| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3463
   |
Posted - 2014.11.11 19:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
I knew you would come, True Adamance 
But really need everyone's thoughts on this project. We need vehicles for all races, not just Gallente and Caldari. And while we may not be getting the art assets for them now/ever, we can still design variants that *perform* exactly how the racial version would. At the least we can re-use the existing Cal/Gal models and put on a paint job to make them rusty/gold plated.
I've set up a spreadsheet outlining what the current values are, as well as lined up some design parameters. So far I've only fiddled with potential slot layouts, so lets get some discussion going on that first. Then we can tackle base HP, and save PG/CPU for last.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mf8XDOBw6E-UUgvEYj1VpOsXidAR9RY5vYlYj_Ulyn0/edit?usp=sharing
Proposed Design Parameters
Caldari and Gallente are to have equal total HP but inverted Shield/Armor Values
Minmatar to have lowest total HP but highest speed
Amarr to have highest total HP but lowest speed
Caldari and Amarr slot layouts are to typically be inverses of each other
Minmatar to have equal highs and lows
In cases of an odd number of slots, Minmatar will favor High slots. Typically Inverse of Gallente in these cases
PG/CPU should encourage racial tanking type
Minmatar Armor and Shields are to be similar enough to facilitate Hybrid Tanking
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Terry Webber
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
489
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 05:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stats aren't exactly my thing but I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread to express my thoughts on other people's suggestions. |
Lynn Beck
Delta Vanguard 6
2207
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 06:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
For throwaround numbers try:
Min HAV- 2650 shield, 2325 armor, top speed(base gunnlogi) X 1.3, Acceleration(base gunnlogi) X 1.15
Am HAV- 800 shield, 6245 armor, top speed(base gunnlogi) X 0.9, Acceleration(base gunnlogi) X0.85 Special effect: Turret does not turn independently of hull, instead tank Hovers(if unique model, if not Null) and can strafe at X0.45 of forward motion.
Not sure on LAV/DS, might pull up calc later to make comparable throwarounds.
Note: As much as Amarr "Typically" go slower, there are some cases in which moving slower simply for "But 'tis Amarr" is not viable, one such instance might be the DS, as that is an insertion vehicle, and giving it sufficient tank to NOT be blapped instantly may/may not become OP.
Throwaround number for Amarr DS movement would be the old Eryx(Caldari Logistics DS), or for more modern analogue, Grimsnes with X0.97 top speed and X1.0 acceleration.
General John Ripper
-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.
This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14466
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 08:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Possible reservations but I must enquire now and make the statement that in many respects the current turrets and AV could not handle efficiently the Marauder suggestions I have in mind though all EHP that I am going values do remain under 10K EHP.
Suffice to say the key points I would address initially are
-Module Changes (IMO they need to happen if we are going to introduce HAV with 4 slots for their primary tanking type)
- Turret Changes
- HAV based EHP values.
Once posted I do await feed back, I want to be as reasonable as possible so that we do not have another 1.7 debacle nor are these new HAV subject to the broken mechanics and unsavoury depredations of Jihad LAV.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3468
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 15:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Kaeru Nayiri
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
158
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 18:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177911&find=unread |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3473
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 18:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kaeru Nayiri wrote:https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177911&find=unread
Mhmm looks like I already got the slot layout as you requested 
Lower eHP and high speed are of course a given for Minmatar.
Will be sure to push for MOAR FINS if we ever get art assets too 
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Kaeru Nayiri
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
160
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 18:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Kaeru Nayiri wrote:https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177911&find=unread Mhmm looks like I already got the slot layout as you requested Lower eHP and high speed are of course a given for Minmatar. Will be sure to push for MOAR FINS if we ever get art assets too
WOOOOOOOOO !!!
Wheel chair Uzzi duct tape rolling down the stairs HERE I COME !! |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14486
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
Looking at the EHP values overall is what I have done and there is no reason that any standard HAV should have a base 5200 EHP unless you are looking for a suggestion off an almost EHP maddy.
However what you are not taking into account with my suggestion is the return of 180mm plates.
Assuming the base 3400 Armour HP and the original 2750 Prototype Poly Crystallines
3400 + 2750 = 6150
3600 + 2750 = 6350
Basically another part of the whole proposal is to remove passive reps (they can die in a hole) and return to active rep HAV, and one issue I am trying to tackle is related to variation.
Plates could be a very real option pushed on by lower hull EHP
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3473
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: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. Looking at the EHP values overall is what I have done and there is no reason that any standard HAV should have a base 5200 EHP unless you are looking for a suggestion off an almost EHP maddy. However what you are not taking into account with my suggestion is the return of 180mm plates. Assuming the base 3400 Armour HP and the original 2750 Prototype Poly Crystallines 3400 + 2750 = 6150 3600 + 2750 = 6350 Basically another part of the whole proposal is to remove passive reps (they can die in a hole) and return to active rep HAV, and one issue I am trying to tackle is related to variation. Plates could be a very real option pushed on by lower hull EHP
That's fair, it puts more emphasis on the module than the base eHP.
As for reps, I want modules in general to operate on the same mechanics cloaks do. You activate them, they begin discharging, when you turn them off they start rercharging. Hard Durations and Cooldowns should die in a fire. Give each module it's own capacitor so to speak and operate them individually. Armor reppers simply discharge slowly, but are by no means passive.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4921
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Randomized crap.
I know nothing of vehicles except the best ways to murder them
While the Devs are silent I approve of this project and/or message!
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
3474
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Randomized crap. I know nothing of vehicles. While the Devs are silent I approve of this project and/or message!
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14487
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Randomized crap. I know nothing of vehicles. While the Devs are silent I approve of this project and/or message! 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.
Worth keeping Breakin' as an on call AV advisor, he seems to know at a glance what is and is not plausible for AV to take out.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4923
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Worth keeping Breakin' as an on call AV advisor, he seems to know at a glance what is and is not plausible for AV to take out.
