DUST Search - [Hotfix Echo] Sagaris

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Hotfix Echo] Sagaris

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 22:17:00 - [1] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The old Sagaris stats were: 3120 shields 1000 armour 24 HP/s shield regen 365 CPU 1840 PG 5 high slots 3 low slots However, the Sagaris existed at a time when vehicles worked very, very differently. These stats in the game now would not work. It's not going to be easy to balance Marauders using only 4 slots. I was going to suggest a Passive Tanked fit under the new model of regeneration I've suggested....... but that would be a Gunlogi with 400 more Shield HP. However if we don't adjust Shield regeneration rates we'll just have incredibly expensive arguably worse than OP Marauder tanks....... The fit (a Passive Tank) I wanted to suggest was something like Shield 3120 Armour 1000 5/2 3x Complex Shield Extenders 1x Shield Regenerator 1x Shield Hardener (@ 30% not 40) 1x PG Extender 1x Power Diagnostic Unit (if your remember these modules increase PG and Shield Regen by up to 9%) Total Shield 7095 Total Armour 1000 Shield EHP 9223.5 Total EHP 10223.5 With base regen of 24 Shield/sec plus skills for the modules (+25% regen) plus a 20% regen module, and a 9% module you get almost 40 rep/sec which is respectable but ensures that damage applied stays applied for longer. Critique this suggestion harshly please. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:09:00 - [2] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: True Adamance wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The old Sagaris stats were: 3120 shields 1000 armour 24 HP/s shield regen 365 CPU 1840 PG 5 high slots 3 low slots However, the Sagaris existed at a time when vehicles worked very, very differently. These stats in the game now would not work. It's not going to be easy to balance Marauders using only 4 slots. I was going to suggest a Passive Tanked fit under the new model of regeneration I've suggested....... but that would be a Gunlogi with 400 more Shield HP. However if we don't adjust Shield regeneration rates we'll just have incredibly expensive arguably worse than OP Marauder tanks....... The fit (a Passive Tank) I wanted to suggest was something like Shield 3120 Armour 1000 5/2 3x Complex Shield Extenders 1x Shield Regenerator 1x Shield Hardener (@ 30% not 40) 1x PG Extender 1x Power Diagnostic Unit (if your remember these modules increase PG and Shield Regen by up to 9%) Total Shield 7095 Total Armour 1000 Shield EHP 9223.5 Total EHP 10223.5 With base regen of 24 Shield/sec plus skills for the modules (+25% regen) plus a 20% regen module, and a 9% module you get almost 40 rep/sec which is respectable but ensures that damage applied stays applied for longer. Critique this suggestion harshly please. 40hp/s doesn't seem very competitive compared to passive armor reps. Should be 2 or 3 times the comparative amount of armor reps. And we should balance CPU/PG at level 5 skills so we don't need fitting mods There will be no passive armour reps. **** them they need to die in a fire. As for fitting modules I currently see and huge imbalance in this especially for Shield HAV to the point where a Shield HAV that can fit its full racial tank and turret options without the use of fitting modules can abuse them to stack armour modules. This should never be possible EVER for any reason. But consider this. If CCP Rattati is serious about allowing for new modules and the return of old modules you not only have ammunition, Torque, Tracking Enhancers, and other weapons modifying modules. Not to mention I mentioned the Power Diagnostic Unit which does increase PG and Shield Regen rates. If a Sagaris is on the field and has as much Shield EHP as I have suggested it should never be able to stack or modify with armour modules. This however is only and example of a PASSIVE EHP tank that relies on its Shield Regen and Hardeners. Other variations will exist with Marauders having 2x Complex Extenders, Hardeners, Boosters, etc allowing EHP to spike when required or it due to the Shield Boosters instantaneous 1900 Shield Injection. By comparison an Armour tank will have similar HP values with less plate stacking, but not have any passive reps. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:18:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:29:00 - [4] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it? Well you basically built a Drake on Treads, which is innately obnoxious but I don't have any glaring issues with it. Only thing I worry about is that at that rate, it's nearly 3 minutes to recharge from 0% to full shields. I guess for me the question comes down to "Should HAVs have poor regen with high HP and be more reliant on Logistics to maintain said HP?" That's somewhat how Sentinels work. I think HAV should be able to adjust their style. You either compromise for great EHP values and have less regenerations or you have solid regeneration and less EHP. E.G- The "Drake" Tank has massive EHP but suffers a lack of regenerative capacity. Another fit I could propose could have the standard 2x Extender, 1x Hardener, and two Boosters of varying size and efficiency. Comparatively this second fit has less EHP and significantly less passive regen but can re-actively tank according to damage taken making it more adaptable. The Latter would be likely a better solo tank, the former if Remote Reps were introduced would be a better squadron tank. EDIT - I should note that that bloody Hardener in the last calculation is active and likely should not be able to be fitted like that. Perhaps one of the only Passive Shield Ward Resistance Amplifiers or something would better? In assuming that it was an active hardener it has higher EHP than any armour HAV I can create but assuming its a passive mod @ 20-25% It could work wonders and reduce the need for that PG Extender allowing for the PDU and boosting shield regen up to around 45 per second. