DUST Search - CPM Proposal on fixing ADS AV ability

All Channels

General Discussions

CPM Proposal on fixing ADS AV ability

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17386	Posted - 2014.10.21 00:17:00 - [1] - Quote Inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan What it does in IRL Shoots quite a large number of munitions in an 'arc' allowing it to 'slice' aircraft and lightly armored vehicles in half almost. Empties out on a single controlled trigger pull just about. Modifying for the video game. We take the same concept; high fire volume and low endurance. This would up the amount of damage against vehicles but significantly make it rather exceptionally useless against infantry. Goals: Destroys LAVs if you nail it right. Viable Air to Air weapon Very feasible HAV threat may required combined effort or very steady aim. Feasible anti Structure threat. All small turrets No large turrets Horrendous anti equipment and anti infantry ability. Low Field Endurance. Viable Ground to Air for HAVs or LAVs to use Harder to Fit than standard Turrets making it a purposeful choice of building the entire vehicle fit AROUND this gun rather than having it just because. Same unlock convention as infantry variant weapons are +1 of baseline's required level. Fast Reacting victims can throw up their hardeners to out survive the endurance of the gun or buy a moments respite. Would make fitting ammo caches very appealing again to extend endurance. Prefix Names possibles 'Burst' (historically weapon variants for vehicles do not follow the same naming convention as infantry) 'Compressed' The idea that you are compressing your damage window to do the high amounts of damage in a short amount of time. Was previously used may not be accepted. 'Accelerated' the idea that your weapons are overlocking to shove as many rounds out as possible. Was previously used may not be accepted. 'Impact' to emphasize its hard hitting this has not been used before so should be good to go. Possible Skill Bonus 'Synergies' ADS skills should start including Hybrid cooldown rates instead of ROF. SLAVs reserve ammo bonus MHAV Damage Bonus EHAV Range Bonus Blasters - Should feel like a Burst HMG when it goes off, heats up quickly allowing at most 3 bursts before seizing up, the entire magazine may have up to 6 bursts, and only 2-3 reloads. Could be shifted to have no reloads and massive magazine making burst management the only thing the pilot has to focus on. This will have the best on pressure and endurance of the three but lowest overall damage. Rails - Not to be left out of the race the rail variant would rapidly fire up to 5-10 shots after hitting its max charge which takes a slightly longer than standard time to achieve to help prevent misfiring. The rail variant will always overheat but in terms of relationship it outstrips the other two in accuracy, range, speed, and alpha strike damage while suffering in the rof and dps department. Great for soft low HP vehicles or vehicles with low armor repair rates. Missiles - A 'cluster' bomb like shotgun spread makes it a carpet bombing like pattern making it very deadly against large targets. Smaller targets can enjoy the lack of splash as these missiles are more kinetic kill vehicles instead of the standard explosive. The missiles will be the premier anti structure and anti large vehicle turret featuring mid ground on many attributes. Just note that all of these turrets will run dry real quick in comparison to their non av variant cousins this would allow counter vehicles to arm up and get to the field to face the armed vehicle while AV infantry can now provide cover for their vehicles. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13690	Posted - 2014.10.21 00:52:00 - [2] - Quote I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17386	Posted - 2014.10.21 00:53:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Pulsed Laser Turrets and Beam Cannons and a Gallente Plasma Turret. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Mex-0 G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 97	Posted - 2014.10.21 00:57:00 - [4] - Quote I like fighting against rowdy Derpship pilots, especailly those who aren't ADS. They always try to pancake me by "roadkill" and end up killing themselves. Dedicated Scout and Nova Knifer.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13690	Posted - 2014.10.21 00:58:00 - [5] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Almost rather see something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXs I don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Lost Apollo RISE of LEGION 9	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:02:00 - [6] - Quote I am no pilot but I absolutely love your ideas. When I see it drop ship flying around it really doesn't concern me. I'm usually not worried about them at all really. Adding even just a few of these features you are talking about will greatly increase the threat that the ADS has. As they stand right now, there are really just a joke. . I guess you can take it how you want. But coming from someone who doesn't pilot, these upgrades really need to be implemented. I am Caldari, but that does not mean I support our alliance with the Amarr..