It's a gift
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
3475
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14489
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
Sidebar: At best a band aid fix to lack of anti shield AV
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4924
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
needs more amarr laser
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
3475
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 19:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: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. Sidebar: At best a band aid fix to lack of anti shield AV
Lack of long range Anti-Shield AV. PLC does work up close.
Perhaps Laser Rifle variant that does increased vehicle and reduced infantry damage? Still a bandaid but can fill that anti shield AV role until a more proper asset is put into place.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2520
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 20:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: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. Sidebar: At best a band aid fix to lack of anti shield AV Lack of long range Anti-Shield AV. PLC does work up close. Perhaps Laser Rifle variant that does increased vehicle and reduced infantry damage? Still a bandaid but can fill that anti shield AV role until a more proper asset is put into place.
Heavy weapon with the forgegun's targeting reticule that hits out to 200 m. Make it a fat purple beam, that uses the same mechanics as a LR. Or you could give it a red beam and use the purple beam for the heavy beam HAV turret with an even longer range. Use the same audio as the LR, but drop it down an octave so it has a deep rumble to it.
Small pulse laser turrets would work like scrambler rifles. A charge function or rapid fire.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14496
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 20:56:00 -
[20] - Quote
Shall we refocus then on HAV Variants?
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3478
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 21:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shall we refocus then on HAV Variants?
Thoughts on LAV HP values in the spreadsheet?
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.
EDIT: +1 in main rack for Marauders to facilitate better defenses, +1 in off rack for Enforcers to facilitate more utility?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2520
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 21:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shall we refocus then on HAV Variants? 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.
The problem with this whole mess is we have so many missing pieces that it's hard to know the right sequence to fill them in.
Missing:
1. Capacitors - this is critical and the whole "Vehicle revamp 3.0" should be balanced around having them.
2. Old modules and vehicle variants
3. Pilot suits
4. Missing racial vehicles and turrets
5. Missing racial heavy weapons (I think most would agree the Amarr heavy weapon should be an AV Beam laser).
6. Fully fleshed out Ewar. Tracking disrupters, target painters, ECM (to break remote repping locks), webs, neuts etc.
In a perfect world, vehicles would be truly badass, and very expensive (with considerably worse budget versions available too). You would be able to change the outcome of a fight, but were always at risk of being "tackled," crippled with ewar and ultimately destroyed, like in EVE. You would always have to weigh the risk vs. reward of bringing something blinged-out to the field.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14502
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 21:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shall we refocus then on HAV Variants? 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.
Here are a couple of suggestions
Racial HAV, like any other racial vehicle could perhaps recieve bonuses, that are specified on and specific to their hull, to the following.
Racial HAV Command: Fitting Bonuses to racially appropriate module type in the region of between 1-2% per level.
Amarr : Plating
Gallente: Active Repairers
Caldari : Shield Extenders
Minmatar Shield Boosters
((Note: All races have fair and equal access to hardener units))
Racial Marauder Command: Bonuses to efficiency of module of a specific style of their tanking type in the region of between 2% dependant on module skill is applied to.
Amarr: Armour Hardeners (either duration or efficiency)
Gallente: Active Armour Repairers ( either duration or efficiency)
Caldari : Shield Hardeners ( either duration or efficiency)
Minmatar: Shields Boosters ( either duration or efficiency, and or module cycling times)
Enforcer Tanks could do something like
Racial HAV Command: Reduction to the fitting costs of Vehicle Turrets and Weapons modification modules
Amarr: Heat Sinks
Minmatar: Gyrostabilisers
Gallente/ Caldari: Magnetic Field Stabilisers
Caldari: Ballistic Control Systems
Racial Marauder Command: +X% Efficiency to Weapons Modification Modules or Static Y% to racial turret damage per level.
If we were to talk about giving standard Hulls bonuses it really should only be to something like Racial Turret fitting capacity so that on standard Hulls players are encouraged to experiment with the Vehicles racial style (without over powering or limiting them to specific fits) while also encouraging the mounting of Light turrets.
Militia HAV have no bonuses at all as they require no SP.
How do we feel about that?
TL;DR
Militia HAV - Gateway HAV units require no SP and have no outstanding characteristics
Standard HAV- Introduced players to specific racial play styles and offers them more slot options and an introduction to bonuses and general HAV roles.
Marauder HAV- Designed for increased endurance at the cost of speed.
Enforcer HAV- Designed for increased fire power at the cost of Durability
Black Ops - ( out of left field) designed for speed and utility at the cost of Endurance and Fire Power.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3478
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 22:15:00 -
[24] - Quote
Militia HAVs: No Bonuses - Totally fine with that
Standard HAVs (Frames): Racial Fitting Bonuses to encourage tanking type - Basically the same thing I suggested for Dropsuits in my "Teaching Without Tutorials" post. Totally fine with this as well. Would you apply these fitting bonuses to all HAVs or just the basic hulls?
Marauders: I get very wary of pushing eHP too high, so I typically shy away from hardener efficiency bonuses and try to focus more on recovery/regen or soft bonuses to hardeners. And as much as I LOVE active armor tanking, history has shown that excessive efficiency of armor repping can cause issues, so if we go with efficiency of regen mods it has to be done delicately. It's tough to say on this one because I REALLY want active modules on vehicles to behave like cloaks do with a soft duration and cooldown.
I think Hardener Duration for Caldari and Amarr is fair, though with a hard cooldown system, perhaps reduced cooldown would be better?
Efficiency of Armor Reps for Gallente is fine if approached carefully.
As for Minmatar....while I like our current Shield Boosters, they're really Ancillary Shield Boosters, and I'd like to make a differentiation between them and a more traditional shield booster. That being said I think Efficiency for those is also fine as long as its approached with caution.
So Caldari and Amarr can stay in a a fight longer. Gallente and Minmatar are more focused on quickly recovering for the next engagement.
Enforcers: Ok let me tackle your suggestions one at a time. I assume the listed racial bonuses apply to the specific module?
Heat Sinks: Clear choice, works well with 2 of the 3 turret types we currently have.
