Added question 17.

Should our Vehicle play model focus on slower cycles (High HP; Low Speed; Low Repairability)

or

Remain as is? (TTK similar to that of infantry)

Why?

i dont give a **** because im infantry lolololol

Hello infantry; let me hear your screams as I run over you head and crush it like a tomato can.

Some freindly advice here, you're not one of us, Trying to be is a bit embarassing and dare i say it cringe worthy.

"How could i know? that maybe you have alts or something"

Because all of your posts prior to this thread and especially including it make it painfully obvious. Its akin to saying "I love footbal, i've usually manage to hit a home run at the 18th hole. Man, Arsenal are having a great time at the Superbowl or what?"

Just at least be as straitforward as rattati is, who vociferously admits he doesn't know the slightest thing about vehicles and is not planning to learn, to the point of taking offense at being offered a ride in a dropship. Stop the B.S and try to build some trust.

I had written something long but felt it would have been wasted effort and on deaf ears.

I am just a simple player
I just want to have fun playing.

Also the analogy you're looking for is Fantasy Football vs real football.

Playing Baseball in a hockey rink is one of my specialities.

No my analogy was apt. Maybe yours was a little bit better, as in having no clue what you are saying/doing yet pretending you are doing it right.

Save me the bull on the 'sadly i am currently unopposed.' I do consider the Judge to be a good friend, and I know exactly what your reaction was to his current situation. Spare me.

Keep it simple. Don't throw in B.S assumtions like ADS godmode/logi ds useless in your questionaire. Don't assume things you never touched in dust to be useless. Collect data. Dont troll in other threads.

None of the things here will be tested before release. So of couse i'm going to treat one of the only 2 cpms to rant, troll and BS about vehicles taking in ''balance advice'' with a massive grain of salt.

I had written something long but felt it would have been wasted effort and on deaf ears.

I am just a simple player
I just want to have fun playing.
If that means hopping in a tank or running a suicide plasma cannon bomber I want the game to be fun and not frustrated by every little stupid thing that makes this game unenjoyable. Vehicles are currently top of my list of 'least enjoyable things to do in this game.'

Also the analogy you're looking for is Fantasy Football vs real football.

Playing Baseball in a hockey rink is one of my specialities.

I am just saying if you (well not you specifically but various other vehicle pilots that are just going to stand by and be wall flowers in this conversation) don't want to interact with the CPM trying to get things done, that is your prerogative. I will not force you to feed me information. I mean if vehicle pilots feel strongly about me doing this; I am waiting for another CPM member to start having shouting contests with on who's more right on the subject, and sadly and still am currently unopposed. Xel would probably start to speak up soon as I mention anything involving a buff to vehicles though.

I would consider it a miracle if you can get Judge to slap my hand.

Also as Omni I have touched about everything before and do currently have access to all prototype gear should I want to part with my wallet more.

We've been trying to talk, but the problem is, we don't want our playstyle to get ruined. Everybody on here was crying about the end of Dust when CCP were going to nerf the Cal logi and TAR rifles. They got nerfed, and everybody went back to their regularly scheduled programing.

Again, we don't want our playstyle nerfed. What is wrong and unacceptable is how infantry have been dictating the direction vehicles go in for such a long time. There is no compromise to be reached, pilots have been shafted for over 2 years, and we're in this current state because of that. Swarms travel to where a vehicle was then continue on at greater speed to hit their target 9 times out of 10. There's still a problem with invisible swarms, because I can be behind a wall, or behind a hill or crate, so they achieve lock behind their cover, aim up or to the side, and launch the swarms, and half the time I can't see the missiles. It's always the same thing. Infantry complains about how hard it is to destroy tanks, yet it's the noobs in MLT vehicles that they're having trouble with. They'd have a stroke trying to destroy me. Yet, when I go against a squad full of people from some country, such as the Japanese or Russians, they have absolutely no problem with 4 guys going AV to destroy me. They do it quite often, and destroy me half the time.

1.9 was great, but there's still that huge problem of pilots having no say in the direction vehicles take. Rattati admitted that he had sole discretion on changing swarms and the ADS, without consulting any pilots whatsoever. There haven't been any word on the stats concerning the ADS since the hotfix. We have no idea as to what's going on with that, because it's being kept private.

Infantry dictating the direction of vehicles needs to stop. There has to be discussion with both sides, not one-sided.

Have you looked into Pokey Dravon's thread about Vehicle rebalances yet.

I think we just sorted out a propositions for vehicle base hull Hp value and module slots for HAV. Numbers were approved by AVers since they don't push up total EHP over 10K, if the thread continues LAV and ADS are next on the block for HP discussions.

I certainly don't agree on most of your ideas on HAV direction.......but that was one **** off sound and reasonable post.

Pokey Darvon approached me yesterday and he's willing to help out so I look forward to it.

His placeholder idea has been met with mixed feelings but I am sure if a strong enough case is presented it can be made so and hopefully that will be the first domino to get the unique models in going.

As for other things he is more than willing to help out when I talked about it last night but right now i am still rigging the document up...

So far based on my usual ongoings. This is beginning to look like a 50 page + ordeal and will need a table of contents.

I'm considering bringing up the concept of Marauders as Infantry Tanks (designed to move at the speed of an infantry squad for direct support) and Enforcers as Self Propelled Gun Batteries.

Update on the document; its at 50 pages now and drawing some art for it; will be getting public draft soon.

Just need to stop getting distracted by the 3 ring scanners, the bandwidth and whatever else ccp rattati might announce.

