Fair point on the slot layouts for the HAVs.

I will say though that's a bit of a nerf for the Gallente though, I have some concerns about shaving off 200 shield and 600 armor off the current amounts considering current AV stats.

Also do you think we should have different skills for the racial vehicles if we're still re-using the Cal/Gal art assets and lack racial turrets? I fear it may cause confusion for a lot of players, particularly ones new to vehicles/AV.

Random indeed. Trusting me to come up with anything that makes sense is a fool's errand.

We've also got a discussion on Pilot suits somewhere else....don't have the link offhand.

Indeed. Lots of good minds out there, plus having AV involved in the design of vehicles is a great way to avoid power creep.

Sidebar: Thoughts on a Swarm Launcher variant that specifically does EM damage? +20/-20 profile.

Thoughts on LAV HP values?

As for Variants for HAVs, my thought is that the standard HAVs dont get any sort of bonus *much like dropships*

Specialized classes would essentially be Attack and Defense, or Enforcer and Marauder.

Enforcers would have less base HP but be considerably faster with bonuses for turrets.

Marauders would have more base HP but be considerably slower but with bonuses for racial defenses.

Now I think a slot change needs to happen for these variants, the question is what exactly.

If we had a capacitor system this would solve the problems with hardeners and reps. Cooldowns don't work because you can pop several and basically become invulnerable. With capacitors, you can have a sustained tank, or a burst tank with very short lifespan. It's more flexible.

Absolutely. One of the most annoying parts of Armor Tanking before passive reps was the fact that I could take 15% armor damage, and either leave it unrepaired, or pop my repairer to fix it, but then was in danger while I cooled down. With a soft duration/cooldown system I can turn it on for say 5 seconds, and then when I turn it off I only need to cool it down for 5 seconds worth of activation, rather than cool down for the full duration.

Make vehicle modules work like cloaks and so many issues just go away.

I'd like to see CCP Rattati use EVE frigates as the template for redesigning the vehicles. Figure out some fits for max skilled pilots and "convert" them to DUST equivalents for a max skilled vehicle user with a level 5 pilot suit. Work your way backwards from there. Use frigates, logi frigates, interceptors, assault frigates, etc to get an idea of slots, PG, CPU, capacitor amount, recharge amount, module fitting costs, etc.

EVE has been balancing this stuff for over a decade. It makes sense to use it as a starting place for an overhaul.

Honestly have not played with LAV fitting all that much, but fairly reasonable. We just don't want to run into unkillable LAVs again like we had with the LLAV. Lemme look at some fittings a bit more.



So 345 HP/s.....with what sort of downtime?

I always kind of run into this awkward paradox of what sort of tanking shield and armor should be in Dust. Shields recharge on their own albeit slowly, yet the modules it fits encourage a more bursty type of regen. So if shield is slow recharge but also bursty, where does Armor come in exactly? What sort of uptime/downtime ratio do you see for armor/shield regen mods and where do you see their relative regen ability?

Indeed. I'm mostly a shield tanker in EVE but most of the shield mechanics in Dust don't really apply to EVE so it's tough to even make a comparison.

I mean one defining factor that I've found is that Shield Tanks, while capable of more burst tanking through Boosters, are rarely cap stable without high end gear. So if we look at the whole capacitor style module system, we could say that shield regen modules have strong regen, but discharge much faster than they recharge. Armor regen modules are more moderate benefit, but are closer to a 1:1 charge/discharge ratio.

Oh absolutely, the Logi Lav times were atrocious.
I'm just thinking that they're a little too squishy with 3 slots and very little support capabilities. I'm thinking maybe the Caldari and Amarr could be more on the combat side while Gallente and Minmatar could be a bit more skirmish/support.

Hmmmmmm very valid point. While I would love a true Cap system, I'm wondering if that's reasonable within the development cycle. The reason I went with the Pseudo cloak system was because that mechanic is already programmed into the game, so it would be easier to implement.

I wonder if you could give it a sort of stacking penalty, in that equipping an armor repper would decrease the recharge rate of armor reppers. So having more than 1 means more downtime for both?

minmatar will always have balanced slots ALWAYS.

My thoughts on the matter. I don't pretend to know the numbers on tanks, so I'll let more capable people do that math. I do have a very good idea on how the turrets and vehicles should be designed, and their role on the battlefield.

TURRETS
Amarr Turret should be a sustained heavy laser, well suited to melting shields on tanks, LAV's and dropships. It needs to have a very slow turn speed to mitigate slaughtering infantry.

Minmatar Turret should be a pair of Autocannons in tandem, shooting large volumes of projectiles in a cone (Like the HMG) this cone is the opposite of the large blaster, and gets more accurate as you fire longer. It has the same profile as the CR and HMG, and is well suited to shredding armor tanks, LAV's and dropships. It has a decent turn speed, giving it a moderate ability to target infantry if allowed to spool up.

Amarr small turret should be similar to a buffed ScR, being a way to protect the tank from AV soldiers. It would function very similarly to a Rail Turret, although with a different damage profile.

Alternate Amarr small turret is a smaller version of the Main turret, made to sustain laser on targets to melt enemy targets.