Gyrostabilizers: Unsure what you're going with on this one, how do you envision this translating to Dust?
Magnetic Field Stabilizer: Again I'm a little unsure of what you're aiming for on this one, or are these basically renames of existing turret-specific damage mods? THis would be Rails and Blasters yes?
BCU: I assume bonus to Missiles?
Ideally I'd like all of the bonuses to work with existing turrets, but also end up working with racial turrets if we ever get them.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2520
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 22:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Militia HAVs: No Bonuses - Totally fine with that
Standard HAVs (Frames): Racial Fitting Bonuses to encourage tanking type - Basically the same thing I suggested for Dropsuits in my "Teaching Without Tutorials" post. Totally fine with this as well. Would you apply these fitting bonuses to all HAVs or just the basic hulls?
Marauders: I get very wary of pushing eHP too high, so I typically shy away from hardener efficiency bonuses and try to focus more on recovery/regen or soft bonuses to hardeners. And as much as I LOVE active armor tanking, history has shown that excessive efficiency of armor repping can cause issues, so if we go with efficiency of regen mods it has to be done delicately. It's tough to say on this one because I REALLY want active modules on vehicles to behave like cloaks do with a soft duration and cooldown.
I think Hardener Duration for Caldari and Amarr is fair, though with a hard cooldown system, perhaps reduced cooldown would be better?
Efficiency of Armor Reps for Gallente is fine if approached carefully.
As for Minmatar....while I like our current Shield Boosters, they're really Ancillary Shield Boosters, and I'd like to make a differentiation between them and a more traditional shield booster. That being said I think Efficiency for those is also fine as long as its approached with caution.
So Caldari and Amarr can stay in a a fight longer. Gallente and Minmatar are more focused on quickly recovering for the next engagement.
Enforcers: Ok let me tackle your suggestions one at a time. I assume the listed racial bonuses apply to the specific module?
Heat Sinks: Clear choice, works well with 2 of the 3 turret types we currently have.
Gyrostabilizers: Unsure what you're going with on this one, how do you envision this translating to Dust?
Magnetic Field Stabilizer: Again I'm a little unsure of what you're aiming for on this one, or are these basically renames of existing turret-specific damage mods? THis would be Rails and Blasters yes?
BCU: I assume bonus to Missiles?
Ideally I'd like all of the bonuses to work with existing turrets, but also end up working with racial turrets if we ever get them.
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.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3478
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 22:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14507
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 22:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Militia HAVs: No Bonuses - Totally fine with that
Standard HAVs (Frames): Racial Fitting Bonuses to encourage tanking type - Basically the same thing I suggested for Dropsuits in my "Teaching Without Tutorials" post. Totally fine with this as well. Would you apply these fitting bonuses to all HAVs or just the basic hulls?
Marauders: I get very wary of pushing eHP too high, so I typically shy away from hardener efficiency bonuses and try to focus more on recovery/regen or soft bonuses to hardeners. And as much as I LOVE active armor tanking, history has shown that excessive efficiency of armor repping can cause issues, so if we go with efficiency of regen mods it has to be done delicately. It's tough to say on this one because I REALLY want active modules on vehicles to behave like cloaks do with a soft duration and cooldown.
I think Hardener Duration for Caldari and Amarr is fair, though with a hard cooldown system, perhaps reduced cooldown would be better?
Efficiency of Armor Reps for Gallente is fine if approached carefully.
As for Minmatar....while I like our current Shield Boosters, they're really Ancillary Shield Boosters, and I'd like to make a differentiation between them and a more traditional shield booster. That being said I think Efficiency for those is also fine as long as its approached with caution.
So Caldari and Amarr can stay in a a fight longer. Gallente and Minmatar are more focused on quickly recovering for the next engagement.
Enforcers: Ok let me tackle your suggestions one at a time. I assume the listed racial bonuses apply to the specific module?
Heat Sinks: Clear choice, works well with 2 of the 3 turret types we currently have.
Gyrostabilizers: Unsure what you're going with on this one, how do you envision this translating to Dust?
Magnetic Field Stabilizer: Again I'm a little unsure of what you're aiming for on this one, or are these basically renames of existing turret-specific damage mods? THis would be Rails and Blasters yes?
BCU: I assume bonus to Missiles?
Ideally I'd like all of the bonuses to work with existing turrets, but also end up working with racial turrets if we ever get them. 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.
Indeed.
The issue I've had while trying to suggest Marauder builds and what not is primarily due to the nature of cycling modules.
For example if the Amarr HAV 1x 180mm Plate, 2x Hardeners, 1x Active repper
Shields - 800
Armour - 4000
4000 + 2750= 6750 *1.25= 8437.5 * 1. 18 (for arguements sake) = 9956.25 n (Still sub 10K but that's before reps even apply when both hardeners go up)
To put that into perspective though
(Current) Gunnlogi fit 2x Complex Extenders, 1 x Hardener
Shield - 2650
Armour - 1500
2650 + 2(1325) = 5300 * 1.4 = 7120 + 1500 (assuming no plate) EHP = 8620 (a difference of 1336.5 rounded up to 1337 cause were pro skillzors)
(Suggested) Gunnlogi fit
Shield - 3000
Armour - 1100
3000 + 2(1325) = 5850 * 1.4 = 7910 + 1100 Shields (assuming no plate) EHP = 9010
Difficulty here is that statistically there is not much EHP disparity between our standard and Marauders...just more utility which directly translates to survivability if used well.
I wish to keep all my suggestions sub 10K EHP for the same of AV balance.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14507
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 22:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
As for shield boosters I was considering submitting an idea for a Double Pulse Booster.
Current boosters give you 1900 Shield HP instantly.
What if Ancillary Shield Boosters applied 1200 in one pulse and another 1200 between 4-6 seconds later?
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2521
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
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.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:02:00 -
[30] - Quote
So for Marauders you're suggesting +1 to Main Rack and for Enforcers +1 to Off-Rack? Just to clarify.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:As for shield boosters I was considering submitting an idea for a Double Pulse Booster.