LAV turrets need an armor plate similar to what's supplied on the drop ship or their gunner.
Way too easy to be shot out of the gunner seat, especially if you want it to be frontline support.

Also, Covert Vehicles capable of cloaking. Fresh yes?

Caldari Cloaked Dropship coming in to drop enemies on the roof because they are getting redlined is exciting. Especially when they get orbitaled by my Hybrid Strike from space

Just a bunch of questions before I help start breaking everything....

1. Vehicle Command Tree Structure

Should it (regardless of multipliers)?
a. Mimic the Drop Suits where it is Racial From Top to Bottom?
b. Retain the Same as Current (racial at top end only)

Why?

2. Vehicle Upgrades Tree Structure

Should it (regardless of multipliers)(aware of new bonuses depending on the option)

a. mimic the Drop Suit tree more with bonuses on par with the infantry progression
b. Retain Current form and bonused the unbounded skills (all 6.1 million sp of it)

Why?

3. Should there be reskinned place holders for FW vehicles (IE Golden Madrugers w/ amarr logo and Rusted Gunlogis /w repub logo) Even if this means that there is a very low chance of having unique models in the foreseeable future or unique stats even?

4. Should Militia Vehicles and Military Grade Vehicles feature similar slot layouts (as to not eat up slot real-estate) akin to standard dropsuit relationship with militia dropsuits?

5. Scout LAV's Role(s) should be?

(Mix and Match or even add)

Attack, Ewar, Anti-Infantry, Anti-Equipment, Anti-Vehicle, Anti-Structure, Secondary Damage Support,
Sensor, Transport, Speed, Tank, Stealth, Covert Operator, Fast, Slow, Average Speed?

6. Logistics LAV's where the start of the killer bee revolution, What tamer Role(s) should it have if brought back?
(Mix and Match or even add)
Infantry Support, Vehicle Support, Vehicle Repairs, Infantry Repairs, A 'Mobile' Supply Depot, A Mobile CRU, Tanky, Thin Skinned, Slow, Fast, Secondary Damage Support, Ewar

7. Enforcer HAVs previously did not have a strong role, What roles should it have?
(Mix and Match or Add)
Vehicle Sniper, Area Denial, Suppression, Gun Platform, Siege Engine, Blockade, Anti-infantry, Anti-Vehicle, Anti-Air, Tanky, Thin Skinned, Fast, Slow, Light Battle Tank, Main Battle Tank, Heavy Battle Tank, Ewar?

8. Murader HAVs previously had a god like role, What roles should it retain if ever brought back in?
(Mix and Match or Add)
Vehicle Sniper, Area Denial, Suppression, Gun Platform, Siege Engine, Blockade, Anti-infantry, Anti-Vehicle, Anti-Air, Tanky, Thin Skinned, Fast, Slow, Light Battle Tank, Main Battle Tank, Heavy Battle Tank, Ewar?

9. Logistics DS underperformed massively last time, what roles should it have to make it useful?
(Mix and Match or even add)
Infantry Support, Vehicle Support, Vehicle Repairs, Infantry Repairs, A 'Mobile' Supply Depot, A Mobile CRU, Tanky, Thin Skinned, Slow, Fast, Secondary Damage Support, Ewar

10. Assault Dropships are a subject of much Hyperbole, What attribute is the ADS hurting in the most right now?
Survivability
Offensive Capability
Skewed Windows of Engagement
Transport Ability

11. There is thought about bringing turret variants back BUT so many of the old variants were 'useless' in the light of another so in what way or roles would you give these returning turrets to avoid similar fates.

Anti-Infantry? Anti-Equipment? Anti-Vehicle? Burst? Long Range? Supression? Breach Firing? Bigger Splash? Higher ROF for lower Damage? Larger Magazines? Faster Reloads? More Backup Ammo? Come up with a goal theme for various prefix names.

12. Currently we have a selection of active and passive modules. Would you like to see an introduction of Modules that were off behavior of current as additional Options. An example would be an active armor repair that outperforms the passives?

13. There are currently no known technical evaluation on the possibility of more support like game play such as Deploying Equipment (ie Proximity Explosive or Nanohive), Siege Modes (your vehicle sacrifices a large amount of one stat to gain a great strength in another; Like 0 mobility for heavy tank and offensive ability) or even a repair turret or Mobile Supply Depot. Despite this are you very interested in seeing these mechanics brought into playing field to be hotfixed around and design something with? Which ones? Any new ideas of your own you think that could be done?

14. Dropship Immortality was pretty serious issue because of the lack of counters mostly. Would the community support an AA turret variant that cannot lower its turret base underneath a certain point making it difficult to deal with other threats if the Dropships where returned to similar power before 1.8D?

15. Several Quality of Life Features do not have any technical evaluations yet, are you willing to support such features such as: Dropship Drop Camera for passengers, Fixing the Small Turret Facing Bug, Allowing LAV passengers to shoot their weapons, Lock On Warning, Entry and Delay of Exit of a vehicle up to 3 seconds.

16. What kind of new modules are you willing to see?

17. Should our Vehicle play model focus on slower cycles (High HP; Low Speed; Low Repairability)
or
Remain as is? (TTK similar to that of infantry; Low HP; Higher Speeds, Higher Recovery)

Why?


Finally your links!
Gimmie!

I will be starting a comprehensive google document soon over the results that measures various aspects.

Sigh once again more work as brought up; sorry for the delays but this one is a bit more time critical to get done with first but I am excited to see it eventually shared.

Sigh once again more work as brought up; sorry for the delays but this one is a bit more time critical to get done with first but I am excited to see it eventually shared.

Time critical?