Minmatar small turret is a mortar launcher. It has explosive damage profile and acts like a powerful mass driver with a small clip. It is designed to help the Minmatar tank in seige operations, as the turret is well suited to handling troops of footsoldiers. It has large impact damage as well, allowing it to help in AV operations against hardened targets.

Alternate Minmatar small turret is a mounted HMG, made to engage infantry and other Light Vehicles in combat at a decent range.

TANKS
Amarr tank is a behemoth. It's slow, with a huge armor tank and lots of lows for hardeners. It's made to break out of cover, harden and train that laser on something it needs dead. It's considered the "long range sustain" form of AV, being able to tank damage with repair until it gets primaried, in which it hardens and wheathers the onslaught.

It should get a class bonus to armor hardeners resistance, increasing the resistance and making them tough to take down while hardened.

Minmatar tank is a Lightning Bruiser. It has the lowest HP of all tanks, but is very fast, almost as fast as an LAV if running a fuel injector. It has a balanced slot layout and has slightly more shields than armor. It's versatility allows it to adapt to the battlefield, as it can run an armor base or shield base as needed. It's considered a "Medium Range Burst" form of AV, being able to engage and disengage quickly, using damage mods and fuel injectors to accomplish the task (Possibly with shield boosters or extra tank as needed).

It would get a class bonus to fuel injectors duration, allowing them to quickly traverse the battlefield as they engage or disengage

LAV's

Amarr LAV is an infantry support vehicle intended to quickly (figuretively) transport the slow amarrian troops to their destination. It is focused less on speed, and more on durability and infantry support. It would drive around with a high armor tank and harden if it encounters resistance. It would then drop off it's gunner and passenger and fall back a safe distance to support with turrets.

Class bonus would be to armor hardener duration, allowing them to safely traverse the battlefield in style.

Minmatar LAV is an infantry support vehicle meant to rapidly transport Minmatar to hot zones, and support them with Mortar turrets in order to breach entrenched positions (Such as those pesky amarr armor tankers). It would drive around at high speed, relying on it's manuverability and shield boosters to keep their shields up. So long as they keep moving, most AV should only have time to get 1 or two salvo's off if they are lucky. It would quickly get to the drop zone and have everyone but the gunner bail the LAV. The gunner stays in the turret to support, and hops out if the vehicle (or his safety) is in danger. To them, the LAV has served it's purpose, and they can call in another when they take the point.

Class bonus would be to fuel injector boost, allowing them to RAPIDLY traverse the battlefield (Think back to F1 tanks)

DROPSHIPS

I'm running out of room and time, but you get the picture. I'll throw in another post after I get home, Psych class is almost over.

What about an artillery large turret for the Minmatar HAV? It would work like a mini-orbial. There would be a significant minimum radius where it couldn't fire (maybe 50-100m), with a long max range, and very slow rate of fire. This would be perfect for clearing rooftop campers, but be incredibly vulnerable to someone getting in close.

My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret?

Fair enough, though for the purpose of this exercise we should probably focus on existing mechanics and assets.

So...going under the assumption that we wont be doing a drastic overhaul to turrets or how active modules work, let's move forward.

So Assume we add racial variants in, do you guys think we should have them share the same skills with the Caldari and Gallente since they have the same art assets? Or should they be completely different skills? My concerns with unique skills is that since we have limited turrets (and making turrent variants that actually work like the racial variants should is pretty hacky), I worry that the bonuses for the unique skills wouldn't be quite right, you know?

Some may disagree, but I don't think they should add new racial turrets if they don't have the art. It's just so hacky, and leads to confusion in a fight. You should be able to look at something and know what you're fighting, and not have to guess it could be one of two race's vehicles/turrets.

Whilst I agree that HAVs shouldn't be a primary anti-infantry role, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have tools to be anti-infantry...

HAV are primarily support vehicles that are currently filling multiple combat roles (that adding an MAV would help split up), these are Anti-Vehicle Supreme, HAVs represent the End-All-Be-All for directly merc-controlled AV through Anti-Material turrets (Luckily for the tankers, Mercs happen to be made out of material), while providing infantry suppression, and close-fire support (fire base HAV FTW).

If I where to design an Artillery Turret for the Mattari to use, I would focus on the SUPREMELY OMGWTFBBQ Alpha strike it has space-side, while combining it with more interesting mechanics. I would see it as a lobbed weapons...something with a large blast radius, but only a single round in the chamber, and a relatively long re-load timer...vehicles hit by the shell itself would take both Direct Damage and Splash Damage, with the Splash Damage being more effective against vehicles than infantry, but still effective enough to sent the scurrying for a solid roof over their heads...A direct hit would spell the doom of almost any but the most resilient armor tanked tanks, while shield tanks would still take damage, it obviously wouldn't be nearly as bad for them...

Blasters, autocannons, and pulse lasers would still be focused on anti-vehicle, but also still have utility in the IFV role (Tau ion cannons on hammerheads would be a good abstraction of what I'm talking about)

The Railgun should remain as the industrial strength sniper rifle...and should gain some of its range back

Missile Turret needs to actually shoot...I dunno...MISSILES? Or at least rename them to Rocket Launchers or Rocket Shotguns as I've taken to calling them.

