DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2274	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:14:00 - [1] - Quote I've been out of the vehicle game for a while, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt. First, we need to establish what each vehicle needs to do. Then we need to establish what it needs in order to do it. The problem with rock/paper/scissors is the implication that one should always win against the other. The Marauder shouldn't always win against the basic frame, simply have an advantage. Just like the Cr has an advantage over armor tanks, but it doesn't guarantee victory. As far as how the tree should look, I think it should be the same as ADS, where you have the ADS skill which then branches into racial ADS. So there would be a marauder skill giving a bonus to both, then racial marauders giving a bonus to that specific race. Same for enforcers. This means they would have 2 bonuses, one from the base skill and one from the racial skill. Marauders: these should be the heavy duty, stand and deliver type vehicles, both of them. The Surya should do it better than the Sagaris since armor is supposed to be stand and deliver, but The Sagaris should definitely be able to take the pain better than the Gunnlogi/Madrugar. To this end, I would say a appropriate resistance bonus to shield/armor would be the most ideal. Outside of bonuses, they would have more health than the basic frames. As a drawback, they should have reduced maneuverability (turning, acceleration, top speed) these things should hope to weather the storm instead of escaping it. Perhaps even give them a siege type module that buffs their defenses at the cost of maneuverability. That would give them something that sticks out from the basic frames instead of being the same tanks with some new colors and a bonus slapped on. Marauders: 4% resistance to shield/armor Caldari Marauder: 5% reduction to shield module CPU/PG Gallente Marauder: 5% reduction to Armor module CPU/PG Enforcers: These are basically glass cannons. They swoop in, deal damage, swoop out. To this end, we need to give them bonuses to damage. In lieu of direct damage bonuses, we could give them PG/CPU reductions to damage mods, making fitting them easier. The Falchion would be served well with a bonus to missile turrets. I would say something like more missiles per magazine or faster reload. Something that increases its ability to do damage without actually increasing damage dealt (save for damage mods) The Vayu would of course use blasters, but this is tricky to balance. The only real thing we could do to increase damage dealt without actually touching damage is reducing dispersion of blasters, meaning they can fight infantry easier. But then, they'll be easier to kill than the basic frames, so perhaps that balances it out. In lieu if dispersion, we can increase ROF, allowing blasters to actually reach lethal levels of DPS in vehicle battles. Outside of bonuses, they should be faster than basic frames, better turning, acceleration and top speed. Maneuverability should be key. As a drawback, give them a reduction to total health/regen. They should want to attack from the flank and destroy their opponent before they can react. A caught Enforcer is likely to be a dead Enforcer. Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2275	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:15:00 - [2] - Quote I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2279	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:17:00 - [3] - Quote Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2282	Posted - 2014.12.17 01:40:00 - [4] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -No point if tanks don't threaten infantry. -See above -See above -No indirect weaponry to bombard. -demolition of what? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2285	Posted - 2014.12.17 03:50:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: "snip" I apologize for snipping, but I ran out of room to type. :( Here's my point of contention: If we had MTACs and MAVs and HDS and the whole slew of light to heavy vehicles, I would be on board with your ideas of anti-vehicle, bombardment, etc. I want tanks to have that job. However, let's look at the list of things an AV HAV has to shoot at. 1. LAVs 2. DS/ADS 3. Other HAVs 4. Installations Now LAVs are barely used at all as attack platforms beyond heavy taxis. Rarely, and I mean once every 2-3 weeks, do I see someone using the turret to kill infantry. Never have I seen it used with a driver and a gunner tandem. I have had potshots taken at me from a passing LAV, but they were using it to get from A to B, not using it as an attack vehicle. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but my experience tells me I have little to fear from LAVs. In fact, I fear the driver hopping out in a heavy suit more than the turret. Killing DS/ADS is a solid work, however the Blaster is woefully inefficient at it. At about 100m away it can't even stop shield regen. Missiles and railguns can get kills on them, so with blasters being the odd ones out, they can perform the AV role decently, although I wager more DS/ADS go down to infantry AV than to tanks. Other HAVs, if they are to be AV roles, aren't a threat to infantry. Why have it out to begin with, if all I have to do to neutralize the HAV as a threat... is leave my vehicle? And installations are destroyed in 2 missile volleys, one magazine of railguns, or about a minute of sustained fire from a particularly determined blaster tank and cannot be brought back into the fight after they are destroyed. Now out of these 4 things, we have one that A. is a threat to infantry and B. needs to be defeated over the entire match. One can make the argument of LAV killing saving infantry from heavy drive-bys, but the threat comes from the heavy driving the LAV, not the LAV itself. Installations are a threat, but they only need to be killed once. And if all HAVs are supposed to be AV, then why bother killing them? They don't threaten infantry enough. Only thing that fufills both criteria is DS/ADS. This is my point of contention. We need a ground vehicle whose PRIMARY goal is to kill infantry. Then the point of AV HAVs becomes clear; to kill those AP vehicles. We could give drivers control of the turret and have LAVs handle much like HAVs, with the left stick controlling the vehicle and right stick controlling the turret/camera. Or we could have large blasters become PRIMARILY about killing infantry, and balance them around that goal. But as a HAV pilot, I shouldn't be forced to have a gunner to threaten infantry any more than a heavy should have to have a gunner for his HMG. Enforcers can be this vehicle: A. they have less health, meaning infantry AV have an easier time killing/driving them off. B. the purpose of Marauders can be to engage/destroy these Enforcers to keep their infantry covered. Basic HAVs can be inbetween, jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. This gives each HAV a role to perform. It justifies Enforcers being weaker and faster (since they can more easily kill infantry, they can be more easily destroyed) and justifies Marauders being much tougher (since they don't really threaten infantry as much, they should take far more for infantry AV to destroy) I love your ideas for reworking blasters, but its only a great idea if we had other vehicles to use it on. As it is, until we have a dedicated AP vehicle, there is no need for a dedicated AV vehicle. Just like you don't need a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist, or a defense against an attack that doesn't exist. Should we get a vehicle, HAV or otherwise, with a dedicated AP role THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE TWO PEOPLE, I am totally on board with the HAV being king of AV. But we first need to give him a reason to AV in the first place. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2318	Posted - 2014.12.23 11:16:00 - [6] - Quote Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2324	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:39:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Here's the issue with AV: If all it takes is one person to kill a tank (within a single magazine no less) then what is the point of running the tank? It is nothing to hit up a supply depot and switch to AV, kill a tank, then switch back. This is the issue. AV becomes a side-thought. It's not a dedicated role, it's more of an afterthought. Now, a part of the problem is the vehicles themselves. There is no AP vehicle (a vehicle whose primary purpose in life is to kill infantry) and there desperately needs to be. This vehicle needs to be able to be controlled by one person; the comparison of two people to use a heavy suit is an apt analogy. And the vehicle needs to be nimble, quick, and above all, relatively easy to kill. The Enforcers could perfectly fit this role. Giving the LAV driver control of his turret from the driver seat is also a solution. But without an AP vehicle, there is no reason to run an AV vehicle. It's like having a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist. If you want tanks to not be a threat to you, if you want to kill them within a single magazine... then why would I, a vehicle pilot, want to run them? Now, there should not be a vehicle that can both resist infantry AV AND be good at killing infantry. This is what I think ground AV fear will happen. We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. Most of us DO NOT WANT THAT. We want each vehicle to have a purpose, and for the threat of ground AV to be proportional to the threat we pose to infantry. For instance, if we have Marauders as dedicated AV platforms, with bonuses to turret damage and penalties to speed, acceleration, turret rotation, etc. then yes, I want ground AV to have to team up to kill me. If I cannot fight you off, if I cannot run, then I should be able to sit there and soak it up. Ground AV shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of vehicle combat. If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, then why should I bother hopping in a tank at all? But in some way, I should have a vehicle whose primary objective is popping you and your mates walking around on the ground. And THAT vehicle, you certainly should reliably kill on most occasions. But if ground AV is just as good as my proto AV tank, then why would I waste my ISK or SP speccing into tanks? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2325	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:50:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

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.