Current boosters give you 1900 Shield HP instantly.
What if Ancillary Shield Boosters applied 1200 in one pulse and another 1200 between 4-6 seconds later?
Well That's kinda what I was hoping to see with Boosters in general, some of a single pulse, others are less per pulse but drawn out over a few pulses. It's still very bursty and prone to exceptionally long cooldowns, where Armor Reppers are a slow burn but with relativity short recharge.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14507
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:05:00 -
[32] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:
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.
They would have to be shorter durations module then to prevent exploitation.
I love the idea of being able to pulse my Armour Reps as my module recovers it charge over time, but if we start looking at stacked modules like Hardeners and Reps we run into trouble. If they are activated simultaneously in conjunction with other modules.
For example
Heavy Efficient Armour Repairer
Per Pulse 414 Armour
3 section pulse intervals
max 5 pulses
Total HP recovered = 2070 over 15 seconds
2070* 2= 4140 over 15 seconds
4140* 1.25 = 5175 EHP recovered over 15 seconds.
If that is the case then we need to also sit down with CCP to discuss every module, its implications, its fitting costs relevant to how they want them used, and all the OP possibilities like the ones I suggested.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Spademan
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4471
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:10:00 -
[33] - Quote
Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack?
I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special.
Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14507
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote: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.
Interesting concept (kind of what I've been trying to do) when I've been working out fits for balancing, though then I break them down into ways I could exploit them using he established mechanics.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:20:00 -
[35] - Quote
Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack?
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.
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:
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. They would have to be shorter durations module then to prevent exploitation. I love the idea of being able to pulse my Armour Reps as my module recovers it charge over time, but if we start looking at stacked modules like Hardeners and Reps we run into trouble. If they are activated simultaneously in conjunction with other modules. For example Heavy Efficient Armour Repairer Per Pulse 414 Armour 3 section pulse intervals max 5 pulses Total HP recovered = 2070 over 15 seconds 2070* 2= 4140 over 15 seconds 4140* 1.25 = 5175 EHP recovered over 15 seconds. If that is the case then we need to also sit down with CCP to discuss every module, its implications, its fitting costs relevant to how they want them used, and all the OP possibilities like the ones I suggested.
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?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14508
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack? 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. True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:
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. They would have to be shorter durations module then to prevent exploitation. I love the idea of being able to pulse my Armour Reps as my module recovers it charge over time, but if we start looking at stacked modules like Hardeners and Reps we run into trouble. If they are activated simultaneously in conjunction with other modules. For example Heavy Efficient Armour Repairer Per Pulse 414 Armour 3 section pulse intervals max 5 pulses Total HP recovered = 2070 over 15 seconds 2070* 2= 4140 over 15 seconds 4140* 1.25 = 5175 EHP recovered over 15 seconds. If that is the case then we need to also sit down with CCP to discuss every module, its implications, its fitting costs relevant to how they want them used, and all the OP possibilities like the ones I suggested. 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?
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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.
EDIT: I'd like to get this designed and rolled in with Racial Variations. Honestly I would prefer to get the Racial variants finished and rework modules for the first phase. Then pull in Pilot suits and Specialty Vehicles for the secondary phase.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14508
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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.
Fair suggestion which I suppose is partly why Shield Modules are burst effects and shorter in duration than armour in Dust 514 given Capacitor is not possible.
So if we assume Shield Boosters for example pulsed 3 times over activations for roughly 633 HP a pulse over a 12 second duration ( roughly 1900) while Armour pulses for 414 5 times over 15 seconds (2070) roughly fair once we start equating shield and armour values on vehicles.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Spademan
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4472
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack? 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.
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.
I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special.
Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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. Fair suggestion which I suppose is partly why Shield Modules are burst effects and shorter in duration than armour in Dust 514 given Capacitor is not possible. E.G- So if we assume Shield Boosters for example pulsed 3 times over activation for roughly 633 HP a pulse over a 12 second duration ( roughly 1900) while Armour pulses for 414 5 times over 15 seconds (2070) roughly fair once we start equating shield and armour values on vehicles.
Which is basically what we had before haha. Now the question is what about shield passive recharge, because that's a factor as well. If its too high then armor tanking is pointless because the recharge is basically the same as an armor rep, but better. But if its too low then you basically have a meaningless mechanic because the recharge is too low to matter.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14508
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
Spademan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack? 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. 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.
I can't speak for LAV, and defer to your suggestions, but shouldn't they all be skirmishy?
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2521
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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. EDIT: I'd like to get this designed and rolled in with Racial Variations. Honestly I would prefer to get the Racial variants finished and rework modules for the first phase. Then pull in Pilot suits and Specialty Vehicles for the secondary phase.
The problem here is if we don't have capacitors, a tripple armor rep tank would be devastating since it abuses the fact that each repper basically has it's own "cap pool." That's part of why I think we need a real capacitor system in place as part of the overhaul.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:43:00 -
[43] - Quote
Spademan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack? 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. 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.
Actually an extra off slot would help in another idea I had for LAVs, so I can't complain.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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. EDIT: I'd like to get this designed and rolled in with Racial Variations. Honestly I would prefer to get the Racial variants finished and rework modules for the first phase. Then pull in Pilot suits and Specialty Vehicles for the secondary phase. The problem here is if we don't have capacitors, a tripple armor rep tank would be devastating since it abuses the fact that each repper basically has it's own " cap pool." That's part of why I think we need a real capacitor system in place as part of the overhaul.
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?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Spademan
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4474
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:48:00 -
[45] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spademan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spademan wrote:Would it be terrible for all Lav's to get +1 slot in their off-rack? 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. 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. I can't speak for LAV, and defer to your suggestions, but shouldn't they all be skirmishy?
Certainly, but Minmatar and Gallente more so.
I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special.
Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2521
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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. EDIT: I'd like to get this designed and rolled in with Racial Variations. Honestly I would prefer to get the Racial variants finished and rework modules for the first phase. Then pull in Pilot suits and Specialty Vehicles for the secondary phase. The problem here is if we don't have capacitors, a tripple armor rep tank would be devastating since it abuses the fact that each repper basically has it's own " cap pool." That's part of why I think we need a real capacitor system in place as part of the overhaul. 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?
If they're going to have to code all of that, it would just make more sense to implement a real cap system. CCP could just cut/paste the code from the stamina system as a starting place. I think it would be really hard to rebalance around a pseudo cap system and then try to shoehorn a real cap system in later. It would probably never happen because it would be too much work.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14508
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
That's a really tough.
In EVE both regenerate in almost the same manner....just pulses, though Shields do get constant small regeneration....
On a scale of down times?
Not sure to be honest. Is all this being compiled into one larger presentation? If so perhaps we should agree on what mechanics, module values, etc we are going to work off first and make suggestions from there.
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. EDIT: I'd like to get this designed and rolled in with Racial Variations. Honestly I would prefer to get the Racial variants finished and rework modules for the first phase. Then pull in Pilot suits and Specialty Vehicles for the secondary phase. The problem here is if we don't have capacitors, a tripple armor rep tank would be devastating since it abuses the fact that each repper basically has it's own " cap pool." That's part of why I think we need a real capacitor system in place as part of the overhaul. 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?
I hate artificially limiting things in this manner but what if one active module cancelled the effects of another module of the same type, preventing double stacked reppers or hardeners?
Though it seems like a poor idea to me.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3483
|
Posted - 2014.11.12 23:57:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ehhh no because I think you should be able to double stack if you want.
A real cap system is the best way to do it, it's just I really fear it'll never happen and Im concerned with putting a ton of work with the assumption of a cap system and have it be all for naught.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Apothecary Za'ki
Biomass Positive
1830
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:01:00 -
[49] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I knew you would come, True Adamance But really need everyone's thoughts on this project. We need vehicles for all races, not just Gallente and Caldari. And while we may not be getting the art assets for them now/ever, we can still design variants that *perform* exactly how the racial version would. At the least we can re-use the existing Cal/Gal models and put on a paint job to make them rusty/gold plated. I've set up a spreadsheet outlining what the current values are, as well as lined up some design parameters. So far I've only fiddled with potential slot layouts, so lets get some discussion going on that first. Then we can tackle base HP, and save PG/CPU for last. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mf8XDOBw6E-UUgvEYj1VpOsXidAR9RY5vYlYj_Ulyn0/edit?usp=sharingProposed Design Parameters Caldari and Gallente are to have equal total HP but inverted Shield/Armor Values Minmatar to have lowest total HP but highest speed Amarr to have highest total HP but lowest speed Caldari and Amarr slot layouts are to typically be inverses of each other Minmatar to have equal highs and lows In cases of an odd number of slots, Minmatar will favor High slots. Typically Inverse of Gallente in these cases PG/CPU should encourage racial tanking type Minmatar Armor and Shields are to be similar enough to facilitate Hybrid Tanking
minmatar will always have balanced slots ALWAYS.
[[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
All Hail our Lord and Savior CCP RATTATTI o7
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3484
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:I knew you would come, True Adamance But really need everyone's thoughts on this project. We need vehicles for all races, not just Gallente and Caldari. And while we may not be getting the art assets for them now/ever, we can still design variants that *perform* exactly how the racial version would. At the least we can re-use the existing Cal/Gal models and put on a paint job to make them rusty/gold plated. I've set up a spreadsheet outlining what the current values are, as well as lined up some design parameters. So far I've only fiddled with potential slot layouts, so lets get some discussion going on that first. Then we can tackle base HP, and save PG/CPU for last. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mf8XDOBw6E-UUgvEYj1VpOsXidAR9RY5vYlYj_Ulyn0/edit?usp=sharingProposed Design Parameters Caldari and Gallente are to have equal total HP but inverted Shield/Armor Values Minmatar to have lowest total HP but highest speed Amarr to have highest total HP but lowest speed Caldari and Amarr slot layouts are to typically be inverses of each other Minmatar to have equal highs and lows In cases of an odd number of slots, Minmatar will favor High slots. Typically Inverse of Gallente in these cases PG/CPU should encourage racial tanking type Minmatar Armor and Shields are to be similar enough to facilitate Hybrid Tanking minmatar will always have balanced slots ALWAYS.
Well unless other units have an odd number, unless you prefer they have less total slots to maintain the balance of highs and lows?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14514
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:11:00 -
[51] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:I knew you would come, True Adamance But really need everyone's thoughts on this project. We need vehicles for all races, not just Gallente and Caldari. And while we may not be getting the art assets for them now/ever, we can still design variants that *perform* exactly how the racial version would. At the least we can re-use the existing Cal/Gal models and put on a paint job to make them rusty/gold plated. I've set up a spreadsheet outlining what the current values are, as well as lined up some design parameters. So far I've only fiddled with potential slot layouts, so lets get some discussion going on that first. Then we can tackle base HP, and save PG/CPU for last. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mf8XDOBw6E-UUgvEYj1VpOsXidAR9RY5vYlYj_Ulyn0/edit?usp=sharingProposed Design Parameters Caldari and Gallente are to have equal total HP but inverted Shield/Armor Values Minmatar to have lowest total HP but highest speed Amarr to have highest total HP but lowest speed Caldari and Amarr slot layouts are to typically be inverses of each other Minmatar to have equal highs and lows In cases of an odd number of slots, Minmatar will favor High slots. Typically Inverse of Gallente in these cases PG/CPU should encourage racial tanking type Minmatar Armor and Shields are to be similar enough to facilitate Hybrid Tanking minmatar will always have balanced slots ALWAYS.
