DUST Search - Requesting Community Help in Racial Vehicle Design

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Requesting Community Help in Racial Vehicle Design

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14580	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:32:00 - [91] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Risk/Reward is great, but I'd rather see the real cost be in the modules, with the hulls being of similar price. And I can't agree with that especially if under our suggestions those hulls have extra slot options and hull bonuses. I think it would be simply serving to put one foot ahead of a player market if that ever happens to come to pass. Regardless of what players want under that system those hulls will be perceived as more valuable and ....ARE more valuable.I'm not saying there should not be more value in the modules themselves but that does not mean the hulls have to be cheap as chips. If modules themselves are the cost of the fit then once a player hit a threshold of SP and enters into marauders why would they ever go back to standard fits? 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? No you are right on not wanting them to be 5x the costs I suggested 757,000 ISK per hull (mainly because that's a skill book cost) but because you are paying for one additional slots worth of utility and specific Hull Bonus (1-2). Back in the day paying for the extra 1-2% advantange over your opponent not knowing initially what they were using and knowing that if it came down to a slugging match that extra ISK ould be worth it was one of the best factors of Tanking. "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4976	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:33:00 - [92] - Quote Enforcers = vehicle killers. Marauders wade in and smash on infantry hard points. They are built to get hosed with AV and theoretically survive. And before anyone objects infantry in CQC are a tankers worst nightmare. Standard hulls are a mix of the two. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3494	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:43:00 - [93] - Quote Good stuff guys, can I get your thoughts on the points I laid out? Particularly how to handle the slot layouts for the HAVs? Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright so let's not get too deep into bonuses just yet. Just so we're on the same page here: Standard HAV -Moderate Speed -Moderate Defense -Moderate Base HP -Moderate Attack -3/2 or 2/3 slot layout Enforcer HAV -High Speed -Low Defense -Low Base HP (-15%?) -High Attack -2/2 layout? (-1 slot on main rack) Marauder HAV -Low Speed -High Defense -High Base HP (+15%?) -Moderate Attack (Should the be 'Low Attack'? And if so, how?) -4/2 or 2/4 slot layout (Or should we trade off rack for main rack with 4/1 or 1/4? Less Utility, More Defense 3/1 & 1/3?) Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14586	Posted - 2014.11.14 02:20:00 - [94] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Good stuff guys, can I get your thoughts on the points I laid out? Particularly how to handle the slot layouts for the HAVs? Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright so let's not get too deep into bonuses just yet. Just so we're on the same page here: Standard HAV -Moderate Speed -Moderate Defense -Moderate Base HP -Moderate Attack -3/2 or 2/3 slot layout Enforcer HAV -High Speed -Low Defense -Low Base HP (-15%?) -High Attack -2/2 layout? (-1 slot on main rack) Marauder HAV -Low Speed -High Defense -High Base HP (+15%?) -Moderate Attack (Should the be 'Low Attack'? And if so, how?) -4/2 or 2/4 slot layout (Or should we trade off rack for main rack with 4/1 or 1/4? Less Utility, More Defense 3/1 & 1/3?) I cannot see unless the bonuses for Enforces were static buffs per level to weapon damage modules of racial turret damage why you would ever buy a hull with one less slot than standard HAV. Though I understand that this is to keep their total EHP down. I don think an enforcer needs the -15% EHP modifier AND one less module slot. "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3500	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:37:00 - [95] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Good stuff guys, can I get your thoughts on the points I laid out? Particularly how to handle the slot layouts for the HAVs? Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright so let's not get too deep into bonuses just yet. Just so we're on the same page here: Standard HAV -Moderate Speed -Moderate Defense -Moderate Base HP -Moderate Attack -3/2 or 2/3 slot layout Enforcer HAV -High Speed -Low Defense -Low Base HP (-15%?) -High Attack -2/2 layout? (-1 slot on main rack) Marauder HAV -Low Speed -High Defense -High Base HP (+15%?) -Moderate Attack (Should the be 'Low Attack'? And if so, how?) -4/2 or 2/4 slot layout (Or should we trade off rack for main rack with 4/1 or 1/4? Less Utility, More Defense 3/1 & 1/3?) I cannot see unless the bonuses for Enforces were static buffs per level to weapon damage modules of racial turret damage why you would ever buy a hull with one less slot than standard HAV. Though I understand that this is to keep their total EHP down. I don think an enforcer needs the -15% EHP modifier AND one less module slot. Well if we reintroduce the 180mm plate, I want to make sure that people are not tossing that on to make up for the drop in HP and using the natural increased speed to offset the effects of the plate, essentially getting the same speed and HP as the standard HAV but with turret bonuses. But you have a point might be too much, I was just going off of the ADS model of -2 slots and lower HP. I guess it comes down to a matter of "How much will additional speed offset the drop in defense?" obviously HAVs and Dropships are not directly comparable, and HAVs and LAVs have more limited fitting options with only 5 and 3 slots respectfully. If you had to pick one, less HP or 1 less slot, which would you go with? I think it really comes down to a question of "Ideally, what should the ratio of Module HP compared to Hull HP?" If 75% of the HP of the fit comes from modules, dropping the base HP Is less meaningful. But if it's a more balanced ratio then that drop in Hull HP has more meaning. I think a lot of my uneasiness comes from armor tanking, in that if they are reduced to 2 slots, that basically means no plate since they need a repper and a hardener at a minimum. It's like I mentioned before, I feel like 3 slots is the bare minimum to put together a viable defense (particularly for armor tanks) and I worry that 2 slots on the main rack would overly gimp them. Glass cannon yes, but you also don't want them popping too easily. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
Isa Lucifer Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 91	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:56:00 - [96] - Quote Will look for some names and post them tommorow or Today at night for Amarr Vehicules. Amarr Victor
Vell0cet Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2551	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:16:00 - [97] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. So I decided to take a look at how EVE balances T1 frigs vs. T2 assault frigs. I decided to compare the Punisher with the Retribution. Both are pretty straightforward brawler ships and one is very much the upgraded version of the other if a bit slower. These arenGÇÖt blinged out fits by any means, and are built to be very tanky (no dmg mods), but still realistic, cheap T2, PvP combat fits. IGÇÖm sure I could have really bricked these out like crazy, but I wanted them to be functional as opposed to trying to establish the upper limit of EHP. The idea is to make these GÇ£HAV-likeGÇ¥ in philosophy with a focus on survivability at the expense of DPS. These were made using pyfa with max skills. We donGÇÖt have T2 modules, rigs, energy vamps, warp scramblers, damage controls and hull HPs in DUST, but I included these in the stats because weGÇÖre talking about the overall balance of realistically fitted ships. Quote: [Punisher, Punisher fit] 200mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Damage Control II Small Armor Repairer II 1MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S E5 Prototype Energy Vampire Small Anti-Kinetic Pump I Small Anti-Explosive Pump I Small Trimark Armor Pump I 4H, 2M, 4L (one utility high) 158.8 CPU 71.25 PG 101 DPS 6.82K EHP 65.6 EHP/s Armor reps 3.68 EHP/s Passive Shield reps 500 GJ capicitor 10.4 GJ/s (without Nos) lasts 1m30s 392 m/s speed without AB 951 m/s speed with AB Price: 547k Hull, 6.52M Fittings, 7.07M Total Quote: [Retribution, Retribution fit] 200mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Damage Control II Small Armor Repairer II Thermic Plating II 1MN Afterburner II Warp Scrambler II Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S E5 Prototype Energy Vampire Small Anti-EM Pump I Small Anti-Thermic Pump I 5H, 2M, 5L (one utility high) 175 CPU 70 PG 135 DPS 13.8K EHP 92.3 EHP/s Armor reps 4.33 EHP/s Passive Shield reps 547 GJ capacitor 9.72 GJ/s (without Nos) lasts 1m52s 316 m/s speed without AB 772 m/s speed with AB Price: 22.6M Hull, 6.8M Fittings, 29.5M Total Comparison So hear are the comparisons between the two. These are expressed as the difference as a percentage of the PunisherGÇÖs values (i.e. if something was twice as good it would be +100%): +1 high, +1 low +10.2% CPU -1.76% PG +33.7% DPS +102.3% EHP +40.7% EHP/s Armor reps +17.7% EHP/s Passive Shield reps +9.4% Capacitor size -6.5% Capacitor regen -19.4% m/s speed without AB -18.8% m/s speed with AB Price: +4,031.6% Hull, +4.3% Fittings, +317.3% Total I also wanted to look at the differences between the hull and the fittings to see how much each one plays a role in determining the EHP: Unfitted Punisher hull has 2.32K EHP, with fittings itGÇÖs 6.82K EHP so fittings increased the EHP by +194.0%, or you could say the fittings make up about 66% of the EHP of this fit. Unfitted