keeps your turret targeted on the enemy, and looks pro. Here's a quick guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u2xnlCyWkg&index=2&t=2m27s Dust was real! I was there! My current background
Vulpes Dolosus molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 2194	Posted - 2014.09.30 13:56:00 - [7] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: You really shouldn't be strafing in an ADS unless you're trying to destroy enemy equipment with a lot of AV on the field. Orbiting is more practical: it makes you harder to get hit by rails, can make it difficult for infantry below you to find you, keeps your velocity up for quick escapes, keeps your turret targeted on the enemy, and looks pro. Here's a quick guide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u2xnlCyWkg&index=2&t=2m27s Aye I hear you bro, but this was the entire mindset CCP Rattati and others had when discussing ADS balance. They say we must learn to do strafing runs more and not hover so much. (I dont mean actual left to right strafing, I mean attack runs like proper aircraft) All I was saying is that if we had a burst small missile or something like that back, strafing runs would actually be viable. As it stands you are totally right, you can knock out equipment with that single missile or two you managed to get fired off during the attack run, but otherwise the damage you can deal is totally symbolic and not of any real substance. Thanks for the link but I have been flying dropships for quite some time, I am not a top end PRO for sure but I defo understand the nuances of Python flight. Yeah, didn't mean to demean you or anything. Hopefully someone out there finds it useful. You don't have to pure fly-by strafing runs. Just fly by, if you see someone, orbit for a sec and then fly off after they're dead. This is what I think Rattati had envisioned for ADSs. In the past, people would just hover over where the enemy was and AB away whenever they took damage. Now, pilots need to be on their toes and more tactical, catch their enemies by surprise and other things. And yeah, I'd love more variants in missiles (and other turrets as well). This could really solve the problems with meshing different weapon systems with different vehicles and game styles: Think of an accelerated missile launcher that has high direct damage and speed and longer range but low splash damage and radius. It would make a perfect anti-air type missile. Then you could have a fragmented missile with more splash area but slightly less damage both direct and splash for anti-infantry. Blasters could have a med-short range, tight dispersion, high RoF, low-ish damage variant for ground vehicles and a higher damage, lower RoF, larger dispersion, med-long range variant for dropships. Dust was real! I was there! My current background
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2218	Posted - 2014.10.04 18:21:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I'm still listening What do you still want to know? Most of what you asked about has been discussed, is there anything specific you're still looking for? I've just figured by this point with your lack of posting you're compiling possible changes. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2223	Posted - 2014.10.05 23:19:00 - [9] - Quote NextDark Knight wrote: CCP Rattati, is it possible via a hotfix to attach nanohive resupply properties to a vehicle? Example being while a Eynx has a toon active it can provide resupply like a supply depot? Is something like that a client side adjustment? Also if possible can that property be attached to a active module? Also, do we have code for firing from dropships without a client side update? I know that has been thrown around by other devs but we never seen anything of it. I think this would be much better suited for an LLAV. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2223	Posted - 2014.10.06 13:00:00 - [10] - Quote Here are some of my favorite fits: Myron: Decent passive buffer. Strong active tank. Only problem (as I have said before) is that the hardener visual affect blocks a gunners view too much, making it extremely difficult to fight back AV. If it could be removed from turrets or (more likely) toned down and made more transparent, it would help a lot. Active Grimsnes: Haven't tried this, was just theorycrafting but it looks pretty good. Extra shielding in a pinch, armor hardener increases reps to about 167ehp/s. 5767ehp before reps. However, it also has the problem of hardeners blocking gunners' view. Python: The tried and true. Best fit imo. I have noticed other pilots using a complex light shield booster over the light extender and have been wanting to try it myself. I've considered changing my tactic to always have an AB running and retreat when it's recharging, using the booster as emergency ehp. The "Rattati Semapi Noticed Me": Haven't really had much success as far as team usage, but I still think it's worth keeping around. Maybe one day it will. (Though I still want a PG reduction for the mCRU to fit a better AB, among other reasons) Incubus: Best Incubus fit. Can fit all proto turrets. (Requires armor fitting 3 with basic AB, 4 for ADV AB). I'll post a proper reply later today, I have classes for now. One thing I'd wish you'd consider is introducing turret variants to fill specific roles. Some ideas: Accelerated Missile: AV specialized; high direct damage, low splash damage and radius, faster with longer range for air-to-air. Fragmented Missiles: AI specialized; larger radius and moderate splash damage, lower direct damage, shorter range (150-175 perhaps). Scattered Blaster: For LAVs and tanks; very high rof and moderate RoF (highest dps), short range with considerable dispersion, fast rotation speed. Condensed Blaster: For DSs; low RoF with higher damage per shot (still lower DPS than above), longer range and tighter dispersion, very low rotation speed (near rail level, to prevent use on LAVs, DS gunners don't need to turn as fast because of the longer ranges they'll be engaging and their limited turning anyway). [Rails TBD] Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2225	Posted - 2014.10.06 13:38:00 - [11] - Quote ^Lose <200ehp, have to sacrifice Cplx AB