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:36:00 - [5] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:39:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh I'm totally on board with the high eHP low regen, I was more questioning the degree of that effect. Upping the regen to 45/s brings you to a bit over 2.5 minutes regen which is looking a bit better. I mean in that regard it comes down to tweaking the numbers, but I think you're on the right track, particularly if we go with my working model for Pilot Suits. Also consider that under your model and armour tank will require 2.5 cycles of a rep module to return to full HP, that could be up to 30 seconds per module activation with a down time of 30 seconds again..... that roughly equates to the same down time for armour HAV. The more I talk about Drake Tanks the more I can imagine 3 man squadrons with 2x 10K Passive Tanks and one light tank behind the lines fully equipped with Remote Shield Reps....... The whole cost for the column would be well over 5 million ISK...... and wholly reliant on that small HAV to keep them alive. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.09 23:43:00 - [7] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:05:00 - [8] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I suggest a 5/2 layout, 3500 shield/1250 armour, along with increased CPU and pg by about 20% to account for the extra slots, should cost about 450-600k isk for the hull. Maybe decreased speed but I don't see why it needs any drawbacks, seeing as how when an infantry goes from basic to assault they only get benefits. Will need to cost more. The Hull itself could cost around 757,000 ISK (do you think this number is fair) In regards to having and additional two slots and 500 more modifiable EHP your suggestion would borderline make the Sagaris OP as hell. Lol I haven't dealt with stats in a while true, pardon me for my rustiness. Heck, why don't we make the hulls cost 1.2m again that would be fun XD Sorry I'm not trying to be antagonistic....just passionate about the subject. Personally I wouldn't mind the high costs. Would give infantry one less reason to whine. Also with the alterations I believe it will also bring Gunnlogi back into line vs Madrugars as currently their is no competition. IMO, gunnlogi should stay where they're at while removing the ability to dual tank. That's the biggest problem is when I see 3000 armour 4000 shield gunnies on the field. Maddies should rule in ehp, like 6000 ish armour, along with a choice between either a active or passive rep. Maybe 75 hp/s for a complex passive and 450 hp/s for 15 seconds on a complex active rep. Please tell me how bad my suggestions are. My/ Pokey's suggestions follow a rather simple rebalance. Gunnlogi lose 300 armour but gain 350 Shields Shields - 3000 Armour- 1200 Madrugar lose 200 Shields and between 375 and 600 armour (bear with me a moment) Shields- 1000 Armour -3400 -3625 Power lies in the modules. Gunlogi can now attain 5650 Shields ( 7345 EHP + 1200 armour and passive reps) and have their fair armour tank. Madrugar with 180mm plating (part of the suggestions) can have 6375 Armour ( 7995 EHP + 1000 Shields, no passive reps) If we went back to 2/4 and 4/2 tanks we could do some very nice things especially if fitting is tight and we have lots more varied and valuable utility mods for our lows and highs. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15630	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:25:00 - [9] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Give up mate. I have, lets work on actually balancing the modules and fleshing out how vehicles should work before we badger Rattati for place holders. Plus this is a Holiday Hotfix. It's unlikely he will even be able to get most of it done.....but if we submit a strong case for rebalances he may well take it into a proper update. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15633	Posted - 2014.12.10 00:48:00 - [10] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Seriously? We're not asking for racial parity in vehicles before we get old stuff back? Give up mate. I have, lets work on actually balancing the modules and fleshing out how vehicles should work before we badger Rattati for place holders. Plus this is a Holiday Hotfix. It's unlikely he will even be able to get most of it done.....but if we submit a strong case for rebalances he may well take it into a proper update. I don't think it would be that hard to give us some reskins with tweaked stats as our racial parity. It isn't like we're asking for new models, reskins are all that the Sagris/Surya are anyway so why give us old broken instead of giving us new toys? Because the Surya and