They cannot have equivalent slot allocations and remain balanced therefore as primary shield tankers Minmatar should have access to extra high slots.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3485
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:13:00 -
[52] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:I knew you would come, True Adamance But really need everyone's thoughts on this project. We need vehicles for all races, not just Gallente and Caldari. And while we may not be getting the art assets for them now/ever, we can still design variants that *perform* exactly how the racial version would. At the least we can re-use the existing Cal/Gal models and put on a paint job to make them rusty/gold plated. I've set up a spreadsheet outlining what the current values are, as well as lined up some design parameters. So far I've only fiddled with potential slot layouts, so lets get some discussion going on that first. Then we can tackle base HP, and save PG/CPU for last. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mf8XDOBw6E-UUgvEYj1VpOsXidAR9RY5vYlYj_Ulyn0/edit?usp=sharingProposed Design Parameters Caldari and Gallente are to have equal total HP but inverted Shield/Armor Values Minmatar to have lowest total HP but highest speed Amarr to have highest total HP but lowest speed Caldari and Amarr slot layouts are to typically be inverses of each other Minmatar to have equal highs and lows In cases of an odd number of slots, Minmatar will favor High slots. Typically Inverse of Gallente in these cases PG/CPU should encourage racial tanking type Minmatar Armor and Shields are to be similar enough to facilitate Hybrid Tanking minmatar will always have balanced slots ALWAYS. They cannot have equivalent slot allocations and remain balanced therefore as primary shield tankers Minmatar should have access to extra high slots.
Yep. Like Sentinels.
In the case of Dropships which have 6 slots, Minmatar can do 3/3. But for HAVs which have 5, they'll favor Highs at 3/2
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Spademan
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
4474
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
I noticed in the HAV section of the spreadsheet the Amarr slots are listed as 1/3
A typo I presume? Considering the rest have 5.
I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special.
Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
|
Ghost Kaisar
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
7675
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:40:00 -
[54] - Quote
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.
Bullet Hell and Duct-Tape? Count me in!
FA recruits get free officer BPO's. Enlist today. Must be a scrub to enter.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14515
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:52:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote: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.
Two primary things.
I'd love to make an Amarr HAV with 1/4 distribution or 1/5 distribution but on a standard HAV (first distribution) and even on a Marauder (1/5) it would be too powerful and fundamentally invincible with grossly high EHP values in excess of a possible 12K EHP.
Standardised 2/3 and 2/4 is necessary to keep it in line.
Secondly check out Artillery Turrets. I seek a significant over haul of large turrets with the intent to push them away from anti infantry capacity (aka Large Blaster dies in a fire) and into high direct damage fire AV.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2526
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 00:52:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote: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.
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.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14516
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:07:00 -
[57] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Ghost Kaisar wrote: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. 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.
Please Velocet look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgYXup2k4B8
7:25 onwards. How that's alpha.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2527
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Ghost Kaisar wrote: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. 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. Please Velocet look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgYXup2k4B87:25 onwards. How that's alpha.
Lol. Yeah, pretty vicious.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3486
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:23:00 -
[59] - Quote
My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2527
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:36:00 -
[60] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret?
Well I don't think an arty turret should oneshot other tanks. The big difference is the range and mechanics. I picture the arty pointing between 45 degrees and something like 80 degrees creating a "donut" of attackable area around the tank.
I also like to see our current missiles renamed to rockets, and eventually add missiles that locked onto targets like swarms. This is more of a Legion thing though, but I think it would be cool to move towards this direction. These missiles would have long lock times though (shorter if the target was painted with a target painter) and could be interrupted with ECM. I picture these playing an important role in anti-air once we get fighters, heavy aircraft, etc.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14524
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:51:00 -
[61] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret?
Well firstly Missiles is an incorrect term. They are Rockets.
Heck if we every get round to it I should explain my lock on Missile Turret.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3486
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret? Well I don't think an arty turret should oneshot other tanks. The big difference is the range and mechanics. I picture the arty pointing between 45 degrees and something like 80 degrees creating a "donut" of attackable area around the tank. I also like to see our current missiles renamed to rockets, and eventually add missiles that locked onto targets like swarms. This is more of a Legion thing though, but I think it would be cool to move towards this direction. These missiles would have long lock times though (shorter if the target was painted with a target painter) and could be interrupted with ECM. I picture these playing an important role in anti-air once we get fighters, heavy aircraft, etc.
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?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14525
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret? Well I don't think an arty turret should oneshot other tanks. The big difference is the range and mechanics. I picture the arty pointing between 45 degrees and something like 80 degrees creating a "donut" of attackable area around the tank. I also like to see our current missiles renamed to rockets, and eventually add missiles that locked onto targets like swarms. This is more of a Legion thing though, but I think it would be cool to move towards this direction. These missiles would have long lock times though (shorter if the target was painted with a target painter) and could be interrupted with ECM. I picture these playing an important role in anti-air once we get fighters, heavy aircraft, etc. 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?
Perhaps there are no racially specfic unique skills other than simple Operation.
E.G
Gallente HAV Operation
Caldari Marauder Operation
Minmatar Enforcer Operation
The skills themselves providing no statistic enhancing benefits however applying the Hull Benefits of the Vehicles themselves as vessels in EVE do.
Except unlike T2 variants in EVE we are not using static role bonuses.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2529
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:01:00 -
[64] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret? Well I don't think an arty turret should oneshot other tanks. The big difference is the range and mechanics. I picture the arty pointing between 45 degrees and something like 80 degrees creating a "donut" of attackable area around the tank. I also like to see our current missiles renamed to rockets, and eventually add missiles that locked onto targets like swarms. This is more of a Legion thing though, but I think it would be cool to move towards this direction. These missiles would have long lock times though (shorter if the target was painted with a target painter) and could be interrupted with ECM. I picture these playing an important role in anti-air once we get fighters, heavy aircraft, etc. 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.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Imp Smash
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
Obviously the Minmatar LAV should be a Hoverboard with a turret on the front... |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14525
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:15:00 -
[66] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:
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.
Indeed. If its going to be done it should be done right.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
84
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:25:00 -
[67] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Secondly check out Artillery Turrets. I seek a significant over haul of large turrets with the intent to push them away from anti infantry capacity (aka Large Blaster dies in a fire) and into high direct damage fire AV.