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17388	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:03:00 - [7] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Almost rather see something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXs I don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it. Throw one of these on an ADS and it would be a real Light-Heavy Vehicle Killer Yeah that's my thought on the 'artillery' arch type for small turrets. Larger ones be more closer to traditional tank cannons. Autocannons just oversized HMGs. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13690	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:07:00 - [8] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Almost rather see something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXs I don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it. Throw one of these on an ADS and it would be a real Light-Heavy Vehicle Killer Yeah that's my thought on the 'artillery' arch type for small turrets. Larger ones be more closer to traditional tank cannons. Autocannons just oversized HMGs. Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version (Artillery Large Turret Yes, AutoCannon Large Turret NO) "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17388	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:09:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: True Adamance wrote: I would be a hysterically Minmatar weapon..... Gunner: Keep me steady sir. PilotL I am, Cardboard and Ductape Engines holding. Gunner: BUT WHY AM I NOT HITTING THEM?! LOL Would would a smoothbore cannon and Autocannons turrets. Almost rather see something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLRbutgJLXs I don't like this rut vehicle stuff has fallen into, and as these turrets are not just for ADS, y'need something with recoil/weight behind it. Throw one of these on an ADS and it would be a real Light-Heavy Vehicle Killer Yeah that's my thought on the 'artillery' arch type for small turrets. Larger ones be more closer to traditional tank cannons. Autocannons just oversized HMGs. Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version. Large Autocannons should be feasible; slow spin up firing makes it okay at infantry suppression but when it gets really spinning it becomes wasteful on ammo to use on infantry. By then it would feel like being assaulted by an anti armor blaster like weapon as a vehicle. Should probably feature the best up arc viewing though and maybe slightly less range and damage and better rotation speed. Large Artillery not sure if it should be like a giant mass driver with really low arc and more pain than the railgun can offer or something more tank cannon like with a rapid fire complex. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13690	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:18:00 - [10] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version. Large Autocannons should be feasible; slow spin up firing makes it okay at infantry suppression but when it gets really spinning it becomes wasteful on ammo to use on infantry. By then it would feel like being assaulted by an anti armor blaster like weapon as a vehicle. Should probably feature the best up arc viewing though and maybe slightly less range and damage and better rotation speed. Large Artillery not sure if it should be like a giant mass driver with really low arc and more pain than the railgun can offer or something more tank cannon like with a rapid fire complex.[/quote] I'm not saying they are not feasible but I think a line in the sand has to be drawn with turrets to break them down into categories. In the same manner that if I try to fire a Large Pulse Laser at an AB Rifter orbiting me at 500m..... I'm not gonna be able to track it. IMO Artillery should be represented by an almost direct fire arc with a long ranged fall off threshold ( 450-550 on Large turrets Yes that far) and represented as a low yield AP warhead with a small AoE, but incredibly high Alpha being either single shot or at max a part of a 3 round chambering. Auto Cannon (at large turret size) should really take the role of Missile Launchers in this game. High DPS, moderate reloads, strong AOE, individually weak rounds with very short fall off's that arc like the only PLC rounds did. For the smaller turrets the manner in which you described the AutoCannon is perfect. However all turrets sizes really need to have standardised tracking values. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon

CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2047	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:24:00 - [11] - Quote Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea "Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones" "Guns for show, Knives for a pro" MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17388	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:46:00 - [12] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea Rather have the gunship armed in such manner. The de facto Air to Ground weapon. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1305	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:52:00 - [13] - Quote dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority" [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1305	Posted - 2014.10.21 01:53:00 - [14] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea because ads isnt a "HEAVY" air vehicle its a medium iirc [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13693	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:12:00 - [15] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea Rather have the gunship armed in such manner. The de facto Air to Ground weapon. AT some point I want to corner a CPM in a dark corner of Skype and talk about how they perceive the current state and role, or lack there of, regarding vehicles. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13693	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:15:00 - [16] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority" Not so much that its that CCP shoe horned the ADS into a role that was other wise designed for the Helicopter/Gunship. Beyond that until recently they never stated that ADS were supposed to be aggressive deployment units. They've not yet specified that Gunships are to be a real role, and most people specced into ADS for the Gunship role, or so I assume. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17388	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:19:00 - [17] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea because ads isn't a "HEAVY" air vehicle its a medium iirc Have fighters with small turrets. Aims at its nose area mostly make them like flying scouts. Gunships would be the anti ground pounders, both DS and Fighters should be able to kill em. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Darth-Carbonite GIO Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 978	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:22:00 - [18] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. They do not. Small blasters are useful for infantry, and not much else. And even for infantry they still struggle. The Incubus is Broken Judge Rhadamanthus is my Hero
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17388	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:28:00 - [19] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority" Last time Blasters worked really well against other dropships was back in E3 update of the closed beta. I would know I was one of the ace pilots back then. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1307	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:52:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority" Not so much that its that CCP shoe horned the ADS into a role that was other wise designed for the Helicopter/Gunship. Beyond that until recently they never stated that ADS were supposed to be aggressive deployment units. They've not yet specified that Gunships are to be a real role, and most people specced into ADS for the Gunship role, or so I assume. indeed.. i view ADS more as a Troop transport with additional air support.. like a blackhawk with 2 miniguns [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]

Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1307	Posted - 2014.10.21 02:54:00 - [21] - Quote Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. They do not. Small blasters are useful for infantry, and not much else. And even for infantry they still struggle. small blasters on inf? i doubt it.. rails if you can aim.. missiles if you cant but can predict/track your targets.. blasters for air to air RAEP (granted its on the front as id expect rails or missiles on sides) [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 34	Posted - 2014.10.21 03:05:00 - [22] - Quote Have you used small blasters in any way, shape, or form? Because the only limitation on their murderliciousness against infantry is the HMG-style dispersion... and even then, the sheer deeps that it puts out.... Well. I know that I certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of a small blaster. Unfortunately Za'ki, you again prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Small blasters have an ~44% efficiency against vehicles- and that's against vehicle shields too, so it's even less useful against vehicle armor. So no, small blasters are NOT the glorious anti-air weapon that you are passing them off as. Furthermore, a regular dropship more than fills the role of "Blackhawk with two miniguns". Just season with blasters. An ADS, on the other hand, cannot carry a full squad (thus, is absolutely not equivalent to a Blackhawk), and fits a nose-mounted, pilot controlled weapon station. As I've said before, the ADS is in concept very similar to the Mi-24 Hind gunship. Now, as far as ADS AV functionality, I have two thoughts: first off, rebuild vehicles from the ground up... again. The initial Uprising 1.7 proposal was that vehicles would be weak, flimsy hulls and that the fit would determine really what its role was. A requirement for this would have been low-eHP hulls with lots of module slots. What we got was high-eHP hulls with an incredible restrictive fitting capability that ultimately led to a very small number of useful fits. Moreover, it's my opinion that this has led to vehicle fitting being overly generic, since even outside the small number of viable vehicle fits, most vehicle fits end up looking pretty identical. By having an increased number of module slots, with an appropriate tweak to PG/CPU, and a reduction in base hull HP values, we can then have players choose what their vehicle roles are by how they fit it. As an example, if the Incubus had even a second high slot, the amount of versatility that that suddenly allows is a pretty impressive change; you can have damage for AV, scans for support, even an MCRU if you need mobile spawns. So yeah, that's my opinion. If you need a TL;DR (I don't really blame you), then it's this: tear apart vehicles, rebuild them from the ground up, and actually stick to the original mission statement of "weak hulls, lots of mod slots, lots of customization". Also, please do not ever add Logi LAVs again. They are impossible to balance for their intended purpose.