Sagaris benefit tank pilots more than any racial variants would at this current time. They require the bland and lacking vehicle skills tree to be addressed and altered and provide tank operators with an "End game unit" to put SP into and work towards indicating who is dedicated to their role and offering them another step up from the standard hull. Currently all I have to do to operate tanks is Vehicle Command V, HAV Command I This would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better if it required - Vehicle Command V - Racial HAV Operation V - Racial Marauder Operation V and encouraged - X Racial Tank Skills to V - Turrets V - Core Tank Skills V and rewarded dedicated tankers for it by offering them a machine they can customise deeply to their tastes and have pride in, and spend ISK on. I could care less about Sica and Soma unless I'm up against an organised team and want something cheap to ruin their ISK efficiency with, Gunnlogi and Madrugar are also lacking and just the run of the mill crap you see every day and only set me back 700,000 ISK a pop...... But a Surya [Sagaris} that costs 1.5-2 Million ISK a pop, allows me to invest all of my skills, fitting, etc into is something I would care about...... I wouldn't want to lose it, I'd protect it, I'd only get it out when I needed it, I could escalate depending on what my opponents brought to the fight, etc. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15635	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:08:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention that there is a fundamental problem with the balance of armor and shield. Adding more variants before hammering out this imbalance will only compound the issue. Trust me, we've already been working on variants within the community for some time and we reached the conclusion that the way armor and shields work need to be looked at as well. If you want to see the results of our first pass on vehicles in general, feel free to look here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing Besides the Scriptures this is my Bible. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15641	Posted - 2014.12.10 01:48:00 - [12] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Currently shield vehicles have the benefit of stacking multiple hardeners which performat 15% greater efficiency than armor hardeners allowing them massive eHP, with a pretty sizable amount of shield regen on top of that. In addition, with limited Anti-Shield AV as well as no Laser turrets (compared to Explosive Missiles), Shield vehicles have a sizable advantage over armor vehicle, so something has to give. I thought heavy weapon parity was being looked into for the future? If amarr a/v lasers are anything like infantry lasers, then you won't have anything to worry about. There probably be a cry that shields are UP once that happens Even then you still have the issue of Shields regenerating faster than armour with no module required and an additionally 15% damage resistance vs those weapons which essentially negates skills like Proficiency and in some cases even damage modules. Like it or not Shields on Vehicles, specifically Tanks, need to be adjusted so that their hardeners are not too effective like they are now, and so that regeneration on shield vehicles does not trump Armour rep rates without module investment. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15650	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:41:00 - [13] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Bonuses. Increased CPU/PG, differing base stats Increasing slots will require rebalance of av again. I'm not opposed to it, but av meant for being a threat to proto tanks usually wrecks everything else too easily. This has been experienced before when tankers went to war with av'ers on the forums about a year ago. If we balance av for what we have now, then even proto av will be useless unless the whole team uses it for one proto tank brick tanking. It's been seen before I cannot say that for any reason that it would be enjoyable to use a Marauder with the base number of slots. It simply does not scratch the itch. Yet most AVers while seeking balance agree that it was badass to take down a Marauder due to the high SP cap, cost, and sense of achievement. And honestly with AV how it is now, while I believe a 1v1 ratio of AV to V should be maintained....., its not hard to dish our 10K between two players using the correct AV option. As I've pointed out before Armour HAV had significantly higher EHP pre 1.7 and were still wrecked and AV hasn't been this good in a long time. Shields are what we have to be careful about though. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15666	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:49:00 - [14] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: True Adamance wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Bonuses. Increased CPU/PG, differing base stats Increasing slots will require rebalance of av again. I'm not opposed to it, but av meant for being a threat to proto tanks usually wrecks everything else too easily. This has been experienced before when tankers went to war with av'ers on the forums about a year ago. If we balance av for what we have now, then even proto av will be useless unless the whole team uses it for one proto tank brick tanking. It's been seen before I cannot say that for any reason that it would be enjoyable to use a Marauder with the base number of slots. It simply does not scratch the itch. Yet most AVers while seeking balance agree that it was badass to take down a Marauder due to the high SP cap, cost, and sense of achievement. And honestly with AV how it is now, while I believe a 1v1 ratio of AV to V should be maintained....., its not hard to dish our 10K between two players using the correct AV option. As I've pointed out before Armour HAV had significantly higher EHP pre 1.7 and were still wrecked and AV hasn't been this good in a long time. Shields are what we have to be careful about though. Honestly, I'm just paranoid. Since release, tanks have been repeatedly nerfed, rebalanced, completely redone, and nerfed again. I spec out of tanks recently because there's no reason to have one. They serve no purpose, have no role, no way to influence a battle. Remember when we could shoot down the MCC? I want tanks to useful, and to serve a purpose on the battlefield. There is no situation where a tank is necessary. There's no gates to be blown up, we can't destroy null cannons, and we can't shoot the MCC so what do we need a tank for? That said, what are we going to use marauder tanks for that justify their use? How can they be used to support infantry? Making a stronger tank when there's no use for it seems odd. A proto dropsuit and weapon helps you do a lot of things besides killing. What would a proto tank do for anyone? If there's no tanks on the field what do we need it for? I feel like tanks are one side of a coin that had no other side to it. And again please remember that each tank is operated by one person. Requiring a 3-6 man squad to kill a proto tank is too much. What happens when there's 6 proto tanks? You wouldn't have enough players in a match to fight that. I feel bad about how I feel, but tanks have no use for anything other than killing bolas. At least drop ships are useful for getting to rooftops. Yeah you make fair points...... something the issue is just a matter of luck though. Maybe a squad of tankers is playing together, maybe they randomly turn up by chance...... sometimes there's just misfortune at work. I'd love to be able/ necessary/ be wanted for a damn change in missions that required us to destroy specific objects like doors, defence matrix installations, and put turrets into reinforcement timers so that infantry could move around and have cover, and focus on infiltration and such...... BUT BACK TO THE TOPIC! Honestly I wish HAV would go back to the way they were pre-1.7 when people enjoyed them and from there Rattati could work his magic that only he knows how to work. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15671	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:28:00 - [15] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: You've got to think of the worst possible fits to see if that would be balanced. In all honesty we need to rebalance some current modules around a 5-2 slot layout. Possible troll fits: - 5 damage mods and two armor plates, the redline special. - 3 damage mods , 2 hardeners, particle cannon, plate, repper. - 3 hardeners, Shield booster, extender - Or hell, 5 hardeners on a continuous cycle. This will not be fun for either AV or Tankers. The only counter might be itself. We ought to also brainstrom other possible checks and balances. That's a fair assessment and there are some checks an balanced that could be suggested to artificially curb these problems. - Only one Hardener can be active at a time (keeps total resistances low....but does not prevent perma harden) - Fitting requirements (certain modules based on their capacity for abuse might cost more to fit than others) - Simply reducing the effectiveness of those modules ( I HATE active damage mods and 40% Shield Hardeners ) I don't really see a problem with long Hardener durations (lol) especially if we are reducing things like Shield Regen back to the way it used to be and removing passive armour reppers entirely. Damage applied stays applied longer unless a module is activated to repair that damage and as neither the old armour reppers nor passive shield regen could quickly restore all HP HAV had longer down times. ** I'm definitely (and this is merely opinion and mainly stemming from EVE links) not a fan of active damage modules...in fact I don't really like them at all. I love the idea of weapons modifications, tracking enhancements, heat sinks, etc but loathe the idea of Damage modules. I also against Shield Hardeners being 40% resistances. I feel both Shield and Armour Hardeners could be standardised to 30% which could encourage passive shield and armour plating to be used instead of multiple active hardener spams. Any thoughts on these suggestions/ ideas for checks and balances. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 19:14:00 - [16] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: As I've said before, simply adding PG and CPU to the Madrugar wont do much to help it. They will still need to fit 1 Repper, 1 Plate, and 1 Hardener. Even if all of those are maxed to proto, the eHP simply wont stack up against a Gunnlogi running 2 Hardeners and 1 Extender. And yes you're correct that shields in Dust typically have much faster regen rate than armor, however nearly all shield fits will fall short of comparable armor fits in terms HP, which is not the case for vehicles. Shield Vehicles enjoy both high HP as well as great regen, and they should need to pick between one or the other. Lets just assume we stick with the 3/2 and 2/3 slot system for now. So you have 3 slots you can work with. Every HAV requires at least 1 hardener and 1 HP extender (You can argue that 2 hardeners will work as well, but regardless) and then the means to regenerate HP. Armor wont regen on its own so it's 3rd slot innately gets consumed by an armor repairer. Armor 1 Hardener 1 Plate 1 Repper While this is...extremely boring, it's the bare minimum needed for an armor vehicle to survive. Shields on the other hand dont have to fit a repper since they get their regen back much faster. Shield 1 Hardener 1 Extender --Free Slot-- Currently they can fill that free slot with another extender or hardener, keeping high HP regen and pushing eHP even higher. This is problematic, there is no tradeoff. So lets say you decreased the natural shield regen rate by X% and then offered a module to increase it by X%. This would mean to maintain the same level of shield recharge, that Free Slot would need to be filled with a Recharger of sorts. OR they could accept the lower regen and put in a hardener/extender to maintain the same high eHP they're capable of now, but with longer regen times. I think this is the basic outline we need to consider when looking at shield vehicles. what about increasing armor plate hp values? again, current av vs vehicles is fairly balanced. is reducing shield tanking hp necessary because it's OP, or because armor plates are too weak? also, its a very strange thing to note, that armor is superior to shields PASSIVELY. a passive tanked shield tank is not as good as a passive tanked armor tank. but an active tanked shield tank is better than a active tanked armor tank. active shield modules have much shorter duration than active armor modules. do you think that perhaps we should flip things around? make shields much more rep focused, and armor more hp focused? what about damage mods? arent they supposed to narrow the eHP gap between armor tanks and shield tanks? I feel that they are enough anti shield mechanics in place that we dont need to nerf shields, just yet. id be interested in seeing how the new warbarge strikes do in future meta. 180mm plating is my solution to that. If you recall the old Madrugar had roughly 3625 armour and when using Polycrystalline Plates you had the old 6375 Armour Madrugar. That certainly would help armour HAV in a big way. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 19:17:00 - [17] - Quote Shadow of War88 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: As I've said before, simply adding PG and CPU to the Madrugar wont do much to help it. They will still need to fit 1 Repper, 1 Plate, and 1 Hardener. Even if all of those are maxed to proto, the eHP simply wont stack up against a Gunnlogi running 2 Hardeners and 1 Extender. And yes you're correct that shields in Dust typically have much faster regen rate than armor, however nearly all shield fits will fall short of comparable armor fits in terms HP, which is not the case for vehicles. Shield Vehicles enjoy both high HP as well as great regen, and they should need to pick between one or the other. Lets just assume we stick with the 3/2 and 2/3 slot system for now. So you have 3 slots you can work with. Every HAV requires at least 1 hardener and 1 HP extender (You can argue that 2 hardeners will work as well, but regardless) and then the means to regenerate HP. Armor wont regen on its own so it's 3rd slot innately gets consumed by an armor repairer. Armor 1 Hardener 1 Plate 1 Repper While this is...extremely boring, it's the bare minimum needed for an armor vehicle to survive. Shields on the other hand dont have to fit a repper since they get their regen back much faster. Shield 1 Hardener 1 Extender --Free Slot-- Currently they can fill that free slot with another extender or hardener, keeping high HP regen and pushing eHP even higher. This is problematic, there is no tradeoff. So lets say you decreased the natural shield regen rate by X% and then offered a module to increase it by X%. This would mean to maintain the same level of shield recharge, that Free Slot would need to be filled with a Recharger of sorts. OR they could accept the lower regen and put in a hardener/extender to maintain the same high eHP they're capable of now, but with longer regen times. I think this is the basic outline we need to consider when looking at shield vehicles. lower shield recharge makes sense, but nothing extremely low like 40hp/s. Shield recharge delay and depleted shield recharge delays still apply. 4sec/10sec respectively. (164hp/s to 82hp/s is very reasonable) 1. passive armor reps need to go. 2. multi pulse boosters need to come back, stronger than active armor reps but fewer pulses. 3. passive shield regen modules need to come back, significantly weaker than active armor reps. 4. PDUs need to come back as well. 5. return poly 180mm The only reason I suggest returning to the old system is that Shield HAV should not have the ability to have both a naturally high Shield regenerative power AND high EHP. Honestly that's simply not fair. The old model that I suggested we return to is based off of EVE and in theory works fine. It mans Shield HAV can have directly comparable eHP to armour tanks at the cost of their regenerative power (something that armour HAV simply don't have) or your stack for regenerative power using active modules like boosters and forgo your ability to stack extenders and hardeners etc. 82 is still far too much as it literally halves proposed shield down time and offers them 10K EHP. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15688	Posted - 2014.12.10 20:06:00 - [18] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Hmm well consider this STD Heavy Armor Rep: 80HP/s ADV Heavy Armor Rep: 90HP/s PRO Heavy Armor Rep: 110HP/s so even at 85 shield regen per second that's very close to a built-in ADV Heavy Armor rep, and still allows that shield HAV to maintain its extremely high eHP. DOn't get me wrong I'm not on a rampage to nerf Shield Vehicles into the ground, but I feel like they're getting the best of both worlds right now. Indeed I feel like if Tanks are going to find themselves a place we need to work on the pro's and cons of how shielding works. Either a vehicle (any vehicle) should be able to push up into high eHP values and rely on that buffer (and the passive shield regen) to withstand damage or they should be able to use their module slots at the cost of total eHP to increase and better their regenerative power. For example- a Sagaris "Drake" Tank might do the following 3x Heavy Extenders 1x Shield Regenerator 1x Passive Shield Resistance Module 2x PDU's (for added passive regen) Theoretically this fit could have slightly less than 10000 HP and have 40-43 constant passive regeneration per second Comparatively a Booster Shield Tank might fit 1x Heavy Extender 1x Small Extender 1x Active Hardener 2x Shield Boosters 2x PDU's or 1x Jovian Powercore (better torque) 1x Tracking Enhancer ( better tracking) This fit might have 5523 Hp and the capacity to rep much faster using the boosters. Depending on fitting requirements of the modules you might be able to find a middle ground that suits your personal style of play. Consider also that during Shield Tank down times (time where they are repping in cover before redeploying a Shield tank will get 1950 Shield HP back instantly due to a booster and during that module cool down you will also be repping X (shield regen) x 40 second cooldown for additional repairs. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15695	Posted - 2014.12.10 21:47:00 - [19] - Quote Personally I'm all about establishing that link to EVE so I honestly believe shields should have that Comparable eHP values and active rep rates that they do in EVE, as well as their slow, natural passive regeneration. Shields should never be able to resist a greater amount of damage, have equivalent HP values, and regenerate that HP faster than an armour variant without having to fit a module. Part of the reason Shield Extenders are significantly better than Armour Plating is that shields are simply extensions that add more to the proverbial pool. Each Shield extender added will be repaired over countless times passively and at a very prodigious rate (that arguably makes it difficult for bother AV and tanks to apply lasting damage and a tank should not be immune to lasting damage) whereas armour modules won't every repair without module use. Moreover continuing on into the future if remote repairs are introduced Shield remote repairs will have to be significantly less efficient than armour ones to maintain balance as shield HAV would get their basic rep values plus their power passive regen. I'd suggest that no vehicle, HAV, DS, LAV should have prolific passive regeneration for any reason unless they fit modules to do so. A Sheild Tank as a Shield Recharge Delay of 4 seconds and a per second pulse of 168 (greater than a skilled Passive Complex Heavy Armour Repairer) and does not require a module. Within 10 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 1008 (between 1/4 and 1/5 of its primary shield tank) Within 20 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 2688 (between 1/2 and 2/3 of its primary shield tank) Within 30 seconds of receiving damage it can currently regenerate 4368 ( either the entirety or close to all of its shield tank) Couple this with a Shield Boosters and that is an additional 1900. On a shield tank there is no penalty for being forced off the map and no reasonable down time. Rather than a 30 second down time a slower passive Shield regen would ensure even on a very high eHP hull would only set back the Tank if no other regen modules were fit roughly 165 seconds. Assuming shield regen rates could be boosted at Supply depots that could be even less. That seems more than fair enough when you compare regenerative rates to armour HAV. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15703	Posted - 2014.12.10 22:53:00 - [20] - Quote Shadow of War88 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Hmm well consider this STD Heavy Armor Rep: 80HP/s ADV Heavy Armor Rep: 90HP/s PRO Heavy Armor Rep: 110HP/s so even at 85 shield regen per second that's very close to a built-in ADV Heavy Armor rep, and still allows that shield HAV to maintain its extremely high eHP. DOn't get me wrong I'm not on a rampage to nerf Shield Vehicles into the ground, but I feel like they're getting the best of both worlds right now. Im not sure what CCPs vision is regarding the place of vehicles but from what I observed over the past 2 years it seems that shields are suppose to be alpha tank. While armor is more anti av, tanking small sustained damage over time that would otherwise break shield regen cycle. You cant tell me you want armor gone from the low slots, and less base regen, and less effectiveness on shield hardeners. 