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?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14532
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 02:58:00 -
[68] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Secondly check out Artillery Turrets. I seek a significant over haul of large turrets with the intent to push them away from anti infantry capacity (aka Large Blaster dies in a fire) and into high direct damage fire AV.
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?
Of course you are right.
I simply mean that turret sizes need to be designed for the role than they are indended to logically fulfil.
I challenge the notion that HAV are merely there to "support infantry" and instead suggest that they themselves have their own tactical role kept in mind while they undergo redevelopment.
This role being
- The delivery of Massive Ordinance against heavily entrenched positions and ground based vehicles.
Which means Blasters as they are now (.50 Calibre Machine Guns) need to die a horrific death in fire and much screaming.
I also personally over Tachyon's (cause I can't fit them in EVE" prefer Focused Anode Particle Streams for that extra hint of class. 
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
86
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 03:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Secondly check out Artillery Turrets. I seek a significant over haul of large turrets with the intent to push them away from anti infantry capacity (aka Large Blaster dies in a fire) and into high direct damage fire AV.
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? Of course you are right. I simply mean that turret sizes need to be designed for the role than they are indended to logically fulfil. I challenge the notion that HAV are merely there to "support infantry" and instead suggest that they themselves have their own tactical role kept in mind while they undergo redevelopment. This role being - The delivery of Massive Ordinance against heavily entrenched positions and ground based vehicles. Which means Blasters as they are now (.50 Calibre Machine Guns) need to die a horrific death in fire and much screaming. I also personally over Tachyon's (cause I can't fit them in EVE" prefer Focused Anode Particle Streams for that extra hint of class.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that infantry support was their only role (although in this game, even heavy ordinance is technically a support role)...rather trying to emphasize that it is the best vehicle we currently have for that role, and that role shouldn't be forgotten about
and Tachs are very useful...and relatively easy to fit on the Oracle, Paladin, and Nightmare...SOE Mission running Paladin...because dodging gankers can be fun
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3487
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 03:21:00 -
[70] - Quote
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14533
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 03:25:00 -
[71] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
Do you like my base HAV EHP suggestions? Think they are fair in their allocations given the concerns we voiced earlier in the thread?
Are they worth working off for a parity's sake?
Amarr - 4800 EHP
Gallente - 4400 EHP
Caldari - 4200-4300 EHP
Minmatar 4000-4100 EHP
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3487
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 03:29:00 -
[72] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: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. Do you like my base HAV EHP suggestions? Think they are fair in their allocations given the concerns we voiced earlier in the thread? Are they worth working off for a parity's sake? Amarr - 4800 EHP Gallente - 4400 EHP Caldari - 4200-4300 EHP Minmatar 4000-4100 EHP
Its about 10% spread between each which I think is reasonable, I assume you did that intentionally. So yeah I think at the very least its a good starting point, it's in line with current HP values with tweaks and a reasonable spread between each race.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Ghost Kaisar
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
7682
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 05:50:00 -
[73] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Ghost Kaisar wrote: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. 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.
IF I was designing it all, all turrets would have two variants, one made for long range alpha and the other for short-mid sustain damage.
For example:
Minmatar gets the Large Autocannon turret and the Heavy Artillery
Gallente gets the Large Blaster and a Plasma Mortar
Amarr gets the Heavy Scrambler and Laser Lance
Caldari gets the Large Missile Launcher and Large Railgun
Minmatar gets the Small Autocannon and Mortar Launcher
Gallente gets the Small Blaster and Mounted Plasma Cannon
Amarr gets the Small Scrambler and Mounted Laser Rifle
Caldari gets the Small Railgun and Small Missile Launcher
Mix and match on each vehicle as you see fit.
I would love for the Heavy Artillery to hit like a truck, but I feel like it would be better as a projectile with VERY large alpha, but bullet drop and dealing explosive damage + Minor Splash (Like 100-200 in a 5m radius). Like the main cannon shells in Battlefield.
It would also reload in between shots.
I would also increase the splash radius on the Large Missile and give it around 24 missiles a clip, with a lower rate of fire and less damage to compensate. To make it fall in line with the Short-Mid sustain damage, and to help with infantry suppression.
@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.
Bullet Hell and Duct-Tape? Count me in!
FA recruits get free officer BPO's. Enlist today. Must be a scrub to enter.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14549
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 10:51:00 -
[74] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:
@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.
Indeed. This is a common misconception regarding my suggestions that people get, perhaps because I do not explain it fully.
I do whole heartedly believe that while HAV main guns should be designed and balanced around engaging other ground vehicles and objectives with high HP values the turrets themselves should convey a sense of power.
While my primary suggestion is to make most if not all turrets high alpha weapons with slow fire, tracking, and reload timers I believe that HAV pilots should have the capacity to skill shot infantry with the AoE explosion from their rounds.
Though if this sort of rebalance is to come about, especially with the old modules and the relatively higher EHP values, AV needs some room in which to operate effectively, this being why I suggest making it difficult to engage multiple units and or fast infantry units with large turrets and want to push HAV pilots to include Small Turret options designed for anti infantry work on their machines.
E.G- I often use Missile Gunnlogi, with 2x Particle Cannon. When one infantry man is difficult for the missiles to hit or too fast I immediately switch to a small turret to engage them efficiently or I request one of my manned gunners to engage them by describing their location.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4932
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 11:09:00 -
[75] - Quote
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.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14551
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 11:48:00 -
[76] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
Fair point.
If LAV are to have emphasis put on their fittings does it mean the hulls themselves need significant cut backs on shield and armour allocation to reflect the throwaway nature of MLT variants (and BPO)?
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4934
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 12:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
No Adamance. In order for fitrings to matter on ANY vehicle they need less Hull HP and a boat ton more PG/cpu across the board.
The reason that vehicles went to crap was when CCP stripped the fitting capacity and substituted higher hull HP and innate (undocumented except in one set of patch notes) resists to hulls.