Retribution hull has 5.52k EHP, with fittings itGÇÖs 13.8K EHP so fittings increased the EHP by +150%, or you could say the fittings make up about 60% of the EHP of this fit. Analysis Obviously we shouldnGÇÖt extrapolate too far just based on 2 ships and 2 fits. I do think itGÇÖs a good starting place though, and might be worth repeating with other hulls: Incursus vs. Enyo, Rifter vs. Jaguar, Merlin vs. Harpy as examples. I suspect the percentage changes will be roughly similar. So from this, we can see that the T2 version has roughly twice the EHP, much of that coming from the base resistances of the ships themselves and the extra slot in the low. Fittings make up 60-66 percent of the EHP Reps are about 40% better on the assault frigate using the same module because of resists. Fitting is only marginally better on the AF and even has a slight reduction to PG. The AF is considerably slower by roughly 20%. One interesting aspect is the pricing. The punisher is very cheap compared to the substantial costs to fit out with pretty standard T2 modules (nearly 12 times the price of the hull). On the flip side, the hull cost is enormous on the Redeemer relative to itGÇÖs T1 counterpart (over 41 times the price), and the fittings make up a substantially smaller percent as a result. If we were to apply the same percentages basing it on the price of the madruger hull, the price ratio is roughly 18% of the EVE price. So hereGÇÖs what the numbers would look like: madrugar hull: 97,500 ISK madrugar fittings: 1,173,600 ISK Total price of madrugar: 1,272,600 ISK Enforcer hull: 4,068,000 ISK Enforcer fittings: 1,224,000 ISK Total price of Enforcer: 5,310,000 Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3505	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:28:00 - [98] - Quote Interesting analysis, thanks for doing the legwork on that one. See this is where it's kinda weird. So in the EVE example, its +DEF +DPS -SPD (more or less) which is not in line with what we envisioned for Enforcers which is -DEF +DPS +SPD and then Marauders which would be +DEF -DPS -SPD. So It's difficult for me to really use that example as a basis of design since I think it's different on a fundamental level. Also that pricing @_@. Even if it is powered up, losing a Specialty HAV and knowing its going to take 15-20 matches to make up the cost Extremely excessive in comparison. That ratio needs to be much smaller if you ask me. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
Vell0cet Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2551	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:58:00 - [99] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting analysis, thanks for doing the legwork on that one. See this is where it's kinda weird. So in the EVE example, its +DEF +DPS -SPD (more or less) which is not in line with what we envisioned for Enforcers which is -DEF +DPS +SPD and then Marauders which would be +DEF -DPS -SPD. So It's difficult for me to really use that example as a basis of design since I think it's different on a fundamental level. Also that pricing @_@. Even if it is powered up, losing a Specialty HAV and knowing its going to take 15-20 matches to make up the cost Extremely excessive in comparison. That ratio needs to be much smaller if you ask me. I think I meant to say Marauder (dyslexic moment). I really don't have a problem with tankers having to grind in starter fits for hours to make up the cost. It's part of the risk/reward mechanic (linear power improvment for exponential costs), and it'll help suck some of the ISK out of the system from the days when PC was broken. On the flip side, the fittings would make up most of the cost on a standard HAV and also the EHP, so you could run cheap fits and do ok, but would need to be weary of pimped out HAVs coming to ruin your day. The thing that surprised me was how close the EHP values are to what we have in DUST. It might make sense to just use EVE's values for things and scale AV accordingly. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3506	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:01:00 - [100] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: The thing that surprised me was how close the EHP values are to what we have in DUST. It might make sense to just use EVE's values for things and scale AV accordingly. Wait you mean an actual method to overall design?! Such speak is nonsense to to the devs! Totally agree though, will give in depth response in a bit. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14687	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:25:00 - [101] - Quote Can someone give me and up to speed oh where we were on HAV discussion? "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3536	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:16:00 - [102] - Quote 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 Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14687	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:29:00 - [103] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 Okay I agree with all except the first point, mainly because its a half assed patch to the serious problem. As for the specialist hull deficiencies...those will have to be discussed in depth as some of the suggestions thus far have been a little over the top. "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3537	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:36:00 - [104] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 Okay I agree with all except the first point, mainly because its a half assed patch to the serious problem. As for the specialist hull deficiencies...those will have to be discussed in depth as some of the suggestions thus far have been a little over the top. 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? Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14687	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:55:00 - [105] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 Okay I agree with all except the first point, mainly because its a half assed patch to the serious problem. As for the specialist hull deficiencies...those will have to be discussed in depth as some of the suggestions thus far have been a little over the top. 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? The hull thing is more a matter of principle than anything else, and I see no issue in dicussing the theory behind these vehicles for balance sake, especially for what CAN be reintroduced such as the Sagaris, Surya, Falchion, Vayu, and old modules. However in practice I wholly believe we would see more frustration arising from the place holder model because I do not have confidence that they can be introduced in a technically sufficient manner if the art assets themselves cannot be developed after two years of game development. "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3537	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:57:00 - [106] - Quote 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' Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 14689	Posted - 2014.11.16 23:25:00 - [107] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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' Many things are possible but whether they should simply be accepted is something else entirely. I would love racial parity in this game for vehicles. It would be fantastic. However what do we think is the likely outcome of pushing for this? I am being stubborn in the hopes that CCP with Rattati's efforts, god knows he done wonders thus far, will galvanise them to take this seriously and do it right the first time. The worst thing we could see is a re-skinned blaster with a laser profile touted as a "Pulse Laser" or a Rail gun with explosive rounds professing to be "artillery". "HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGÇª. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this." -Kador Ouryon
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3538	Posted - 2014.11.16 23:55:00 - [108] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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' Many things are possible but whether they should simply be accepted is something else entirely. I would love racial parity in this game for vehicles. It would be fantastic. However what do we think is the likely outcome of pushing for this? I am being stubborn in the hopes that CCP with Rattati's efforts, god knows he done wonders thus far, will galvanise them to take this seriously and do it right the first time. The worst thing we could see is a re-skinned blaster with a laser profile touted as a "Pulse Laser" or a Rail gun with explosive rounds professing to be "artillery". EDIT: Gimme a couple of hours and I'm sure this malaise will break....and happy hopeful True Adamance will return. I think repurposing turrets is overly hacky. Variants sure, but I don't really want to see Railguns shooting lasers. Vehicles themselves though? Not as bad in my opinion. I get what you're saying, that if you're stubborn enough it'll push them to actually take the time, but the fact of the matter is that the choice to allocate resources to do something on that scale may not be up to Rattati, so being stubborn to him probably isn't going to pay off. I know you're bitter, as many are. But bitterness isn't going to really be productive so I do wish to keep it to a minimum. The fact of the matter is that I think we can get some solid content designed and pushed out. It wont be perfect and it won't be the perfect implementation with all the assets in place and whatnot....but it's something that adds to overall quality of the game withing the confines of what is possible. So it's not perfect, but we can still make the game better. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3549	Posted - 2014.11.21 21:19:00 - [109] - Quote Can I get some feedback or ideas for Dropships and LAV base HP/slot values? Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens Capital Punishment. 