Beam Turrets (Tachyon Beam Cannons?) Would be like giant Laser Rifles...Long-Ranged sweaping beam that focuses on DPS instead of Alpha Strike

Sidebar: Increase Laser Rifle Efficacy vs Vehicles as a band-aid for Shield AV and lack of Amarr AV?

I would clarify to say that *Large Turrets* are not Anti-Infantry, HAVs are not necessarily "Not Anti Personnel" it comes down to the turret, not the vehicle itself.


As for a full rework, absolutely. Is that right for the short to medium term for Dust? iffy. I think before we even start looking at that we need to get full racial parity for the vehicle frames *at the least* and reintroduce the specialty frames for all vehicles (ideally 2 per frame). Those sorts of changes are the most easily accessible right now and probably the biggest bang for the buck right now.

I think getting pilot suits properly sorted would be the next step.

After that comes the full rework of how vehicles work on a fundamental level.

@Adamance

I feel that tanks still need an Anti-Infantry role. I don't like removing them from the equation. They do need to be balanced in that regard though. They need to be dangerous to infantry, but not overly lethal, if you get my drift. There is a subtle distinction. More along the lines of "Leave cover and die" rather than "Accept your death, there is nothing you can do"

Please take everything with a grain of salt. I'm not a tanker, I'm a ground pounder.

I'm a huge battlefield vet, and the one thing I took away from that game was to treat vehicles with RESPECT when you were infantry. You didn't cower under the bed and hide, but you gave them the respect they deserved or you got killed. That doesn't exist in Dust. It's always been either "Lol a tank" or "OH SH*T A TANK" when it comes to anti-infantry tanks. This needs to be fixed.

Ok nerds, focus on basic hull stats before you talk bonusing.

One of the problems with,say current LAVs is their HP is concentrated on the hull so much that the actual fitting doesn't really matter. You can tank two PRO AV shots. Period. With fits or without.

Making the LAVs less bricky but able to achieve the exact same effect straight out of the gate with militia/std mods should absolutely be a thing. There currently is too much hull focus in DUST and as a result the CPU/PG only allows one viable fitting doctrine for each vehicle.

Address THAT before you address whether or not a hull should get +3%/level armor rep efficacy.

How do I know this? My alt, Blapathon Tanker is a madrugar driver that I use to test HAVs periodically. Yes I founded Grief University. Yes I use vehicles. No I don't do in-depth number crunching unless I have to. I focus on practical application reality over white-room theorycraft.

Don't ask me for advice on dropship stats. Im utterly incompetent flying them.

Gonna have to disagree.

I understand that's how it works in EVE, but honestly I think we need to make a push for more sidegrades rather than upgrades. I move under the assumption that the work done here will be reflected in Legion as well, and I think a general push to make a unit's effectiveness be dictated by the modules and not the hull itself, is a good goal to move towards.

Risk/Reward is great, but I'd rather see the real cost be in the modules, with the hulls being of similar price.

Well the general idea is that the Standard Hulls are more of a middle road and more flexible. Ideally you want to feel significantly stronger in one aspect and significantly weaker in another, when moving to a specialty hull. Enforcers are easier because you say "Well I can **** that tank up, but god damn if something looks at me the wrong way I'm gonna pop"

Marauders on the other hand are a little trickier since you need them to be tankier so more slots makes sense. But they need to feel slow and offensively weak.

Will people typically pick a specialty vehicle once they have them? Probably, its tailored to a specific playstyle. But I'd still like to make it so in some cases where even a veteran pilot will say "Hmm....a Standard HAV would be best in this situation because I need to be fairly quick but need more defense than an Enforcer" for example. Plus I really try to avoid balancing with ISK.

EDIT: I guess to clarify, I don't have an issue with Specialty Hulls being more expensive than Standard, those bonuses obviously have inherent advantages. I just don't want it to be like 5 times the cost like it was at one point, you know?

Good stuff guys, can I get your thoughts on the points I laid out? Particularly how to handle the slot layouts for the HAVs?

General Summary 11/16/2014

• Amarr/Gallente and Caldari/Minmatar to use same model with different coloring
• Amarr/Gallente and Caldari/Minmatar to use same slot layout to avoid excessive stacking of one rack in specialty HAVs (2/3 and 3/s)
• Undecided on how skill progression will work yet
• Marauders to have higher defense (may that be through bonuses, more slots, or both) and lower speed/acceleration.
• Leaning towards softer defensive bonuses like increased regen and hardener duration/cooldown. Harder bonuses still on the table though.
• Enforcers to have higher attack & mobility (may that be through bonuses, more slots, or both) and lower defenses.
• Specialty vehicles to have large downsides but generally be "better" than generalist vehicles. Price to be higher but not excessively larger than General vehicles
• Typically 10% difference between Minmatar > Gal/Cal > Amarr base HP values

Well would you rather we just not have any option because you're hung up on the lack of a model? Or would you prefer we get a working system in place and swap in the model when possible?

Well you're being overly stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I prefer to work within the confines of what is possible to achieve the best results,rather than refusing to do anything 'out of principle'