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1307	Posted - 2014.10.21 03:18:00 - [23] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Have you used small blasters in any way, shape, or form? Because the only limitation on their murderliciousness against infantry is the HMG-style dispersion... and even then, the sheer deeps that it puts out.... Well. I know that I certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of a small blaster. Unfortunately Za'ki, you again prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Small blasters have an ~44% efficiency against vehicles- and that's against vehicle shields too, so it's even less useful against vehicle armor. So no, small blasters are NOT the glorious anti-air weapon that you are passing them off as. Furthermore, a regular dropship more than fills the role of "Blackhawk with two miniguns". Just season with blasters. An ADS, on the other hand, cannot carry a full squad (thus, is absolutely not equivalent to a Blackhawk), and fits a nose-mounted, pilot controlled weapon station. As I've said before, the ADS is in concept very similar to the Mi-24 Hind gunship. Now, as far as ADS AV functionality, I have two thoughts: first off, rebuild vehicles from the ground up... again. The initial Uprising 1.7 proposal was that vehicles would be weak, flimsy hulls and that the fit would determine really what its role was. A requirement for this would have been low-eHP hulls with lots of module slots. What we got was high-eHP hulls with an incredible restrictive fitting capability that ultimately led to a very small number of useful fits. Moreover, it's my opinion that this has led to vehicle fitting being overly generic, since even outside the small number of viable vehicle fits, most vehicle fits end up looking pretty identical. By having an increased number of module slots, with an appropriate tweak to PG/CPU, and a reduction in base hull HP values, we can then have players choose what their vehicle roles are by how they fit it. As an example, if the Incubus had even a second high slot, the amount of versatility that that suddenly allows is a pretty impressive change; you can have damage for AV, scans for support, even an MCRU if you need mobile spawns. So yeah, that's my opinion. If you need a TL;DR (I don't really blame you), then it's this: tear apart vehicles, rebuild them from the ground up, and actually stick to the original mission statement of "weak hulls, lots of mod slots, lots of customization". Also, please do not ever add Logi LAVs again. They are impossible to balance for their intended purpose. fact is blasters suck hard at any useable range while being in an ads that is why most all ads pilots use missile or rail, simple as that i have yet to see one ads with blasters in a game. however i do liek the idea of a base vehicle which will perform how you fit it.. and i do want the logi lav back but something like "owner =/= recive reps" so it dosnt become murdertaxi again.. as i see vehicles atm we have MLT Basic and Standard(ads assault) as for tanks we have MLT and Basic.. iirc wasnt the maurauder the standard version? [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
Espartoi Orkz Clan 341	Posted - 2014.10.21 03:35:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Indeed knowing full well Minmatar use two primary types of Projectile Weapon (Artillery and Autocannon). However I suggets that if this is something you push you tell CCP please don't allow CCP to ever make a Large Turret version. Large Autocannons should be feasible; slow spin up firing makes it okay at infantry suppression but when it gets really spinning it becomes wasteful on ammo to use on infantry. By then it would feel like being assaulted by an anti armor blaster like weapon as a vehicle. Should probably feature the best up arc viewing though and maybe slightly less range and damage and better rotation speed. Large Artillery not sure if it should be like a giant mass driver with really low arc and more pain than the railgun can offer or something more tank cannon like with a rapid fire complex. I'm not saying they are not feasible but I think a line in the sand has to be drawn with turrets to break them down into categories. In the same manner that if I try to fire a Large Pulse Laser at an AB Rifter orbiting me at 500m..... I'm not gonna be able to track it. IMO Artillery should be represented by an almost direct fire arc with a long ranged fall off threshold ( 450-550 on Large turrets Yes that far) and represented as a low yield AP warhead with a small AoE, but incredibly high Alpha being either single shot or at max a part of a 3 round chambering. http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130921000526/gunsoficarusonline/images/1/18/Echidna.png Minmatar enough for you? Auto Cannon (at large turret size) should really take the role of Missile Launchers in this game. High DPS, moderate reloads, strong AOE, individually weak rounds with very short fall off's that arc like the only PLC rounds did. For the smaller turrets the manner in which you described the AutoCannon is perfect. However all turrets sizes really need to have standardised tracking values.[/quote] Manticore looks better. SHOOT SMASH STOMP CHOP FLAK THE WORLD