378	Posted - 2014.11.21 22:03:00 - [110] - Quote Well, probably not what you mentioned you need for this thread, but I was thinking the other day about vehicles, an idea occurred to me. Sure, I'm not a vehicle user, but often find myself thinking on what would be cool to have in Dust 514 I see this thread is more or less exploring variants on the same assets and same attributes already in game, what I'm thinking of could or could not work with what's at our disposal in terms of assets and mechanics, nonetheless, it's a vehicle idea. The idea involves dropships, could be a variant, could be racial, all the same. I had gotten out of a PC when it occurred to me, the FC was shouting that he didn't know what was happening on the field, that comms sucked, heh, usual stuff. Wouldn't it be nice for a tool the FC could use? in vehicle form? Arbiter class dropship (also I remembered the protoss for some weird reason) * No weapon slots * Long lasting Vehicle cloak, while cloaked can't be locked on by weapon targeting systems * High precision, long range passive scanners. * CRU unit Role: troop transport & recon, FC command unit. www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool

Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 13	Posted - 2014.11.22 20:25:00 - [111] - Quote My two cents, and then some from another post. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2475361#post2475361
Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 13	Posted - 2014.11.22 20:30:00 - [112] - Quote Hold it! ......cloaks on HAV's??!!! Guys we gotta know that after the cloak shotgun scout that most players won't listen to this?! Also, the way the cloak works would have no true affect on a tank for the forge and plasma cannon no way. This is directed strictly to swarms, and simply won't fly with the AV community?! Did I read that right??? Ok my mistake?! That's a dropship.... which is still absurd?!
Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 13	Posted - 2014.11.22 21:04:00 - [113] - Quote The original idea is great! The following ideas won't get pass the AV community though?! This imagined idea about an overall powerful battle changing god tank is absurd?! Tanks are traditionally very vulnerable, and serve only as support for troops on the ground. Let's start all the ideas for them there shall we. Support for ground troops come in many forms. Currently scanners and CRU's are the biggest asset offered next to large blaster turrets. Small blaster are helpful, but often take up too much CPU/PG to run. Also, CCP refuses to give us full control over the tank in the form of who is allowed in! I would run small turrets all day, but run the risk of a random stealing my tank that I brought to the fight. We can't lock ourselves into tank v tank so much that we forget the actual role for the tank in the first place. Currently bringing a railgun tank out means you're on the hunt for vehicles, and running defensively. Which is fine. However, bringing a blaster out means you're looking for infantry! This often leaves you vulnerable to missiles and railguns. Protecting yourself from other tanks is usually harder than necessary?! The idea that was passed around about the ability to call in turrets in locations was a good idea I feel. With gun turrets A.I. as it is this would give us more to shoot at, or protect on the battlefield. Also, giving ground troops more options for defending areas. What we mustn't be is afraid of a challenge. If all our ideas seem like they will give us insta-gib abilities they will be frowned upon. The tanks we suggest here must be vulnerable to AV too. Not just another 1.5 mil isk tank?! Adding too much shield and armor to base tank capabilities will cause a rising cry for more damage from AV players. If granted, the forge will be insta-gibbing sicas and somas, and the battle on the forums for balance begins anew?! We must use the small incremental system that rattati has been using to bring these vehicles back slightly unnoticed. They shouldn't have such an impact as the rail rifle and combat rifle. The community would go straight to the forums if proto amarr tanks were laser beaming troops in record numbers?! We have to keep the advanced and proto tank differences from the standard tanks so small that in the coming months after their release we could then talk about additions to them as they are not good enough. Instead of 30 new nerf threads because they are invincible. We already have this problem with dropsuits?! Proto means insta-gib in most cases?! It should instead give players a fighting edge at a higher cost, but has been making players addicted to running it as it has become the "I win button" for some?! We must avoid this behavior in tanks at all cost!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3574	Posted - 2014.11.23 05:55:00 - [114] - Quote I really have no idea what you just said sorry. But to be clear, nowhere did I mention Advanced or Prototype Tanks. That's not even on the table. Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.