You can get sagaris level TTK on a gunnlogi currently but only if you're willing to use the large missile turret. A crappy one.
You cannot do the same on a madrugar because goddamn fitting restrictions and blasters.
Strip hull HP/resists and spike FITTING. That was why marauders and STD tanks were badass in chromosome. They were fit-centric, NOT hull-centric.
This was also the reason enforcers utterly failed at living up to the glass cannon motif. Because the lack of fitting options and hull-centric builds enforced a certain type of EHP fit.
That one decision to make the hulls the central focus is why we have so much one-true-build BS.
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
3488
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 15:42:00 -
[78] - Quote
Well and a large part of that buff in Hull HP was due to the fact that the fitting got castrated. All HAVs lost 2 of their 7-8 slots, I know LAVs and Dropships got hit too. To me it looks like they were trying to open up for ADV and PRO vehicles by taking slots away just to add them back in, back in for higher tiers, but that obviously never happened.
That being said, do we want to tackle the issue of bringing more slots back to vehicles with a drop in eHP, and a relative decrease in module efficiency? I'm personally a fan of more modules so there is more room for fitting flexibility. Or should we balance Amarr and Minmatar against Caldari and Gallente as the system is now, and then potentially change them all at once to the older "More Modules - Less Hull" system?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4941
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 15:48:00 -
[79] - Quote
I suggest taking the time to do a setup where the fittings are the showcase complete with examples of good fits with the CURRENT skills. All on spreadsheet and set up.
Treat marauders and enforcers as the proto tier vehicles.
Also prep one for the current meta. Just in case something happens or is hinky in the code.
Also still treat marauders and enforcers as the proto tier tanks.
Think less "tier" and more "chassis class"
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
3488
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 16:04:00 -
[80] - Quote
Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4944
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 16:15:00 -
[81] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts?
Enforcers were advertised as glass cannons and failed. Make them glass cannons. Also they should be smaller. Harder to hit. Let them lose tank slots.
Marauders are the heavy wade in and smash. Heavily armored and slower.
Standard HAVs should be middle road.
No goddamn immobilizing siege modules. That idea works in EVE but it will result in useless HAVs because WEAKSPOTS.
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
3488
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 16:21:00 -
[82] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts? Enforcers were advertised as glass cannons and failed. Make them glass cannons. Also they should be smaller. Harder to hit. Let them lose tank slots. Marauders are the heavy wade in and smash. Heavily armored and slower. Standard HAVs should be middle road. No goddamn immobilizing siege modules. That idea works in EVE but it will result in useless HAVs because WEAKSPOTS.
Siege modules are interesting but I question the practicality of them. I mean, what lives long enough to merit the need of a siege module? Triage on the other hand might be interesting, but we're getting off topic.
My point with the Enforcer glass cannon is that you typically need 3 slots at a minimum under current mechanics to put up a viable defense, particularly for HAVs since you can't just afterburn straight into the air. That being said dropping a slot off of a 3/2 setup is.....quite a nerf, and I worry it's too much. An increase to total slots may be necessary if we are to properly balance tradeoffs between generalist vehicles and specialty ones.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Vell0cet
Vengeance Unbound
RISE of LEGION
2550
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 16:22:00 -
[83] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts?
I'd like basic HAV's to be the AFFORDABLE version (roughly current prices). Enforcers and Marauders would the expensive option linear improvment for large cost increase (think Omen vs. Zealot in pricing and power differential).
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3488
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 16:27:00 -
[84] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts? I'd like basic HAV's to be the AFFORDABLE version (roughly current prices). Enforcers and Marauders would the expensive option linear improvment for large cost increase (think Omen vs. Zealot in pricing and power differential).
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.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
4973
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 21:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Siege modules are interesting but I question the practicality of them. I mean, what lives long enough to merit the need of a siege module? Triage on the other hand might be interesting, but we're getting off topic.
My point with the Enforcer glass cannon is that you typically need 3 slots at a minimum under current mechanics to put up a viable defense, particularly for HAVs since you can't just afterburn straight into the air. That being said dropping a slot off of a 3/2 setup is.....quite a nerf, and I worry it's too much. An increase to total slots may be necessary if we are to properly balance tradeoffs between generalist vehicles and specialty ones.
Enforcers get splash damage, and extra damage vs. vehicles. think of them like WWII tank destroyers in concept, with better execution.
the words "glass cannon" should be taken seriously.
they should also be cheap as hell. You make glass cannons to be expendable, not your main battle line.
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 22:39:00 -
[86] - Quote
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)
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14576
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 22:56:00 -
[87] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Vell0cet wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts? I'd like basic HAV's to be the AFFORDABLE version (roughly current prices). Enforcers and Marauders would the expensive option linear improvment for large cost increase (think Omen vs. Zealot in pricing and power differential). 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.
And I'm going to side with Velocet on this one.
As a tanker I love my HAV. It's my dropsuit. It's my life on the battlefield and I love it.
I often lavish around 800,000 ISK on it and to be honest even then its too cheap. Vehicle pilots need to understand RISK vs REWARD and ISK efficiency is the staple of their career, like it used to be back when my Madrugars cost 1.5 Million ISK a pop,
I see no reason why an Advanced HAV hull should cost any less than 757,000 ISK unfitted.
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3494
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 23:00:00 -
[88] - Quote
Risk/Reward is great, but I'd rather see the real cost be in the modules, with the hulls being of similar price.
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14577
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 23:03:00 -
[89] - Quote
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?
"HeGÇÖs sorry. ThatGÇÖs his sorry faceGǪ. Just keep quiet for now and maybe you'll get through this."
-Kador Ouryon
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3494
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 23:16:00 -
[90] - Quote
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?
Hotfix Delta Sentinel eHP Calcs
|
|
|
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 faceGǪ. 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 faceGǪ. 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 faceGǪ. 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 faceGǪ. 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 faceGǪ. 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 faceGǪ. 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] |