for STD, and needs high turret fitting Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2225	Posted - 2014.10.06 15:16:00 - [12] - Quote Ideas for rails: Compressed rail: high damage, low RoF, heats fast. Now the fun one: Burst rail: anti-tank; 3-5 burst, charges each shot (like bolt pistol), over heat after 3-4 bursts, significant dispersion (should be able to hit a still tank from about 50m easily) Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2226	Posted - 2014.10.06 18:11:00 - [13] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: A) ...I'd go as far to say as remove the side guns and make the front turret a gunner seat, if that is feasibleGÇª Do this if you want to kill the ADS. I can tell you that this will remove ADS from competitive play (PC) and make it used only by fringe pilots with their friends in pubs. A gunner manned forward turret will never be as effective as a pilot manned turret because of the crazy amount of communication and coordination needed. Not to mention you're sacrificing 1/8th of the personnel on a team for something that can only be equally effective. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2226	Posted - 2014.10.06 19:05:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A) First contact. ADS, being the most mobile unit, rapidly deploys two 2 man units on Objectives with uplinks, while the rest wait to spawn, or even 3-4 solo units. It can then reinforce weak spots and support infantry, that in turn supports the ADS against infantry AV. B) Harass and Suppress enemy airforces by destroying recently delivered dropships on the ground C) Destroy enemy HAVs - the firepower should be enough to to identify a hostile target, and take it out in a single run, even under light Anti-Air resistance. If an HAV is deployed in the middle of the map, the ADS should be able to take it out unless 2 Anti-Air units are defending it (give or take), if an HAV is deployed in the redzone and comes rumbling into battle, the ADS should be able to put a hurt on even the toughest Madrugar. If the ADS flies into a trap and 2 Small Turret gunners pop out with Forges or Swarms, the ADS should probably be destroyed. D) Recon - Utilizing speed and equipping scanners to provide intel E) Objective Suppression, stay out of the 175 meter lock range, at 300 out of Forge Range and pummel an objective or spawnpoint with missile fire/rail fire F) All the Delta changes were intended to do was reduce the ADS's OP efficiency at almost everything, Now we can carefully bring tactically chosen efficiencies back. Pt. 1 A: This is probably the primary purpose of ADSs. I frequently deploy tactical assets (teammates) in specific locations (usually up high) along with giving whatever equipment support is needed as well. They give me ground support and I give them arial support. It works amazingly and we regularly keep air- and vehicle-superority. I've also theory crafted an attack squad of 2 ADSs and 4 ground infantry (6 total) that all move and attack together, but I've never had anyone willing to follow the plan for long. B: This bothers me a bit because it sounds like you're insinuating ADSs aren't meant for air-to-air combat. ADSs (specifically a rail Incubus) should be the absolute best counter to other ADSs (mainly because they can take away the ADSs main defense: running away). But yes, ADSs should rule the skys as well as rule the high ground by destroying enemy equipment. C: This is also bothering. Being able to take out a tank in a "single run" is serious firepower. If we define "single run" Gëñ30s, that means tanks are utterly screwed against an ADS in every case. Currently, I think the way things are now are fine: the ADS can easily whittle down a tank without support, but the tank also has the opportunity to run to a redline or under cover. Anything more would be a serious blow to tankers that I don't support. You are also mistaken about how many AVers it takes to effectively fend off an ADS. It only takes 1 of any kind of AV to "defeat" an ADS (defeat = prevent from doing what it would normally do without interference, usually forcing the ADS to flee immediately and return later to fight the AV). It is impossible for an ADS to kill a tank while taking fire from a single swarmer or forge, almost without regard to tier of AV. A Python will die in about 10sec (4x 1.05s for lock, 4s for reload, 1-2sec for travel time) to a single equally tiered swarmer, so unless you think an ADS can kill a tank in that time it's not going to happen. D: This is another role that the ADS is perfect for and executes perfectly. The high vantage point is perfect for viewing a whole battlefield and assessing where vehicles are or troops are moving to and from and its firepower and quickness allow it to address certain threats by itself. In PC I regularly call out enemy tank positions for tankers and AVers as well as DS drop locations and possible destinations before they arrive. E: You're not hitting anything, even a tank, at 175m with a missile. Much less could you hit anything at 300m with a small rail. Typical max ADS engagement range, even with rails, is 80--90m, and that's with horrible efficiency. F: Let's categorize these roles as things that are innate to ADSs and what is dependent on modules: Native: A (transport), D (recon) Fitted: A (close-air support/ AI), B (Anti-air), C (AV) An unfitted or MLT fitted ADS can preform transport (A) and recon (D) just as well as a high grade fit (though the pilot's skill is highly dependent on both these). Personally, these roles are preformed well by the ADS currently and don't need much work. The only thing I'd as for are the fixes to rendering, my prior mentioned changes to mCRUs and vehicle scanners, and perhaps "empty seat" mods to use instead of turrets to fit more people. For AI, AA, and AV, the utility and effectiveness of the ADS lies in its turret. Defensive mods for ADSs now are only to provide enough ehp to surviving escaping AV as it is almost impossible to fight back AV unless you know exactly where the AVer is and deal with them immediately. Utility mods (mCRUs, scanners, ammo, etc) are almost never used because they take up too much fitting (either PG/CPU or just a slot) to make up for what they take away. It's all in the turret. As such, turrets should then be altered to define what role the ADS is going to play. The best way I can think of doing this would be to (re)introduce turret variants with these specific roles in mind (as well as considering the roles of LAVs, tanks, and regular DSs). I've already mentioned above as to what missiles and blasters could look like, as for rails, I thought of these earlier: Compressed Rail: low RoF, high damage, moderate heating, long range, low tracking/rotation. Anti-tank at sniping ranges, possibly anti-air by LAVs or DSs as well. Perhaps consider giving an efficacy nerf against infantry targets. Burst Rail: fires a burst of 3-5 rail shots, charges up for each burst, fairly quick heat up (3-4 bursts max), high dispersion and low range (about 100m accurately against tanks and the long side of a DS), slight AI usage at closer range. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2228	Posted - 2014.10.06 19:19:00 - [15] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: A) ...I'd go as far to say as remove the side guns and make the front turret a gunner seat, if that is feasibleGÇª Do this if you want to kill the ADS. I can tell you that this will remove ADS from competitive play (PC) and make it used only by fringe pilots with their friends in pubs. A gunner manned forward turret will never be as effective as a pilot manned turret because of the crazy amount of communication and coordination needed. Not to mention you're sacrificing 1/8th of the personnel on a team for something that can only be equally effective. Clearly you've never encountered an incubus duo in PC. Well, at least pre-Charlie. I have. They're only really effective because of the RoF stacking bug. Other than that they're just a faster, less tanky Grimsnes. When I do fight them I have more trouble against the pilot gunner than the side gunner because the pilot can track me easier and keep up with my evasive movements because he know immediately how to move the dropship to keep on me. This is much less efficient when the pilot has to keep the DS steady or aimed for a side gunner, much less a forward gunner. Alena Ventrallis wrote: A vehicle should be better than a dropsuit in firepower, but require multiple people to man. I honestly feel like vehicles are in this state of being unnecessary, since they do nothing a dropsuit can't do. But they should be as effective as multiple dropsuits, while taking multiple dropsuits to man. Also, this means we can make it take multiple AV to shoot down. But 2 individual dropsuits Gëá 2 coordinating in a DS. Things gets far more complicated and inefficient the more people that get involved (see governments for a good example). Imagine it like someone's aiming and shooting your gun while you move about on the ground, perhaps with perfect teamwork you can be as good as you would be normally, but you're still only just as good. To achieve that kind of teamwork will also require a lot of practice between two people, meaning that not just any blueberry, or any corp member or friend for that matter, can jump into your ADS and be as efficient as those that have practiced together. Every person has their individual nuances, preferences, habits, etc. that are all part of how they work together with others and are really magnified with something as intricate as ADS gunning. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2228	Posted - 2014.10.06 20:25:00 - [16] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: All points you bring up are correct. Now, take your dropsuit needing two people to control. Now imagine that dropsuit has access to a weapon doing 2.5x the damage of a regular rifle. Suddenly becomes more worth it, huh? No, because either it's not worth doing or singe ADSs will be labeled OP. What are you going to do? Currently with the 15% RoF, you only get 30% more RoF with a gunner (which isn't much, also only from one gun since the pilot won't be shooting). The only way it would be worth it is if either the RoF bonus as super high (which was the "problem" pre-Delta) or somehow stacking was exponential or something. In any case, it's not a question of numbers, but of application, which I think it fails at. Alena Ventrallis wrote: And the skill stacking "bug" should be the focus. Both pilot and gunner need to train skills. Your right, not just anybody can hop in and gun. The two must work together, train together, to become a coordinated team. How is this not in line with a team based game like Dust? I'm just saying that it will really kill the ADS. I'm sure most of the current pilots will either give up their ADSs or only fly once in a while with friends. It will completely take away from the ADS's tactical effectiveness and thus its usage. Alena Ventrallis wrote: The skill stacking isn't going away. So why not make it the focus of the ADS? Your gunner needs to invest the same so as the pilot, they must work together and train together in order to be come as one... And are rewarded by being more effective than they would be running g together on the ground. Because people suck at gunning. Because it's a huge SP/time investment with little to no benefit. Because I don't want my primary role I've spent countless ISK and hours perfecting to be deponent on if my gunner I've trained with is on/willing to play or not. Alena Ventrallis wrote: This is how we can make vehicles worth it. 2 people in a drop ship are worth more than 2 people on the ground, only after the team has put in time together to know how they act and learn to function as a team. This cannot be a bad thing. Again, they will never be as effective as a singe gunner without imbalance one way or another. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2232	Posted - 2014.10.07 01:13:00 - [17] - Quote The blaster counts as the Incubus's AI weapon and railgun counts as its AV. Missiles are multi-tools but should have a AI and AV specific missile (not saying rails and blasters can't have variants, but they'd be more tailored to what vehicles they kill better for rails and range/dps or something for blasters). Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

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.