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 34	Posted - 2014.10.21 03:53:00 - [25] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: fact is blasters suck hard at any useable range while being in an ads that is why most all ads pilots use missile or rail, simple as that i have yet to see one ads with blasters in a game. however i do liek the idea of a base vehicle which will perform how you fit it.. and i do want the logi lav back but something like "owner =/= recive reps" so it dosnt become murdertaxi again.. as i see vehicles atm we have MLT Basic and Standard(ads assault) as for tanks we have MLT and Basic.. iirc wasnt the maurauder the standard version? As far as blasters being terrible in dropships, the only issue they really suffer from is that the firepower of the small blasters just severely drops with increasing range due to dispersion. It's the same problem that the HMG suffers from really. That being said, very-low-hovering derpships can easily take advantage of the sheer deeps of the small blaster. But again, what I was pointing out is that the small blaster is pretty beast against infantry if your in range- just today I used a Sica with a small blaster atop the large rail turret to defend myself against infantry (yay for seat swapping... sort of). That's really the thing though, is that small blasters generally lack effectiveness when used at altitude by any kind of derpship. The other thing is that missiles are just so amazingly awesomesauce from any kind of derpship, that they almost totally outclass small blasters. Small rails are simply not in a good place as far as airpower goes right now- or at least that's the general feeling I have from seeing what those who are more versed in the small rail/ADS combination have to say. Now, as to the vehicles being the sum of their mods, rather than their hulls... well, get in line, since that's what Uprising 1.7 and the enormous vehicle rebalance it included was supposed to bring, and instead we got the mess we're dealing with right now. As far as Logi LAVs, I explain why they are a fundamentally flawed in their very concept here: LINKY. If you can't be bothered to read that, then I'm not going to bother repeating myself on the matter. For vehicle variants, the closest we ever really had to non-STD level vehicles were Marauders and Enforcers. Marauders were removed post-Chrome... like a few other things in fact (camera sights, awesome AR sound, awesome AR effects, general ambiance, sprint animations for AR/scrambler pistol*). Enforcers were the replacement, and ended up being dropped in Uprising 1.7. Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13703	Posted - 2014.10.21 04:06:00 - [26] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. Debatable. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 243	Posted - 2014.10.21 06:59:00 - [27] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. BASICALLY.. you ADS pilots are trying to be slayers when your actually support.. Transport.. and "air support" NOT "Air to air superiority" and not "Air to ground superiority" Last time Blasters worked really well against other dropships was back in E3 update of the closed beta. I would know I was one of the ace pilots back then. Hah! Didn't know you were a comedian, Ace. Halla Mur has the best thought out ways of balancing Turrets. Go look at that if you're actually interested. I know judge (rightfully) made you look bad. Stop trying to cover your butt. Go work it out with Judge you aren't fooling anyone here. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
postapo wastelander Wasteland Desert Rangers 268	Posted - 2014.10.21 07:38:00 - [28] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan What it does in IRL Shoots quite a large number of munitions in an 'arc' allowing it to 'slice' aircraft and lightly armored vehicles in half almost. Empties out on a single controlled trigger pull just about. Modifying for the video game. We take the same concept; high fire volume and low endurance. This would up the amount of damage against vehicles but significantly make it rather exceptionally useless against infantry. Goals: Destroys LAVs if you nail it right. Viable Air to Air weapon Very feasible HAV threat may required combined effort or very steady aim. Feasible anti Structure threat. All small turrets No large turrets Horrendous anti equipment and anti infantry ability. Low Field Endurance. Viable Ground to Air for HAVs or LAVs to use Harder to Fit than standard Turrets making it a purposeful choice of building the entire vehicle fit AROUND this gun rather than having it just because. Same unlock convention as infantry variant weapons are +1 of baseline's required level. Fast Reacting victims can throw up their hardeners to out survive the endurance of the gun or buy a moments respite. Would make fitting ammo caches very appealing again to extend endurance. Prefix Names possibles 'Burst' (historically weapon variants for vehicles do not follow the same naming convention as infantry) 'Compressed' The idea that you are compressing your damage window to do the high amounts of damage in a short amount of time. Was previously used may not be accepted. 'Accelerated' the idea that your weapons are overlocking to shove as many rounds out as possible. Was previously used may not be accepted. 'Impact' to emphasize its hard hitting this has not been used before so should be good to go. Possible Skill Bonus 'Synergies' ADS skills should start including Hybrid cooldown rates instead of ROF. SLAVs reserve ammo bonus MHAV Damage Bonus EHAV Range Bonus Blasters - Should feel like a Burst HMG when it goes off, heats up quickly allowing at most 3 bursts before seizing up, the entire magazine may have up to 6 bursts, and only 2-3 reloads. Could be shifted to have no reloads and massive magazine making burst management the only thing the pilot has to focus on. This will have the best on pressure and endurance of the three but lowest overall damage. Rails - Not to be left out of the race the rail variant would rapidly fire up to 5-10 shots after hitting its max charge which takes a slightly longer than standard time to achieve to help prevent misfiring. The rail variant will always overheat but in terms of relationship it outstrips the other two in accuracy, range, speed, and alpha strike damage while suffering in the rof and dps department. Great for soft low HP vehicles or vehicles with low armor repair rates. Missiles - A 'cluster' bomb like shotgun spread makes it a carpet bombing like pattern making it very deadly against large targets. Smaller targets can enjoy the lack of splash as these missiles are more kinetic kill vehicles instead of the standard explosive. The missiles will be the premier anti structure and anti large vehicle turret featuring mid ground on many attributes. Just note that all of these turrets will run dry real quick in comparison to their non av variant cousins this would allow counter vehicles to arm up and get to the field to face the armed vehicle while AV infantry can now provide cover for their vehicles. If they implement fully racial stuff, this should be on matari DPS and LAV/HAV. BTW i dont know from what you have that "BURST is historic" thingie, because gatling gun was levered and full auto depends on speed of lever and reload capabilities of group around weapon Just some you know matee boyo "Ultimate Loggi, Pirmatar and fabulous Tinker since 2012"