164 to 82 is a 50% nerf. Cant compare that to armor that reps without delay. New miny flux OB rain on me every ******* minute. & Im not sure where the 5h/3l talk is coming from. I haven't seen any of that confirmed or even hinted. But then again im not very involved on forums :( If PDU and effective passive regen modules return, then we can tweak numbers. But im not waiting 3 minutes for full regen. This is not EvE. Im playing a lobby shooter. side note - Anyone bothered by the extreme saturation of the battlefield by OP 12k hp free turrets? Or the fact vehicle specialists cant really play ambush........and the game has like 3 game modes total. Lol 2 games total if you a dedicated pilot. Or the fact we working hard to balance and discuss stuff, then jihad jeep rolls outa nowhere. Or you have a awesome tank fight, win by like 800 hp, then the loser of the tank fight pops out last second and boom its a min mando with swarms I never hated a dev so much as I hate Rattati. Now he wants to buff proxy mines. Oh did I mention every noob and their mom can shoot a fukin flux from the heavens on my Cal tank? Go ahead and push for a bigger nerf to shield regen. Not like it matters in the big picture. Thanks for organizing and compiling all the stuff though. Read your google doc...good stuff. And you not even a CPM. LOL! He should have been....not only has he done vehicles, he's done PC fixes and diagrams, game mode diagrams, weapon variant rebalances, etc.... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15706	Posted - 2014.12.10 23:45:00 - [21] - Quote Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values. When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking. When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15709	Posted - 2014.12.11 00:02:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values. When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking. When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing. That's a fair enough statement. Always a question of the matter of degree but I think the end goal you stated is a valid one. I suppose a Lesser Regen fit for an Armor HAV would be a Light Armor Repper + 180mm Plate then? I suppose the most comparable example of an armour passive tank could looke something like. 1x 180mm Plate 3x Energized Adaptive Armour Plating 1x Light Repper That roughly amounts (and I was assuming 20% resistances with something like 2.5% decrease in efficiency of the Adaptive Plating per module stacked) 10337 eHP with only whatever the rep rate of the Light Repper Applies. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15711	Posted - 2014.12.11 00:22:00 - [23] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well I'm currently in the mindset of maintaining 3/2 ratio while we figure this basic stuff out but I think we're on the same page. 3/2 ratio? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15737	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:13:00 - [24] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: facepalm You didn't read the context, did you? 1. If context you mean keeping it the same to make up some numbers then yes i did 2. Slot layout will only effect EHP numbers but either way if they are worse than the old Sagaris and Surya then they will not be worth it unless the reduced slot layout is to make way for proto HAVs then i could deal with it Context as in, I'm specifically talking about the Gunnlogi and the Madrugar and how Vehicle Shield Tanking and Vehicle Armor Tanking perform against each other. It had nothing to do with the slot layout of the Sageris. So it's a thread about the Sagaris, yet you're talking about STD tanks? Does not compute. We need to talk about them because if they are not built right and designed correctly then we still will not have balance in vehicle skill trees. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15738	Posted - 2014.12.11 18:29:00 - [25] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned. Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level. Because contrary to what you think Spkr Pokey current has the best break down and rebalance of the issues presenting in modern tanking. Tanks in Dutst 514 aren't tanks, tanks that resolve with no damage vs AV fire are not tanks, tanks that regenerate their HP too quickly are not function like tanks should and I know Pokey understands that. As pilots we cannot have the best of bother worlds. Cannot have eHP, mobility, AND regen power. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15738	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:17:00 - [26] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill It's fine to suggest that for this kind of skill you deserve something..... but that something does not mean massive bonuses that render a vehicle, weapon, dropsuit, etc without a fair counter. Nor is their any value in calling yourself a user of that item if it is without counter. In the end the best things we can do is offer each hull small HP increases, couple that it tastefully selected boosters that apply best to a specific racial groups tanking style and if required add the minimum slots possible (under the current model not desgned for high module counts) to boost eHP. No Marauder in this game deserves more that 10-11 K eHP for any reason. On a different note Minmatar do not dual tank. They either Shield or Armour Tank, and they do not primarily speed tank any more than any other racial groups can do equally well or better. Cuz Slicers, cuz Crusader, cuz Succubus, cuz Tristain, cuz any ship with and MWD and a smart pilot in the pod. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15739	Posted - 2014.12.11 19:48:00 - [27] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not 2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill It's fine to suggest that for this kind of skill you deserve something..... but that something does not mean massive bonuses that render a vehicle, weapon, dropsuit, etc without a fair counter. Nor is their any value in calling yourself a user of that item if it is without counter. In the end the best things we can do is offer each hull small HP increases, couple that it tastefully selected boosters that apply best to a specific racial groups tanking style and if required add the minimum slots possible (under the current model not desgned for high module counts) to boost eHP. No Marauder in this game deserves more that 10-11 K eHP for any reason. On a different note Minmatar do not dual tank. They either Shield or Armour Tank, and they do not primarily speed tank any more than any other racial groups can do equally well or better. Cuz Slicers, cuz Crusader, cuz Succubus, cuz Tristain, cuz any ship with and MWD and a smart pilot in the pod. 1. The old Surya/Sagaris had its counter and its bonuses were fine for me because it required a large amount of SP to run them and also 2.5mil fully fit 2. Minmatar can do both since vehicles have no EWAR hence why the Gunlogi has a plate on it because why not and more defence against easy AV 3. If the Marauders came back how they used to be i think it would be fine 4. 10-11k EHP is only in cycles at best, if modules use is split up then its less EHP over a longer time, give me capacitors instead of these time cycles which predetermine how long i have to wait under my MCC whenever i want to do anything I'd like to see an fit from EVE (yes EVE and not representation in Dust is particularly good) for a dual tanked Minmatar ship. If Marauders came back how they were, which is more or less what I've been advocating you are looking at the wait times I've been suggesting as the old tanks did not have the 168 Shield repairs per second after a 4 second delay. At best you could amass on the old passive tanked Sagaris fits roughly 7000 Shields (passive resistances of 15% plus the 10 shield adaptation conveyed) and between 40-50 constant passive regen per second. Which is what I personally and suggesting. No tank should have high eHP and amazing regenerative powers. Instead you should either opt for your constantly passive modules that push up your EHP to high values and do not require manipulation or your have your actives which convey powerful bonuses for short periods of time but cause your HAV to have less base statistics. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15741	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:10:00 - [28] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned. Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level. Been tanking consistently since early closed Beta, also have all meaningful skills maxed for HAVs and LAVs, so I know a couple things. By your logic, if Enforcers are indeed ADV tanks, then Standard Dropsuits would not receive any bonuses regardless of skill level, but ADV would, yes? So you supposedly have been tanking, yet want to severely limit an ADV tank by keeping the same slot layout? You're an idiot and should find another game to ruin. Again, if its an ADV tank, and receives bonuses that the STD tank does not, then by that logic, ADV dropsuits should receive bonuses, but STD should receive none. Is this what you're advocating? Dropsuits go from STD to ADV to PRO. Along with that, they get more slots. The basic suits get no passive bonis, while the commando, sentinel, assault, logistics and scout suits all get bonuses. Why shouldn't an ADV tank get a bonus? The closest comparison would be T1 vs T2...... for tanks it's not even a matter of dropsuit - vehicle parity. Sure at some point, perhaps if capacitors ever get added, it might be worth giving standard vehicles hulls bonuses to fitting racially appropriate turrets, tracking speeds, etc (very generic bonuses that don't define a role). But the way vehicles are now, the Gunnlogi doesn't need more fitting capacity, and the Maddrugar won't have its issues solved by this alone. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15741	Posted - 2014.12.11 20:49:00 - [29] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: See Spkr? What I told you in-game was true. Keep complaining that AV is underpowered. It's comparatively underpowered vs Shield Vehicles but incredibly over powered vs armour vehicles and all at the same time very circumstantially effective vs aerial vehicles. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.