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17403	Posted - 2014.10.21 09:00:00 - [29] - Quote Would love racial vehicle parity. Would love racial vehicle turret parity. Would love some spare models in the client for whatever new crazy ideas we come up with to work as hot fixable item into the game. Would also love real roles for all vehicles. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3546	Posted - 2014.10.21 09:29:00 - [30] - Quote Horrendous anti-equipment capability? So why would I use this turret? Rail will be better for AV Missile will be better for infantry/equipment/general harassment It's effectively another attempt at the blaster turret. Which is terrible on dropships because their ranges don't synergise. I'll past thank you. I'd much rather have a rocket pod which fires in a simialr way to the large missile turret. High Direct Low AOE Good for AV/Anti-equipment roles. Burst damage style (hit n run) They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17409	Posted - 2014.10.21 17:42:00 - [31] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Horrendous anti-equipment capability? So why would I use this turret? Rail will be better for AV Missile will be better for infantry/equipment/general harassment It's effectively another attempt at the blaster turret. Which is terrible on dropships because their ranges don't synergise. I'll past thank you. I'd much rather have a rocket pod which fires in a simialr way to the large missile turret. High Direct Low AOE Good for AV/Anti-equipment roles. Burst damage style (hit n run) Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry splash and still remain effective AV. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Taurion Bruni D3ATH CARD RUST415 280	Posted - 2014.10.21 18:16:00 - [32] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Why dont we just let dropships of all kinds fit Large turrets? Of course that would be a good idea! Just think about it, an Incubus firing large rail rounds.... it would boost itself back after every shot. A python with a full rack of large missiles.... You know its a great idea The incubus would only be able to line up one shot at a time XD Python Pilot // Minmatar Assault Adapt or Die!
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 834	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:12:00 - [33] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. Equipment no longer has more health than scouts: off the top of my head they have around 30 - 50 HP which does not seem difficult to balance around... Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1422	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:30:00 - [34] - Quote So a burst blaster is essentially a GAU-8 Avenger? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17419	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:51:00 - [35] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: So a burst blaster is essentially a GAU-8 Avenger? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU AV Small blaster (more appropriately the autocannon if it ever comes out) would be very akin to that. The autocannon would emphasize range and coverage (hit area) while the blaster will focus on damage and precision (hit line) Low ammo reserves so after nailing a hav or popping a few lighter vehicles with it you have to rearm and reload at a supply depot. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17419	Posted - 2014.10.21 20:53:00 - [36] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. Equipment no longer has more health than scouts: off the top of my head they have around 30 - 50 HP which does not seem difficult to balance around... I was told it was around 200 when I complained about my lower level fluxes popping none of the equipment I threw it on >< I dont normally target intel the equipment as I am more focused on getting the red indicator as soon as possible. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Darth-Carbonite GIO Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 1003	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:06:00 - [37] - Quote Apothecary Za'ki wrote: Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote: Apothecary Za'ki wrote: dont blasters on an incubus already mince other ADS with longer range weapons? this just makes me feel that ads pilots are lazy and want to kill at both long and short range with the same weapon.. CHOOSE! long or short. They do not. Small blasters are useful for infantry, and not much else. And even for infantry they still struggle. small blasters on inf? i doubt it.. rails if you can aim.. missiles if you cant but can predict/track your targets.. blasters for air to air RAEP (granted its on the front as id expect rails or missiles on sides) You say "I doubt it". Have you even tried small blasters on an Incubus? Side and front guns? What about on an LAV? Go get some first hand knowledge, then come back and tell us everything is fine. The Incubus is Broken Judge Rhadamanthus is my Hero
DeadlyAztec11 Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 5520	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:25:00 - [38] - Quote Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. The AV creed, "We don't do it because it's easy; we do it because it's hard!"
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13721	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:35:00 - [39] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. Lore wise the HAV are suppose to anchor ground assaults and take down low flying vessels like MCC...... your point? "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17420	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:37:00 - [40] - Quote DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. They certainly swiss cheese the hell out of the preclone tech. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13722	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:43:00 - [41] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: DeadlyAztec11 wrote: Lore wise The HMG is meant to be able to cut through Dropships and LAV's with relative ease. They certainly swiss cheese the hell out of the preclone tech. No they don't. Lore wise the Swiss do not exist. As such no cheese is named after them. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 69	Posted - 2014.10.21 21:45:00 - [42] - Quote Love the discussion above. I hope CCP is reading. Thanks Iron Wolf Saber for your input. I like the new weapon you bring to the table. Now with all this very productive talk about Vehicules, why not adding more terrain to the maps, upping the # of players per battle, making larger buildings and new game modes? The resurrection of Dust514! Amarr Victor
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 17421	Posted - 2014.10.21 22:34:00 - [43] - Quote Isa Lucifer wrote: Love the discussion above. I hope CCP is reading. Thanks Iron Wolf Saber for your input. I like the new weapon you bring to the table. Now with all this very productive talk about Vehicules, why not adding more terrain to the maps, upping the # of players per battle, making larger buildings and new game modes? The resurrection of Dust514! # of players is ways off; new maps is a major unknown we'll have to wait and see. As for the variants the proposal is out I am exceptionally open on any quirks the three needs to feel different but needed and still focused on being good av but terrible ai. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 39	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:30:00 - [44] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. Debatable. I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz".
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13725	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:38:00 - [45] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: True Adamance wrote: Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Overall, vehicles with weaker base health, more module slots, more vehicle mods in general, and greater turret variation will be a more difficult but ultimately more balanced route to take- it might take a lot more up-front work, but in terms of nailing down the balance it will be well worth it and will absolutely be easier to maintain than the mess we have now. Debatable. I'd like to know what you consider debatable and why you consider it to be debatable. Since I'm not a serious tanker, and am a bad (and also poor) ADS/derpship pilot, I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I'll admit to being good at theorycrafting (until someone smarter than I am comes along, of course), but my practical experience- as far as vehicle go- is generally limited to "I'm new and bad at xyz". Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3547	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:40:00 - [46] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Horrendous anti-equipment capability? So why would I use this turret? Rail will be better for AV Missile will be better for infantry/equipment/general harassment It's effectively another attempt at the blaster turret. Which is terrible on dropships because their ranges don't synergise. I'll past thank you. I'd much rather have a rocket pod which fires in a simialr way to the large missile turret. High Direct Low AOE Good for AV/Anti-equipment roles. Burst damage style (hit n run) Problem is if its good for anti equipment its going to be too good for infantry. Equipment has a fair amount of HP and there is no way you can skew the damage effectiveness between infantry damage, equipment damage, splash and still remain effective AV without making it fair for infantry. I rather have standard launchers be the goto for anti equipment. As for making it fire like the large missile turret that is a good idea actually. You could Gû¬ Add a damage modifier against equipment Gû¬ Reduce equipment eHP They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 40	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:49:00 - [47] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down. I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out. Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2219	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:54:00 - [48] - Quote We already have one of these. It's called the blaster turret. But wait, the rate of fire was nerfed on the Incubus. Oh well Oh, and its aiming is a circle of prayers, rather than a certain strike zone. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2219	Posted - 2014.10.21 23:58:00 - [49] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: True Adamance wrote: Those certainly are solid suggestions but I do not see the fundamentals of HAV being resolve through variation of content. Personally as I see it a re-designation of roles and turret types will be required to shape the hull, I won't deny that the customisability of the old HAV needs to return and that modules will need to all contribute/ determine the HAV's capabilities...but in terms of "fixing" the class it need to have its design philosophy set out and that philosophy needs to be kept to. Okay, I see. In all honesty, the vehicles do need to have more solidly defined roles... but as odd as it seems, I almost feel like the player-per-match numbers need to be increased in order for us to really get vehicles nailed down. I'm sure that many people almost feel like previous balance iterations were built around certain mechanics or items being in-game that... well, weren't in-game. One of those mechanics, is, IMO, a higher player count. Even just increasing from 32 to 48 (from 16v16 to 24v24) seems like it would represent a fairly simple change, and an enormous effect on how matches play out. Of course, as IWS commented, increased players/match is pretty much off the table for now. Which makes me sad. 20 v 20 would be a good start. Even 18 v 18, two more per team. Keep squad size the same, but then that would be 3 six-man squads against my squad of up to 4 and then 14 randoms. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.