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)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5774	Posted - 2014.12.15 12:58:00 - [1] - Quote I fully support this initiative and will provide likely TTK feedback for on foot AV based on current. My first thought is that we need to be careful with the things. We're at the point where the gunnlogi can shrug off AV fire with impunity. Where are these tanks intended to fit in the AV/V debate/debacle as far as design goes? My concern is that based on current EHP of HAVs re-introduction may necessitate a rework of AV again. Especially since the forge gun really has only one effective variant, and the PLC is situational. Nevermind you have to be using a wiyrkomi breach for damage mods to change TTK for heavy weapons. I am excited to get potentially new and fun targets again but concerned with their effect upon infantry AV. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5776	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:49:00 - [2] - Quote Can you scale the tank models so they are smaller? I would make the enforcers 25% smaller than standard tanks, remove one or both secondary turrets and make them cheap. Smaller means harder to hit. I would also make their turret elevation limit higher. Marauders are harder. Given the current state of the gunnlogi and sica making them tougher seems... not good. Giving the marauder a buff to secondary turrets as.well as defenses might make the party tank a credible threat to infantry as well. But as far as it goes I believe thw best way to balance them is to change the main cannon firing mechanics a bit. More on that later if you are interested. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5777	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:13:00 - [3] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5779	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:22:00 - [4] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5786	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:16:00 - [5] - Quote Al the destroyer wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. one player must be countered by one player. Period. a vehicle that allows one player to force three players out of the battle to deal with him is in no way balanced. People are screaming enough about sentinels. I want you to imagine what we get if you get your wish. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:21:00 - [6] - Quote Is there any chance we can get the standard and breach forge gun revamped to go with this HAV thing? Or get a placeholder set up for a AV laser cannon heavy weapon? Honestly until I sweet some example fits from your proposal, with the raw HP values I can't critique much. I can eyeball something and tell you how destructible it's going to be with current equipment and I can generally give a rough idea of how powerful a sentinel fit is going to be just by looking at the layout you want but when it comes to fitting tanks I'm a bloody novice at best. All I know right now is armor tanks are easy mode and shield tanks are borderline impossible to kill without a gangup right now. I have a proposal for the forge gun thing if you consider it relevant to topic. I'll talk to pokey about figuring out the fitting values in your spreadsheet. I'm a lot better at eyeballing a fit and figuring out if you can kill on the fly it than I am at actually cooking the fit up. So most of my feedback will be on the "can it be shot down" side. but until we actually have some kind of efficient shield cracking weapon for AV anything that takes more than five direct hits from an assault forge gun in rapid succession is excessive. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:15:00 - [7] - Quote Pokey seems to be on the right track. And just before I forget, thanks for this Rattati. I miss having a variety of HAV opponents to blast the utter crap out of. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:24:00 - [8] - Quote Also one of the things I have noticed about vehicles in general is that since most of the base HP stats were moved directly to the hull and the fittings were dropped sharply it's been almost impossible to have a variety of fittings for situational use. Right now we have cookie cutter builds with modules hardly used because the vehicles are hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. the more stuff that is front-loaded into the hull means the less wiggle room you have to customize fits to playstyle. I firmly believe that it should be the other way, with the fitting being more important than the hull itself. But that's just me. the front-loading of the base resists and HP onto the hulls was IMHO a mistake. It's the source of a lot of woes right now. I would think if you're going to do a revamp it's time to trim some off and do things like re-introduce 180mm plates and such while making it so HAVs can actually fit what they need to become effective. This is primarily what seems to be holding the gallente tanks down. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5825	Posted - 2014.12.17 06:34:00 - [9] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I fully support this initiative and will provide likely TTK feedback for on foot AV based on current. My first thought is that we need to be careful with the things. We're at the point where the gunnlogi can shrug off AV fire with impunity. Where are these tanks intended to fit in the AV/V debate/debacle as far as design goes? My concern is that based on current EHP of HAVs re-introduction may necessitate a rework of AV again. Especially since the forge gun really has only one effective variant, and the PLC is situational. Nevermind you have to be using a wiyrkomi breach for damage mods to change TTK for heavy weapons. I am excited to get potentially new and fun targets again but concerned with their effect upon infantry AV. Don't bother, because you'll want the PRO breach forge to do 2500 base damage before proficiency and damage mods. Why would I want that thing's base damage buffed? That's an idiotic assessment even for you. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5921	Posted - 2014.12.22 13:02:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: All true, but those requirements were: You had to find and hit the sherman You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one. Power to weight ratio on the Sherman's was very good. But by comparison the Sherman was a lighter tank almost 15 tonnes the Tiger's junior. Much better comparison would be the Panther...which was considered at the time inferior to the Sherman despite due to its similarly sized main gun and armour plating. Unlike the 44,000 Shermans that were produce only something like 1300 Tigers were ever made. Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles. Tank history nerd. But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well? It is a concern. However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5921	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:01:00 - [11] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. To be honest, I think large turrets should just be revamped in general. None of them operate reasonably like a large turret would: they should essentially be scaled down versions of EVE small turrets, because that is pretty much what they are. No they should behave like cannons. Not upscaled breach AR or bolt pistols. Having turrets that behave like machineguns isn't really beneficial to the balanxe of turrets being primarily AV. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5925	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:58:00 - [12] - Quote You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles. If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus. Done. Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs. AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5925	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:18:00 - [13] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles. If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus. Done. Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs. AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks. in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better. Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5936	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:37:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole. I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5936	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:45:00 - [15] - Quote 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. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5940	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:06:00 - [16] - Quote 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. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5942	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:03:00 - [17] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise. And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door. My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics. It's not helpful to the topic at hand. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5949	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:15:00 - [18] - Quote Reposting this here because I believe it mostly constructive and I believe there are some relevant concerns that should be addressed. No this is not a "HAVs need to be easy kills" rant. So save your breath. It started as a topic acknowledging the problems of Jihad Jeeps in relation to Maddies versus gunnlogis. Critiques welcome. Quote: The primary problem is the imbalance of Jihad Jeeps versus shields and armor. A tanked gunnlogi who hasn't been sucking on AV fire for a little bit can survive an impact. A madrugar with the same ISK/SP investment cannot. I will definitely admit that this is indicative of a problem. While I would like to see the gunnlogi brough to the level of the maddy, there REALLY needs to be options for the maddies to take explosive damage and not collapse like a punk. The Gunnlogi needs to retain the ability to trump explosives as well. I'd like to see the efficacy of standard RE's dropped by 30-50% versus HAVs only and then the Gunnlogi raw survivability dropped. The packed REs can do full damage to HAVs but their blast radius makes them less of a sure thing with JLAVs. A major part of the problem is that the baseline tanks are not roughly equal in power and survivability. I see this as a problem. Honestly my wishlist would be all things being equal a maddy takes 4 forge shots, a gunnlogi takes 5 at best overall tank. (I'm assuning the hardener timer has run out and it's either recharging, or you haven't activated it) But we'd need a shield busting weapon that takes out the gunnlogi in 4 and the maddy in 5. there needs to be some kind of parity where the weapon you bring to the field to kill an HAV whether that is a Forge Gun, PLC, Heavy Rail Turret, Heavy missile Turret, Heavy Blaster Turret swarms or what have you, there is another equally effective (not identical) weapon that can do the same to the other tank. It's possible to have an asymmetric battle if one side has the right type of tank and guns to weather the assault of the enemy and the enemy doesn't have the tank or the correct guns to do the same. Another thing is the turrets on HAVs desperately need a rework. I think they should behave more like cannons. Not everyone agrees with me and I can respect that while still arguing. But they need to have SOME reasonable utility versus infantry because it's the purpose of Infantry AV to fight, drive off and destroy enemy vehicles. It is NOT the job of Infantry to maker the players of HAVs feel impotent and helpless in the face of oncoming fire. my wishlist for how many shots an HAV should take to destroy is a guideline for a non-hardener active. THe "waves of opportunity" concept is a respectable one, and if Tankers have to time their attacks just so AV should absolutely have to follow suit. I don't think that being able to mount two or more hardeners and keeping them always up is great design space though. Finally... variety. There isn't enough variety in fittings. Too much crap was homogenized into the base hull. What happened to people who were willing to suck up the old horribad slow tank speeds in exchange for monster tank? Oh wait, they're gone because most of the modules were made obsolete by the changes packing most of the bonuses into the base hulls. The biggest b*tch I have heard from vehicle drivers (and running my Maddy Pilot Good Lord do I agree) is that the fittings we have for vehicles is lackluster. I blame the fact that vehicles are now hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. When tanks are fitting centric you can HAVE variety on the field. You can have glass cannons. You can have slow, overtanked demon boulders of atrocity. You can have a balanced loadout. right now there's a cookie cutter. Right now the gunnlogi and madrugar are the vanilla tanks with the sica and soma being the cheap seat tanks. If the Enforcers are supposed to be the murderers of vehicles where does that lead marauders? What do they counter? IMHO the marauder job should be suppression of infantry and support AV rather than primary AV. Make it so the gunnlogi and madrugar can fit for AV or Infantry suppression but neither does the job as well as the marauder/enforcer. If we aren't going to pre-define a role, then give the drivers enough options that they can CREATE a role for themselves on the field. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5953	Posted - 2014.12.24 14:26:00 - [19] - Quote 1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV. 2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening. 3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills. 4. Vehicles have no variety Agreed. I made this point as well. 5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down. 6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5957	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:25:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. And it sucks versus maddies. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5961	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:42:00 - [21] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5961	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:55:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty. You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots. @_@ What are you even talking about? I'm still a fan of the 4/2 and 2/4 system. He's taking old statements out of context again and coming to his paranoid conclusions. Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5963	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:06:00 - [23] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit. Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation. In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition. Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5963	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:08:00 - [24] - Quote Oh wait, to answer your actual question, YES DAMN YOU 180mm plates would be beneficial. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5963	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:11:00 - [25] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit. Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation. In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition. Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field. So with a 2/4 layout you could be looking at something like 180mm Plate + 2 Hardeners + 1 repper for your average fit? gimmie a ballpark for the HP that would give. I'll do the kill math and give you an answer EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5963	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:15:00 - [26] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself. takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5963	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:32:00 - [27] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise. So 1200 Shield 6827 Armor x2 25% Armor Hardeners eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40% Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them. I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway... six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently. compare that to the 8-9 that a gunnlogi can take conceivably. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5964	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:45:00 - [28] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise. So 1200 Shield 6827 Armor x2 25% Armor Hardeners eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40% Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them. I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway... six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently. See I don't have an issue with double stacking hardeners. Burst tanking is a common thing in New Eden so it fits here as well, imo. So 4 shots...9-10 seconds against a non-hardened full health Maddy....gives time to get the hardener(s) up and running. I assume max skills for the forge, is that a damage modded fit? that's me running prof 4 and no damage mods. Heavy damage mods are crap. Only a wiyrkomi breach has enough alpha for mods to conceivably alter TTK via shots to kill. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5964	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:59:00 - [29] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself. takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot. It doesn't take any thought. Get 3 forge gunners behind a tank in a LAV and that's a dead tank. No thought I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5964	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:05:00 - [30] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP. New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. +1 EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5964	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:06:00 - [31] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5968	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:11:00 - [32] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP. New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. +1 I will not compromise you filthy AVer. Likes have been nerfed over and over. I expect a +10 and nothing less. Suck it, Tank nerd. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5968	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:14:00 - [33] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Suck it, Tank nerd. Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum. Your marauder will be the first that I destroy to christen their return. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:42:00 - [34] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn. The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:45:00 - [35] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn. The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now. I knew you would break and give me my +10. I'm glad we could agree on something. For the sake of science. You monster. Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK! EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:49:00 - [36] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK! Here, it's in this Strongbox. i'm not falling for that trick... again... Ok let's quit derailing the topic Pokey. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5969	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:07:00 - [37] - Quote that's because you can't read. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5987	Posted - 2014.12.25 09:03:00 - [38] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? Yep. He said none. I agree with him. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5996	Posted - 2014.12.25 18:46:00 - [39] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? Yep. He said none. I agree with him. Have you gone against more than just MLT tanks? How about STD hulls with better than MLT turrets? You literally have no idea what it's like. Get in a tank, and don't jump out when you're on fire. Have you ever even been in a PC, with pilot harassing a team, unable to be destroyed by your team's tanks? That's a damn good pilot right there. My alt is a maddy pilot. So yes I have. Keep whining. Yes I do know what it's like. Keep whining. Yes I have. I'm fully conversant in the million ways madrugars die in a fire. Keep whining. Spkr you never listen, and the fact that you're irrationally consistent comforts me. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6000	Posted - 2014.12.26 08:37:00 - [40] - Quote This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints. Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6001	Posted - 2014.12.26 08:50:00 - [41] - Quote Looks like I'll be spending quality time on my HAV pilot for a bit trying to get a feel for this stuff again. Can anyone find the chromosome spreadsheets for HAVs? I think fitting-centric HAVs is the best way to balance them. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6004	Posted - 2014.12.26 22:52:00 - [42] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: If you've never been a pilot, why are you here? Until you learn to read, shut up. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6004	Posted - 2014.12.26 22:54:00 - [43] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: because you never tanked through the old days Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6007	Posted - 2014.12.27 08:54:00 - [44] - Quote I imagine theyre goig to shout down any suggestion for bringing marauders and enforcers back unless they come back exactly as thet want them. Overpowered and untouchable by anything other than another HAV. Rattati if the "established" tank drivers are going to be ungrateful, scream and accuse you of incompetence I would take it as a formal request to abandon brinking these tank classes in favor of amarr and minmatar setups using existing art assets as placeholders. This is why we cannot have nice things. Either that or my recommendation would be to get "that little sh*t pokey" on skype with the CPM and have a talk. He has a phenomenal grasp of what is going on here to the point where all I can reasonably contribute to the work he's been doing is eyeballing his ideas for AV/V balance so things remain difficult for AV but keeping with 1 player =1 player regardless of fitting. He's really been the most constructive on the topic of HAV balance. And he's been enlisting player feedback on how things might work to submit a baseline to you for vehicles until the usual suspects invade his threads to scream, rant and shout him down. Please seriously consider enlisting him to assist you in your vehicle rebalance efforts. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6007	Posted - 2014.12.27 10:43:00 - [45] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: You're really good at eyeballing numbers, any chance you could take a look at the spreadsheet I linked in an earlier post? and I do agree that 1 player should kill 1 player...but what about the vehicles with 3 players inside? or a dropship transport that controls 6 ish? (Just asking, not trying to sound hostile or anything here, just legitimately curious about it) Please re-link the post and I'll look. And believe it or not a party tank with two competent turret monkeys is a nightmare to put down. It is easily exponentially harder to kill but still doable solo along the same vein that it is possible for a single man to kill 3 people in a row on foot with a rifle. My only real complaint about a party tank is that IMHO the secondary turrets are buggy and unreliable. When they work they REALLY WORK. Introduce a little lag and they take a dump. I would prefer that they really work more often but as with all things skill, planning and positioning should be the most powerful thing. As far as dropships go, everyone inside can bail out so unless the wreck lands on you there's no excuse for dying when a DS gets splashed. But currently transport dropships enjoy the same tankability as HAVs do. This is overcompensating for the fact that the maps are so constrained that there's really nowhere they can escape TO except the redline where they are useless. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6007	Posted - 2014.12.27 10:52:00 - [46] - Quote Will hit it when I'm not at work. Pretty sure my boss will get butthurt if I go and spend my workday analyzing HAV balance. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6007	Posted - 2014.12.27 12:41:00 - [47] - Quote If the gunnlogis current brickiness was entirely the result of a single active hardener and when that hardener dropped it became vulnerable to fire then I would agree that it is fine. The problem isthe base bufferof the gunnlogi gets too high to where even it's passive tank is higher than can be reasonably dealt with. Passive buffer should only withstand 3-4 shots by itself with an active hardener spiking that number anywhere from six to eight hits. The problem starts when the average gunnlogi buffer STARTS at absorbing 5-6 hits. That's old sagaris EHP from chrome. The marauders. And that's not taking into account that back then AV had a noticably higher rate of fire across the board. I won't go into the problems with large turrets. They have alternately been too effective at AV (looking at you rails/missiles) or utterly ineffectual (blasters). EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6009	Posted - 2014.12.27 14:49:00 - [48] - Quote Why dont you get off your ass and provide numbers and feedback that is useful rather than trying to shout everyone down? Between you and spkr the contribution hs been the rough equivalent of plugging your ears and loudly yelling NONONONONO to try and drown people out. Secondly this attitude that only HAV drivers have any right to comment on HAV balance needs to die. Everyon from the oldest, bitterest vet to the rankest of new newbies has every right to weigh in on any aspect of the game. This elitist "you're not X therefore you want to ruin Y thus your opinion is invalid" BS is so childish that anyone spouting it should have their game privileges removed. Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. That was why I specced heavy, maxed a forge gun and made it my mission in DUST to make every tank burn. That is what you get when only pilots get to comment on vehicles. What happens when only AV players get to weigh in on AV and tank drivers get cut out? You get tanks dead 514 easy mode. Understand laser fo cused you and people of your mindset are firmly in the minority. The rest of us refuse to return to the days where HAVs were more or less unstoppable and the lot of you get to pad you K/D without fear of loss. You don't get your godmachines back. Period. You can help make HAVs fun and functional, or your opinions can be discarded. But thus far the primary contribution of "established HAV pilots" has been to insult the people trying to help, provided a "my way or the highway" attitude, made personal attacks and accusations against the other players and crapped all over rattati, up to and including calling him an idiot with no right to touch vehicles. I don't think you nerds get it. He's the lead on DUST. If he decides HAVs are too problematic he CAN in fact remove them entirely. Not exactly what I call an ideal solution. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6010	Posted - 2014.12.27 15:35:00 - [49] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Hahaha just read your last post and I also remember the tankers truce which also was a direct result of the av buff and tank nerf . I remember one game ware Jason person and my self wereoO the opposing teams and we just rolled past each other right in the middle of the field it was a laugh. And yet hilariously even with the AV buff and tank nerf for chrome there were only a small handful of AV gunners who could smash those tanks down. I had fun killing them but very few others enjoyed what vehicles at the time added to the battlefield. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6011	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:33:00 - [50] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Stuff Huh. Never expected you to make a constructive post. Will address. 1. Ideal solution - Chrome/Uprising Agreed with Chrome for AV balance and Early Uprising for HAV vs. HAV. However I consider this unlikely as the old code from Chrome isn't archived. It's flat out gone. They don't have copies of it from what I understand. We'd need spreadsheets with all of the old chrome numbers at the very minimum to rebuild this crap and I dunno where we are going to find THAT. 1a. Basic HAV - 4/2 slot layout 1b. Marauders - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values 1c. Enforcers - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values, buffed CPU/PG The whole point of a sidegrade is so that they don't have to completely rebalance AV again using old chrome values for the HAVs and the current values for AV will make AV worthless (Maybe not with swarms) as far as the forge gun and PLC go. Also, the Enforcers utterly failed to live up to the "Glass cannon" thing, so if ANYTHING I'd drop them to 3/2 slots if the marauders get upticked. 1d. All old modules/skills and skill bonuses added back in Agreed. 1e. Current AV values added in No, this won't work. AV, despite what you all think has eaten multiple nerfs. Heavy Damage mods add HALF their old vvalues and as an example the IAFG has eaten a 20% RoF nerf since chrome, and taken a 150 damage per shot nerf as well as loss of range. Using current AV values will not balance AV/V. If we were to return to chrome Vehicles, we need to return to chrome AV. The only change I'd make to forge guns from chrome AV would be to put the Standard forge gun squarely between the Breach and Assault for Alpha damage. 1f. Hardeners across the board standard 30% agreed to a point. There's a few broken combos involving keeping hardeners up 100% of the time. 1g. L Blasters back to dot sight, they were perfectly fine in Uprising as AV and AI, if you want small turrets to do it like S railguns then dont complain when they work and saying they should be AV instead or if its for S blasters to do it then get rid of the dispersion and give them decent range so they are useful The nerfs to heavy turrets are one of the maybe three points of balance where I sharply disagree with Rattati on. Never mind that Splash damage from vehicle turrets was the reason splash resistance was added to sentinels. 1h. L missiles back to Chrome - L missiles should have splash, its a missile as long as a merc so its going to have an explosion radius, current infantry ignore splash splash was reduced to why bother? It affects infantry at like half a meter. 1i. L railgun - 600m range or at least 450m Redline camping shouldn't be a thing. It allowed people to farm kills too easily with no risk, as was addressed with the Sniper Rifle. Nevermind that range allowed HAVs to instapop any enemy vehicle drops no matter where on the field they are. Going to have to disagree with you here. 1j. Pilot suits I'd like these yesterday, thanks. 1k. Capacitors - The true balance to any and all vehicles Not happening any time soon. With an FPS the rule of the day should be KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. DUST already violates that six ways from sunday. Plus it's another micromanagement thing to balance out. Nevermind that without gear like vamps and neuts, Cap would cause more problems than it would solve. 1l. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles Yeah, I want these along with a gallente and amarr heavy weapon. 1m. Tiercide or not - Vehicles are tiecided, modules are not, dropsuits are not, equipment/weapons/infantry modules are not, basically if its tiercided then the BASIC hulls which they are need to stand upto PROTO AV and be able to fit PROTO mods on all slots, if you disagree then we get ADV/PROTO hulls then STD vehicles are balanced against proto AV right now. they HAVE to be since CCP decided they were going out on a tier removal for vehicles. MLT seem balanced vs. ADV AV. If we step the hulls UP we have to step the AV back up. It's that simple. As it stands the gunnlogi needs to be toned down and the maddy toned UP. 2. The past was better - No one asked for 1.7 but pilots had to make do with it, main 1.7 problems were easy swarms with 3k per volley and various bugs (invisible swarms, going around 4 corners, lock on when not on target, firing when not on target etc) and 3k per AV nade and rendering so we couldnt see infantry 50m in front of us - Fix that and it was gravy but no it all got changed so pilots adapted with what we were given until it eventually got nerfed to what we have now And blaming Rattati for that crap gets us nowhere because he had no part in those design decisions. Helping him unscrew them is a better use of time. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:52:00 - [51] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: because you never tanked through the old days Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey)) So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored? Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:26:00 - [52] - Quote Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't). I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them. Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible. But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed. But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem. And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet. But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable. If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure. and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks. Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread. Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 19:00:00 - [53] - Quote I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6026	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:22:00 - [54] - Quote Oh this is most of what I wanted. We can extrapolate from here. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6027	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:59:00 - [55] - Quote This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here. There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower. I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need). But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick. Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6029	Posted - 2014.12.28 04:37:00 - [56] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here. There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower. I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need). But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick. Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? Why not follow like the MLT Dropsuits and increase the Sica/Soma to have the same base stats as the Maddy/Gunnlogi, just with a reduced slot layout (either the current 2/2, or maybe a 3/1 if we change to a 4/2 slot layout on the Standards?) That's what I'm possibly thinking. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6032	Posted - 2014.12.28 13:35:00 - [57] - Quote You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right? It's doable in a sentinel. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6034	Posted - 2014.12.28 17:55:00 - [58] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. 4 IAFG does the job in most cases, 4 will move the HAV away if the pilot is smart enough which is a win in my book, 2 will defo kill it outright I'm in it for the kill, not the consolation prize, just like most HAV pilots who aren't simply jerking off merrily farming warpoints off each other. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6034	Posted - 2014.12.28 20:35:00 - [59] - Quote My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk. The pilot has to pay for the HAV. The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes. The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap. Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO. There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies. You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6036	Posted - 2014.12.29 10:30:00 - [60] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6038	Posted - 2014.12.29 14:38:00 - [61] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all. 1. Rattati hasnt replied to anything in this thread 2. The spreadsheet hasnt been updated 3. We have no idea what CCP are thinking currently 4. Other threads that Rattati has created has more than 5posts by him on various things, the only way vehicles will progress is if CCP actually try to create a discussion on there vision for vehicles Don't try to justify people being self-righteous, and idiotic. It drags you to their level. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6044	Posted - 2014.12.29 17:44:00 - [62] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. I can't sing enough that this is what I'm hoping for. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6057	Posted - 2014.12.29 22:20:00 - [63] - Quote Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall. Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion. So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff. Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at. And this is pretty typical behavior. Fun, huh? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6068	Posted - 2014.12.30 08:59:00 - [64] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now). While I vehemently disagree with you on crews that doesn't mean that I don't think your other ideas might not have a couple potential gems. Throw em out. You might have something Rattati can use. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6069	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:03:00 - [65] - Quote It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6071	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:21:00 - [66] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6080	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:18:00 - [67] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. 1. I also do what you just described 2. I use lists to get to the point and explain my reasons, i do this for the ADHD people who fall asleep or get distracted by a button when reading walls of texts If a person't too ADHD to read a paragraph, then he's too ADHD to provide a coherent and useful opinion actionable in the game. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6088	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:53:00 - [68] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD best proposal yet. I think we have a winner. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6107	Posted - 2014.12.31 12:12:00 - [69] - Quote problem is whenever someone suggests making enforcers light HP, big gun, people start absolutely sh*tting kittens saying they'll be useless and wanting them to be able to take lots of hits. I don't think people are on the same sheet of music when you say "Glass cannon." But on the other hand, I don't forsee anyone making the easy to annihilate hulls cheap, which is the POINT of glas cannon stuff economically. Lots of cheap tanks with big guns usually trumps a few heavy tanks with good armor. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6113	Posted - 2014.12.31 15:48:00 - [70] - Quote Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6122	Posted - 2014.12.31 19:29:00 - [71] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6123	Posted - 2015.01.01 02:05:00 - [72] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen. Try not treating everyone else like they're made of pure sh*t and they'll stop treating you like a second class citizen. You know, courtesy if you want courtesy? It does work occasionally. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6127	Posted - 2015.01.01 09:59:00 - [73] - Quote Honestly the only way to balance enforcers as cannon destructo balls with a weak tank would be to bring back splash values. You can't make it a glass cannon and tanky period. But you can make it punch hard in both weight classes or as you said, AV will trivialize it. But if it has the ability to blow the crap out of infantry while retaining vulnerability it can balance out. Regardless it needs to be cheaper than the others. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6128	Posted - 2015.01.02 09:07:00 - [74] - Quote Bluntly I think impact angles would help vehicles overall. Of course It would require another rebalance but eh. Just make the assumption that shields are there to provide additional deflection and follow the contours of the vehicle to match the armor. I.e. Caldari would have angled armor, gallente sloped armor. Give the sloped less resistance to direct fire penetration and more splash deflection and do the opposite with angled or whatever seems appropriate. Or use Kane's signature radius idea. It's not an obvious solution but it seems to have a bit of merit. That way rather than trying to balance the guns to each vehicle you can increase or decrease sig to lower damage to that vehicle. A forge shot that passes through the bay doors of a dropship aren't going to do as much damage to a dropship as it will to a square hit on an HAVs ass. The HAV has almost zero "deadspace" inside it's hull comparatively so it's sig radius would be bigger and take more damage from AV (not just handhelds, but turrets too) This would allow vehicles that are constantly getting slapped around to be adjusted on the fly by tweaking the sig. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6128	Posted - 2015.01.02 10:45:00 - [75] - Quote My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking. We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6129	Posted - 2015.01.02 15:02:00 - [76] - Quote Enhanced resists on the glacis plate and would fit the tank destroyer motif. There's nothing saying that a "glass cannon" cannot have strong points the way regular HAVs have weak points. Forcing people to think before they engage is never bad design space. I still think enforcers should have a 25% size reduction to make them harder to hit. Perhaps having one secondary gunner at most. You can justify all sorts of dirty design tricks if the premise of the vehicle is high vulnerability to AV weaponry of all types in order to avoid getting hit in the first place. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6130	Posted - 2015.01.02 18:06:00 - [77] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: . 1. Problem with all that is that its another overhaul for a new type of tank 2. The reduction of module slots and seperation into specific areas does limit what you fit on to it, possibly allow rigs as in EVE and maybe a unqiue module that cannot be taken off but also does not take up a module slot so that all the races can use them without half the races having to put it into a tank slot but comes with that specific vehicle - Im sure someone has said this before somehwere 3. For a 'TD' type of tank then would the turret come with it? ie a turret that you cannot buy on the market but cannot be removed from the tank either, so the turret is a specalized turret 4. The resistances could work possibly for shield, but for armor seems out of place, how would laser work? the armor reflects the laser beam onto a nearby enemy tank and causes damage or the laser goes straight through it - Cant really have sloped/angled armor with laser or even missiles assume that the armor is ablative, reflective coating to deflect coherent light energy. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6134	Posted - 2015.01.02 22:57:00 - [78] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed. Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well. "Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls. You just keep banging on that drum princess. You and Laser can start a HAV bitterness focus group. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6135	Posted - 2015.01.03 08:30:00 - [79] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6136	Posted - 2015.01.03 10:43:00 - [80] - Quote Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6139	Posted - 2015.01.03 15:38:00 - [81] - Quote Agreed. Too much vehicle balance is predicated on other units that don't exist as well as weapons that don't exist either. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6140	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:05:00 - [82] - Quote don't forget revert AV to chrome stats. not including the six missile swarm or 400m lock range EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6140	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:34:00 - [83] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6143	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:34:00 - [84] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6144	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:43:00 - [85] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6151	Posted - 2015.01.04 17:17:00 - [86] - Quote Text Grant wrote: While we are changing vehicles, I hope that you at least consider changes to the large blaster turret. A blaster tank is very effective vs infantry, and fairly effective vs enemy tanks. Because of this, it is easily the go to turret. You only get out a missile tank or rail tank if you expect to kill tanks or turrets. This should be changed to make the blaster less of an all around weapon. The missile tank is meant to be all around. I'm suggesting an increase to the fitting cost of a large blaster turret to lower its tanking ability. blaster turret is low-mediocre vs infantry at best EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6151	Posted - 2015.01.05 07:15:00 - [87] - Quote The problem with making the smalls optional back in chrome was even with them mads could field tanks that could weather a storm of fire that is unbelievable, gunnlogis and maddies universally had a 3-4 shot from solid AV lifespan and militia tanks were meat. Having HAVs with the capability to be even MORE bricky is sketchy at best. Currrently TTK on a normal gunnlogi (not a newbie gunlogi) exceeds the old sagaris by a wide margin. Not only because it can field the old Surya tank levels but because AV has all beeen nerfed both in rate of fire and damage output. Leave swarms off my argument I dislike them. They aren't fun for me to use. So I don't. But the mandatory turret removal would mean if we reintroduce marauders anywhere close to the old numbers their cpu and pg would have to come down anyway because they were barey manageable for most AV players as far as yo yo play and impossible to kill for all but a few. The HAV rail and missiles would lilely be best staying as they are vs. HAVs if we don't retool them to be more like cannons. But they need the splash. Being helpless vs AV infantry is uninteresting design space. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6156	Posted - 2015.01.05 16:24:00 - [88] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Relevant to my theorycrafting: Anyone know if a weapon with splash damage applies both the splash and the direct against a target when it hits? Direct hit and splash don't stack one or the other. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6178	Posted - 2015.01.07 15:12:00 - [89] - Quote CL0AK W0LF R1D3R wrote: And also make it so that basic swarms cannot solo a proto tank. Just saying they are more op than 1.6 this is a hilarious thing right here. basic swarms can barely solo an LAV EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6193	Posted - 2015.01.08 11:18:00 - [90] - Quote Rewards in general need to be better. Running pubs or facwar it's not feasible to keep your militia tanks on the field due to the cost. Part of my beef with the reward system is it actively discourages would-be pilots from taking risks since a full std/mlt fit sica or soma costs about as much as a prototype dropsuit fully fitted. If hav pilots were able to sustain reasonable numbers of vehicles rather than one every two matches (same goes for ADS) we wouldn't have as sharp an argument between AV and pilots. But rather like it being almost impossible to sustain nonstop full ADV fits no matter how experienced you are (pc isk isn't being considered here) it is nigh impossible to sustain a profit save through overpowered fits destined to get nerfed. Yes I am talking about the gunnlogi. And the disparity in the gunnlogi will have the secondary effect of delaying improvements to the madrugar. Because with all of the generalized b*tching back and forth it's easy to say "av is overperforming" or "HAVs are overpowered" without examining what is causing the issue. net results of complaining about the gunnlogi under normal circumstances will be to get havs nerfed in general rather than addressing the single one that is causing issues while ignoring the fact that two of them are little more than suicide fits for people who hate winning already. It's like conflating "all AV is overperforming." What if it's just swarms? Is it unreasonable to state that the plc isn't particularly effective against the intended targets? What are the circumstances (this applies both ways both v/av) that this overperforming is occurring? Are HAVs overpowered because three of them decided to attack at the same place? Is AV overpowered because they can focus fire and smash tanks? Common sense answers to both questions is "no." However, I'm waiting for the inevitable barely concealed assertion that havs should be immune to infantry plebes or that Vehicles should explode any time an AVer points an accusing finger at them. Because that's the magic that has completely derailed this thread. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6200	Posted - 2015.01.08 15:02:00 - [91] - Quote I was going to respond to your continuous whining about infantry players but I realized that your methods of talking at people speak for themselves. Pretty sure your petty and accusative behavior will hamstring your efforts to get the game changed to primarily cater to your playstyle. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6224	Posted - 2015.01.08 20:54:00 - [92] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6232	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:41:00 - [93] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong) 8600 actual, or EHP? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6232	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:46:00 - [94] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong) 8600 actual, or EHP? Shield EHP so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill. and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6233	Posted - 2015.01.08 22:54:00 - [95] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill. and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked. They're assuming hardeners running I'll re-tweak the numbers...the idea of the 180 second regen time to to encourage the use of boosters and rechargers (added rechargers in the modules page). The Hardener is 22.5 Seconds Active, then goes on cooldown for 45 seconds (Same cooldown, reduced active duration assuming level 5). If I try to redo the regen time, I'll have to redo the rechargers as well remember rechargers stop if you shoot them currently. And passive shield tank should be viable if you can get away from incoming fire long enough for the shields to kick in the recharge. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6239	Posted - 2015.01.09 06:35:00 - [96] - Quote The gunnlogi would be fine with higher regen. But how does the maddy turn up with fittings is the question. If you can spike the ehp higher than current via hardener then it's an improvement. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6239	Posted - 2015.01.09 06:36:00 - [97] - Quote Shield recharge delay is there for a reason. Don't f*ck with it. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6240	Posted - 2015.01.09 12:48:00 - [98] - Quote Before you start yanking numbers from EVE: EVE is not an FPS game. Your ability to aim in the game is calculated purely by server fiat. The firing mechanics in EVE are tethered to the fitting potential and hull speed and maneuverability. In DUST it is player piloting agility and error vs. Enemy ability to consistently hit targets. I agree with laser for once here. Because facing armor values aren't in the game we are unlikely to get it unless DUST becomes a cult hit and the cash overflow overruneth the cup, allowing CCP to do legion and a PS4 port. Further armor on the glacis plate should be strongest as statistically the front of a tank is the most likely to be facing anti armor fire. I like what you are trying to do, but we need to use existing mechanics. Troll back a few pages and look up the chrome V/AV spreadsheet someone linked to and poke at those numbers. Ask the HAV pilots what the turrets were doing in 1.1 and take that into account. Once we have enough of that, if we can get enough people to sign off "this is what we want" we have something we can ask rattati for. Trying to re-invent the wheel won't get us anywhere. The more we work within established mechanical boundaries the more likely we are to get what we want. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6241	Posted - 2015.01.09 13:00:00 - [99] - Quote Before you get too excited read the chrome base stats for vehicles. There is a reason why I openly say that it was the most fun I had for V/AV. Bluntly if we do that small turrets will either have to be mandatory again or the fitting willneed reduced. Chrome HAVs were beast but the V/AV interplay was absolutely fun. The hard part would be adjusting values so dropship pilots don't get crapped on. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6245	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:45:00 - [100] - Quote From an AV perspective, and yes I realize I'm in the minority of chrome infantry players, I enjoyed fighting the old marauders. In chrome I was one of the few people who specced full forge and learned to kill sagaris and surya effectively. It takes about a month to learn to butcher marauders, but it can be done. A lot of DUST is frantic running and shooting. I loved battling chromosome HAVs because timing and positioning was the way to fight them. If you could make a pilot panic or confused you can beat them despite all claims of invulnerability. If we can get the old chrome HAVs back, AV weapons will needa slight tweak up because of the loss of both the weaponry skill which was crucial, and the loss of weapon mod efficiency. But that tweaking can be done after we get a feel for how the interplay goes if it is needed. Another thing is the loss of skill benefits to vehicles. Those skills made up for the baseline weaknesses of the HAV frames. At raw numbers a marauder wasn't particularly threatening unless you applied solid skills. The removal of those skills buggered up the design layout something fierce and nullified a lot of diversity in the fits. My madrugar, for instance. I'm going to assume laser has a boatload more SP into HAVs than my alt. But because of the lack of skill benefits given to drivers and pilots both of us would in a whiteroom, perform more or less identically with identical fits. It used to be when you dropped into a fight you checked the enemy roster for certain people. I checked for known HAV pilots because by and large no-names weren't a threat. Nowadays I only need to know three things. 1: what your hull is 2: what your gun is. 3:whether you're an HMG sentinel poptart. That's it. That's not how it should be. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6245	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:50:00 - [101] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page). What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly) (Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods) Weakspot changes that instantly. A wiyrkomi breach forge can kill a maddy in one shot with three mods if the gunner is slick enough to get in aft. Against shields in the weakspot my forge guns hit for 165% and about 245% to raw armor My hud may or may not be inaccurate but the results speak for themselves. You absolutely CAN oneshot an HAV by putting a round up the tailpipe. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6246	Posted - 2015.01.09 16:17:00 - [102] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So instead of increasing the base stats on the hulls, why not increase the HP given by armor plates themselves? (or re-examine the damage bonus from the tailpipe weakspot) Chromosome the base hulls were flimsy and improved by the quality of fitting you could clock into it. When uprising rolled around CCP decided to re-invent the wheel and reverse the apple cart and make the fittings less important and front-load the benefits on the hulls themselves. this had the added side effect of the dumbing down of vehicle mods. Do I think the passive regen is horrible? Nah, but it should have been provided along with active regen options as well for armor. a lot of the issue is when your base hull has 4,000 EHP, then in order to balance things out without randomly buffing the crap out of AV you have to dumb down the modules. If the HAVs were more fit-centric as they were in chrome more options open up. The hull-centric model saw the removal of more options than it added by far. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6246	Posted - 2015.01.09 16:45:00 - [103] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Chrome/Uprising you could tell from the stats of the HAV if they had skills or not and the skill tree alone gave a number of options into where to skill 1st while modules created a variety of fits - At 30mil SP you would not have level 5 everything for vehicles let alone have any SP into infantry things because there was always something else you wanted or needed to create that perfect fit or just to finish off a level - The difference in them days was huge, you either went full vehicles or not at all and it felt like a role, like something to get your teeth into - Yes it was hard for a new vehicle pilot due to no MM or decent academy system but you stick with it and learn and improve like any other role this is the important one here. Without the skill system fully realized we may as well have HAVs be randomly dropped in the redline for anyone to drive. As I said, with you vs. my maddy pilot, assuming identical fits, the performance would be more or less functionally identical. In chrome if I took my madrugar for a spin i was lethal, plus I knew when to call it good and bail before the swarms got too thick. But things have changed. Right now the way the skill tree is set up we might as well just have a dropped tank be an ISK charge and no skills required, or a random drop in the back 40 a minute after the last one explodes. I'd rather have the skill tree and chrome stuff back, and tweak the old AV values so that they can be fought, countered and the interplay matters. Right now the interplay doesn't. If it's a madrugar or soma it's dead meat inside 5 minutes, 7 if you're slick (I got to 6.5) and a gunnlogi just isn't worth wasting ammo on. Yes it's wasting ammo. You have no chance of breaching the shields before it gets away. Sicas are rarely seen and they're about as tough as a madrugar. Them thar Gallente tanks sure be mighty impressive, don't they? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6246	Posted - 2015.01.09 16:47:00 - [104] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6252	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:24:00 - [105] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim. They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever. It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this. This doesn't answer WHY it was done. I know HOW it was done. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6252	Posted - 2015.01.09 20:11:00 - [106] - Quote Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6257	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:29:00 - [107] - Quote Pokey your premise will make tanks more powerful relative to AV/V interactions. Due to the nature of changes to primary AV over the last few iterations of DUST the gunnlogi is currently more powerful than the sagaris was relative to that interaction. And spkr there has to be a comprimose point where skilled AV gunners can in fact kill HAVs. I liked chromosome because once I got a feel for how the HAVs and forge guns worked it was possible to fight them on something resembling an even keel. I didn't mind losing a milllion + ISK in AV fits to lock down and detonate an overly expensive surya. AV gunners who focused on AV primarily thrived, everyone else whined. I want the days back when AV gunners and tank drivers would doubkecheck the enemy roster to make sure they weren't going to get any ugly surprises. But one thing that does need to be understood. Teamwork is not a justification for nerfing AV. It is not an exploit to gang up on a difficult target. However by the same token I do not, and never have, considered tanks surrounding and crossfiring infantry in an artificial killbox unfair either. Party tanks mowing people down by the numbers is working as intended. I think that mechanically at base HAV vs AV should be somewhere in the neighborhood of an even fight with a moderate advantage to the HAV. Pilot skill vs gunner skill should be the deciding factor, and neither side of that engagement should ever be considered a foregone conclusion. Tanks need to be vulnerable to destruction but not with the comparative ease of the current madrugar where no matter what you fit, one solo AV player is a sure bet to pop your vehicle. I don't give a crap, I do not want HAVs to be easy kills any more than I want them immune to destruction by forge guns. Chrome was an excellent balance point for this. Right now I don't bother running AV much. ADS can't pin me down, I can trivially avoid HAV engagements and when I engage it's either a trivial engagement or a complete waste of ammo and effort. It needs to change and bluntly this is why I think we should start by copy/pasting the AV/V from chrome then adjust the resistance levels of dropships so TTK doesn't become too short on ADS and standard dropships. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6257	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:33:00 - [108] - Quote There's a difference between strong against and ableto ignore. The current iteration of the gunnlogi is more difficult to destroy than the chrome sagaris was. The chrome sagaris was awesome, this gunnlogi is too powerful defensively. And no I am not defending swarms. I never use the damn things and never have so I have never fired a wiyrkomi swarm. I've had them nail my maddy a few times though. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6257	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:44:00 - [109] - Quote Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods? Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6257	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:37:00 - [110] - Quote I'll grab the chrome spreadsheets and plug in numbers. I'm going to copy over the HAVs but I will have to modify the AV numbers to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill, as well as heavy damage mods getting wacked in half. Swarms I'm not going to post back to chrome stats, because they would cause severe problems between AV/DS/ADS interactions. Someone needs to find a list copy of the chromosome vehicle skill tree. Without a supporting skill tree we'll be stuck with the same BS we have now only instead of having supertanked gunnlogis we will have AFGs spiking holes through marauders in two shots. The skill tree is critical. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6257	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:49:00 - [111] - Quote Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6258	Posted - 2015.01.10 11:04:00 - [112] - Quote Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked. No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot. I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome. HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame." EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6259	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:04:00 - [113] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked. No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot. I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome. HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame." The biggest problem with moving sica and so mad to std effectively removing Malitia tanks and making it harder for newer player who might be inclined towards tanking . Not if you drop the basic HAV skill tied solely to vehicle operation. 1 point in vehicle operation opens up basic vehicles across the board then branches into MBT, enforcer and marauder. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6259	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:11:00 - [114] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds... I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now. I dont think seconds is the apppropiate standard AV fights though they seem instantaneous has realtivley long engagement time. I think we should focus on number of shots to kill a tank, and we have to stay with current AV values. To make things a bit more complicated you're going to have to theory craft alot of fits, but once you have the formula down (i dont even math bros) then its just about punching in numbers and excell does the rest. i.e Swarms vs Armor - 1 volley does X amount of damage vs Madrugar with 3 slots - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate + 1 hardener + 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 2 plates 1 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 3 plates 0 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 2 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 3 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 0 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 2 hardener 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 1 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 0 hardener 3 repper it takes n shots to kill it something like that You build the HAVs then you adjust the AV to reasonable counter. Doing it by building the HAVs to the counter will result in too much native homogenization. If you do it the way you propose it maintains skill irrelevance because you're basing your base stats off say, a forge gun attack pattern. It only works doing it that way on paper. But because of the fiting customization you create more work because you have to anticipate all of the variables. You cannot do this. You haveto take the vehicle then balance the counter to a reasonable margin between extremes of efficacy. I use shots to kill as a metric but I oversimplify the math I'm doing in my head. I don't have the patience to give math lessons. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6260	Posted - 2015.01.10 14:09:00 - [115] - Quote Let's work both angles. I'll work on resurrecting the chrome stuff you guys run the other angle. Multiple reasonable proposals are always better than all eggs in one basket. So while I may disagree with your approach, don't think I'm going to try and roadblock you. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:33:00 - [116] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground. Rattati's been interested in reintroducing logistics vehicles for a while. Honestly I'm hoping he chooses to transfer the repair functions to the turret rather than the ungodly weird target-lock-proximity thing. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:35:00 - [117] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use . I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:43:00 - [118] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: pegasis prime wrote: If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use . I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner. The problem you will have with the chrome skill trees is the drop suit ones like armour upgrades not only applied to drop suits but vehicles as well . They didn'tsseparate the skill tress properly till uprising I believe Rattati and our HAV drivers are intelligent enough in combination to fix this if it is a problem. But I have a funny feeling that problem is why the skill tree for vehicles is chock full of "dead" skills with no bonuses if that's true. But I'd rather deal with the re-introduction of the problem and adjusting to compensate than leaving a skill tree that is solely for unlocks. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:47:00 - [119] - Quote BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I f*cking found it. Skill list located. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:18:00 - [120] - Quote Good lord you guys weren't kidding about the compressed blaster in chrome. In exchange for a gain/loss of 2-7 damage per MINUTE they are tacked with a 70% heat increase. My brain just broke. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6263	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:31:00 - [121] - Quote 1. Its easier if you just put up the spreadsheet with the chrome numbers up Going to. combining the spreadsheets and cleaning them up, to include all vehicle, module (that I could find) and AV values. I'm redoing the layout so it's all in one place. and skills, which have to be translated to the current skill tree because wheel. reinventing and reasons. 2. Marauders/Enforcers similar bonuses except Enforcer has extra skill, if rattati wants tiger tanks then marauders need more defence That was my thought, but marauders are going to be beast anyway. But keeping the damage bonus makes enforcers pointless. 3. MBT need a bonus which is seperate but useful in its own right, if its not defensive (marauders) or offensive (enforcers) then it either gets no bonus or it needs something unqiue Again, right there with you. 4. Enforcers (TD) were only fragile from the sides and the back, generally the gun was in a fixed position with a little bit of wiggle room, other TD has a turret which moved slow but the entire hull seemed weaker but some had speed to make up for that since hit locations aren't on the table I'm not going to bother screwing with that 4a. If they are cheap and can 2-3 shot a vehicle then we may have the sica with 2 double damage mods back which wasnt fun so we end up with lots of TD and no other tanks because they cant survive but are spammable like the sica I think we can come up with better values than that. My thought on viable enforcers would be to scale the models down 25% to give them a lower profile and make them harder to hit, and make them the fast ones. 4b. If they are too fragile then they are useless aka the old enforcers which lost to basic HAVs See 4a. Trade raw defense for maneuverability and tracking. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6264	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:41:00 - [122] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6264	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:46:00 - [123] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money. I'd rather have tiercide than meta lock, but that's just me....... Want in one had, sh*t in the other. Tell me which one fills first. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6264	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:47:00 - [124] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I f*cking found it. Skill list located. So post it so we can work from it. I'm consolidating all of the spreadsheets together after I clean them up. Then I will post them. As I said to Laser, I will be including all of the hulls, turrets, armor, shield and skill values as well as the AV values. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6266	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:01:00 - [125] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know. lol assuming I'm new I had a code to get in the closed beta whenever it was available. I'm not new to Dust by any stretch of the imagination. Believe it or not, very little of what I say actually pertains directly to you. You assuming otherwise usually leads to hilarity on my part, but I'll give it a pass today. I'm working on stuff. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6268	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:38:00 - [126] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's). This sounds like maybe something if we ask nicely Rattati might include in his PC revamp. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6268	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:52:00 - [127] - Quote So. I have consolidated the data I found for chrome as promised. I suck at spreadsheets, everything I know (which you couldn't fill a thimble with) I learned over the last two hours by myself. Copy/paste is my friend. I didn't include the AV nade values because whoever copied the values down didn't bother posting the direct damage, and had dandelion fluff like 6m blast radius crap written in, so I'll leave that to Rattati to figure out. So, in short, to everyone who has ever driven, or shot at a tank, No One Loves You EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6273	Posted - 2015.01.10 20:30:00 - [128] - Quote 2. Noticed missing alot of other modules like nanofibres and overdrives etc, take it you couldnt find them Nope 3. We should just bring this back and tweek it which i am going to do what are you intending to tweak? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6280	Posted - 2015.01.10 20:39:00 - [129] - Quote I just found more modules. Will update the sheet later tonight EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6280	Posted - 2015.01.10 20:48:00 - [130] - Quote leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6290	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:36:00 - [131] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? I reserve the right to ask more questions EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6290	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:51:00 - [132] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game. I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know? And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks. that explains it. read the chrome spreadsheet. I attached the old HAV skill tree as well. And included the AV values for swarms and forges. I'll be dickering around adding things like the PLC as well later on, as well as putting in a theorycrafting tab for including updating the non assault forge guns so they aren't a bad joke, but don't take a merry leap off the cliff into easy kill farming. I will also be adding the REST of the chromosome modules that I found, like overdrives and such later tonight once I get some things done. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6306	Posted - 2015.01.11 14:07:00 - [133] - Quote even if the Chrome Vehicles and AV were introduced tomorrow, and rattati decided to nerf something next week, Marauders would retain intense killing power. I intend to adjust proposed AV stats to make up for a couple nerfs since chrome we ain't getting back because of side effects on the HMG but if those went through and HAVs got nerfed I'd push to tone down the AV to go withit. Marauders were absolutely killable, it was simply a thinking killer's game. You couldn't just run up and LOLAV I personally liked that but not all did. But people like me, Atiim, and a few others know how to wreck the chrome vehicles. Bear in mind if rattati does thusly deign to give us this request, the gunnlogi will be toned down, the maddy will get a slight buff, and the militia tanks will be a lot more fragile, but the mads will be rather difficult to kill unless you are a madman or you have friends. Will train madmen. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6316	Posted - 2015.01.12 14:55:00 - [134] - Quote alright monkeys, I'm just now editing the missing modules into the chromosome spreadsheet. I'll also be working on a tab called theorycrafting for recommended adjustments for various things, such as the plasma canno, which looking at the numbers probably won't need much adjustment to make perfectly viable as it seems to have DPS values similar to an assault forge on first glance. If anyone has a hard DPS number on the PLCs I would much appreciate it. I'm also playing with the idea of recommending removal of splash from the assault forge to compensate for what would be the faster rate of fire. That way we can keep it from being used to eternally camp hack points with the splash as has been done with it in the past due to the rapid firing cycle, and as my peace offering when I post my recommendation that the standard forge gun be placed squarely between the assault and breach for DPS and alpha purposes, so that it has a place in the game other than "heavy sniper rifle" I am open to SERIOUS recommendations to also place into the theorycrafting tab, to include ideas to keep dropships and their pilots from being marginalized, whether that is via fitting increase, or via altering their baseline resistances to AV weapons. I will not be altering the base chromosome stats, because I want everyone to see the baseline I'm working on/have plagiarized from other places where other people have done the real work of compiling the data. All recommended changes will go under the theorycraft tab. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6317	Posted - 2015.01.12 15:02:00 - [135] - Quote thanks thaddeus I'll add you to the list of people I'm plagiarizing from. By the way I edited my last post to clarify a few things. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6323	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:10:00 - [136] - Quote nicely done with the DPS setup there Thaddeus. Ok someone click my link and please verify whether or not my updates took. You should see an asston of new tabs representing vehicle modules and the theorycrafting tab, which I am working on. My recommendations for changes to AV will include damage increases to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill which added 10% damage and heavy damage mod numbers being whacked in half (successful AV ran three damage mods in the highs) so if Rattati adopts this AV doesn't start in the land of impossible. if current damage values are higher, these will not be changed. There will be no change to damage for light AV weapons as those damage mods only lost 2% which is insufficient to realistically alter TTK. Again, anyone who has things they might like to see adjusted (dropship pilots I am talking to YOU) please post it so I can add it to the theorycraft tab. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6323	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:12:00 - [137] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: thanks thaddeus I'll add you to the list of people I'm plagiarizing from. By the way I edited my last post to clarify a few things. Would my proposed naming changes be considered reasonable? (Just trying to keep naming schemes similar between both the ground-side and space-side fluff) Such as the Electron-Proton-Neutron progression for Blasters, and Calibers for the Railguns...(maybe naming Specialized Turrets after T2 Ammo etc) the less fluff that has to be changed in the database the better. a lot of times when you jerk around names it creates inconsistencies in the descriptions and gives false impressions as the whole thing needs to be revamped. Ever notice the reference to tracking rounds in the flaylock description? It's unlikely to happen but let's avoid it where possible. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6324	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:41:00 - [138] - Quote only the stats in the theorycraft tab are modified, and amended with notes. Everything else is straight chrome crap. Only the stats in theorycrafting WILL be modified. Hey thaddeus I'm stealing your template. automatic DPS calculation based on changes is insanely helpful. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6325	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:50:00 - [139] - Quote I'm not worried about the officer variants of anything. those are Rattati's problem, not mine. Additionally, I have no idea what the original numbers were on AV nades, so I'm not gonna touch 'em. Again, I'm going to let Rattati figure that out, because only blast radii and damage were accounted for in chromosome stats. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6325	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:03:00 - [140] - Quote I changed my mind. After looking at the baseline DPS numbers after modifying a couple things I'm not going to uptick base values based on weaponry skills and loss of damage mod efficacy. I think I'd rather let this stand and see if it is viable, and if it it not, let Rattati uptick the values by increments. I'm proposing a significant increase to the plasma cannon DPS. That thing doesn't do remotely enough Damage fast enough to be a credible threat to anything but an untanked LAV and random infantry. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6328	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:10:00 - [141] - Quote Screw it, ain't changing a damn thing involving loss of weaponry or damage mod modifications. I think I'd rather see how the numbers I have play out. The following has been done in the theorycrafting tab: adjusted forge guns to conform to chrome charge times, current damage values for Assault forge adjusted damage and charge time on the standard forge to place the DPS consistently 50 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted damage and charge time on the breach forge to place it 100 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted charge time and reload time of the PLC to increase baseline DPS above 370 DPS Vs. vehicles at the proto level current link is here. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6333	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:33:00 - [142] - Quote I will address this at each point: Just as an FYI, Gallente Commando with max reload and commando skills will break 900 DPS with an Allotek Plasma Cannon given your stats (No proficiency) time to change the commando bonus. 2.5 Reload +15% Rapid Reload +25% Commando Role Bonus 1.59s Reload See above. 0.3 Charge Time +25% Reduction for Operations 0.225 Charge Time Working as intended Effective Refire Time 1.59+0.225= 1.815s/shot Commando needs a different bonus 1501 Damage/shot 827DPS Current IAFG at level 5 does 833.33333333 (you get the point) damage to armor at level 5. This is before adding proficiency or damage mods. +10% Commando Bonus 909 DPS Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar DPS values vs. armor With Proficiency +15% against shields +10% Natural shield Weakness IAFG Proficiency +15% vs. Armor +10% natural armor weakness 1150 DPS against shields A Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar (slightly lower) numbers because damage mods were hacked in half. Plasma cannon suffers from short range, arcing shots and lack of usability. This theorycrafting tab is predicated on if Rattati re-adopts the chromosome vehicle baseline. The values are ONLY valid if said values are used. I'm aligning the PLC as a close-range IAFG substitute for the purposes of chrome basis performance. I will be more than happy to provide feedback more in line with your proposal as well based on your numbers. Because the theorycrafting in this one, and the theorycrafting in your proposal will necessarily be incompatible. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6333	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:42:00 - [143] - Quote Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6338	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:57:00 - [144] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders. I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type: Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher CCM-129 Assault Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance Honestly I'd rather see a weapon modification slot that allows you to change the damage profile. But this isn't a bad idea. The only problem with it is the fact that Swarms are particularly easy to use right now. I think holding off until we see how the meta of whatever changes rattati picks falls into place would be the best. Once that's happened, who knows? The scrambler lance idea is based entirely off of a post Rattati made here It's balanced entirely base on my experience with heavy weapon damage output and AV in general. It's meant to be the high-DPS counterpart to the high alpha forge guns, and provide an alternative method of attacking shield HAVs. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6340	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:08:00 - [145] - Quote I'm still amazed that swarms have DPS values that would have been considered viable against chromosome marauders in TODAY's build. This explains a lot. Still waiting on feedback from anyone on dropships or other things To put this into perspective, dropships in chrome were 2-shot-kills for a forge gun. 3 if you were maxed out on the tree (and I missed once). I'd like to be able to propose numbers to fix this but I need someone familiar with dropship weaknesses during chrome to weigh in. Alternately we can just drop these changes and let Rattati adjust them. Just give the ADS a 5% RoF per level if you do. Or we can leave dropships on the hull-centric model (which everyone hates based on all of the feedback I have seen) and let them figure it out. I don't know enough about dropship fitting to sanely poke at these numbers without likely buggering them up!!! Or I can look at pokey's proposals and steal from his notes, as I have been stealing from everyone else. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6340	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:43:00 - [146] - Quote all you'd have to do is: Mjolnir: Laser (EM) profile Nova: Explosive profile (current) Scourge: Projectile (kinetic) profile Inferno: Plasma (thermal) profile But I'd worry more about getting vehicle and heavy weapon parity in some form or fashion before making a whole crapton of different swarms. Plus I'm dubious about the whole idea simply because if there's a swarm for every enemy, what's the point of forge guns or the plasma cannon? Or RE and prox mines? Including some more options like we have in EVE, while a neat concept might render certain options unnecessary. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6348	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:32:00 - [147] - Quote added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:37:00 - [148] - Quote taxi bastard wrote: my concern is the balance vs AV and cost. a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying. if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced. a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks? militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo which proposal are you looking at? My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode. the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in. a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points. And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion. the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 - [149] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ***. So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're dcked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:56:00 - [150] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6354	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:57:00 - [151] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in **** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ***. So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're dcked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it. Find me turret numbers from that time period. If they look sane I'll add them in theorycrafting as suggested fixes EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:02:00 - [152] - Quote separated theorycrafting into three tabs. AV theorycrafting Turret Theorycrafting Dropship Theorycrafting Waiting on HAV driver and Dropship pilot input to tackle the last two. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:21:00 - [153] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6355	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:29:00 - [154] - Quote Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6356	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:34:00 - [155] - Quote Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6356	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:37:00 - [156] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6359	Posted - 2015.01.13 06:19:00 - [157] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice. Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6360	Posted - 2015.01.13 08:28:00 - [158] - Quote I amnot going to arbitrarily change numbers on vehicle turrets without input from vehicle drivers. I'm comfortable tweaking AV. I know AV like I know my belt needs to be replaced with a smaller one. But I prefer vehicle input before changing things. Just remember that the numbers here would be modified by skill bonuses in the skill tab. These numbers are a direct rip from chrome, not numbers I pulled out of my ass. And in chrome vehicles were lethal. One of the things I want is the old heavy damage mods back. To do that I have to bugger up the HMG to account for damage mod presence in the game, which will **** off my easy mode sentinel brethren immensely. I'm also brainstorming how to stat out rattati's theoretical autocannon. It will, by necessity, have to fire in a manner unlike the regular HMG. But as I said. I'm comfortable tweaking AV. Serious (not obnoxious) suggestions will be added to the various vehicular theorycrafting tab. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6362	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:01:00 - [159] - Quote In another note I have figured out how to stat out the minmatar AV autocannon and gallente mortar ideas rattati proposed. If you're paying attention to how I am thematically running things, I'm keeping AV overall performance within a certain threshold. My reasons for doing this so that they are easier to balance from a DPS/alpha standpoint and do not have a wide variation in DPS from each other. This means the individual firing mechanics and the damage profiles are intended to be the primary determination of performance versus specific vehicle classes. I intend for the forge and autocannon to perform well versus armor and comparatively poorly versus shields. I intend for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar and plasma cannon to perform comparatively poorly versus armor but well against shields. And I want them to do so in a consistent and predictable fashion so that players can use the weapons which best conform to their playstyle without having a "clearly superior" weapon. Given these factors I intend that the shield cracker weapons clearly perform poorly vs. Armor and vice versa so that picking which weapon ( and by extension which fatsuit) has a direct effect upon your performance on the battlefield. Again, along predictable lines. I intend to balance based around my numbers for the forge guns. Fast DPS, low alpha weapons will be set up to perform overall similarly to the Assault Forge Gun. (Scrambler lance) Mid alpha/DPS will be comparable to the standard forge. (Minmatar Autocannon) High Alpha, sluggish RoF/inaccurate will be comparable in DPS to the Breach Forge. (Gallente Plasma Mortar) None of these heavy weapons will be built with AA, lock mechanics or any other mechanical assists in mind. All of them are being balanced vs. The chrome numbers. They are nit (as currently written) balanced against any other proposal or current mechanics. However they are going to be easy to translate. If you habe any particular objection to this balance approach, pleas speak up and be heard. I would hope that you do so with reasons that make sense or use math. I am unwillingto deliberately transform AV/V into Easy Mode favoring the AV. My intent is that there be a moderate base mechanical advantage to HAVs that individual AV gunners must overcome with proper tactics, positioning and skill. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6362	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:13:00 - [160] - Quote 1. Only barely, and I'll freely admit it's a stretch. If baseline regen values for shields are lowered, such as for my proposal, the answer is emphatically NO. 2. Again, only in a situation where native regen is HIGH. UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE the answer is not only no, but f*ck you... NO! EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6364	Posted - 2015.01.13 12:35:00 - [161] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: @Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it. You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked. This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris. Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry. If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6370	Posted - 2015.01.13 14:37:00 - [162] - Quote The idea of versatility and providing tactical flexibility and options should apply as equally to vehicles as to infantry. Further whenever I cite real world and historical examples they are summarily dismissed. I see no reason I should treat those arguments any different. Finally this is a proposal not the document which has been chosen for use. Nor am I particularly of the mind that everything from the theorycraft tabs will be used even were it adopted. But allowing an HAV to operate with a cohesive squad hardly seemed unreasonable given that usually the best defense from infantry AV is an infantry screen. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6375	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:38:00 - [163] - Quote I made it cost less than a standard small turret. In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry. The net benefit far outweighs the cost. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6375	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:06:00 - [164] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I made it cost less than a standard small turret. In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry. The net benefit far outweighs the cost. We will ignore that it is an optional module because I think forcibly inflicting tagalongs who want to AFK and reap kill assists in vehicles need to die in a fire. The module can be easily removed from play once (if) MAVs are introduced at a later date. Did you get your CPU/PG columns reversed then? If the Cpu column is 1 or 0 then no. I can't think of any justification why a bay would require any cpu control. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6379	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:33:00 - [165] - Quote Most of what you are proposing is covered under my "revive chrome vehicle balance" proposal. The idea here is that the HAVs are fit-centric rather than hull centric. It doesn't matter if you runa maddy or a marauder. Without proper fittings you're driving a paper tiger. I'm basing the AV values on chrome balance and I would like to alter the turrets to incorporate changes that apparently made HAV vs HAV more fun according to vet drivers I am still waiting for input on dropships from pilots so I can incorporate the less squishy transport ship and ADS concept. If I don't have any input within 48 hours I will begin creating theorycrafting tab entries for turrets, dropships and whatever else we are missing. This is a chance to keep me from buggering your toys up. Providing me numbers to work with and number crunch will increase the viability of this proposal. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6382	Posted - 2015.01.13 17:17:00 - [166] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6387	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:43:00 - [167] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly that's the chromosome stats. I want to shift that turret bonus to enforcers. Let me be VERY clear. ONLY the stats in the theorycrafting tabs are my work. the rest of these numbers are ripped directly from the chromosome build during closed beta, when the AV/V interaction was at it's best overall. I'm not arbitrarily altering these stats precisely because I want driver input as well, and I want them to have a say in what will be fun to play. So if you have better ideas I will add said ideas into the theorycrafting tabs appropriately. That way everyone can see the base stats this is based off of AND see how the proposal changes them. I am an AV gunner primarily. I want pilot input in how I change the meta because I don't want you beggars having a leg to stand on accusing me of attempting to "ruin the game for you." EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6390	Posted - 2015.01.13 19:20:00 - [168] - Quote I want to know if it's possible to scale down models. Enforcer with no secondary turrets, 25% reduced in size and much much faster than a marauder makes for a much more interesting glass cannon concept IMHO. Lower profile + faster = harder to hit. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:19:00 - [169] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference making them SLOWER is my relevant thought. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:21:00 - [170] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:02:00 - [171] - Quote honestly? COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming: cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:21:00 - [172] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: honestly? COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming: cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. and not a bad one EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:27:00 - [173] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Link Updated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things) eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6392	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:33:00 - [174] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Link Updated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things) eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome The Maddy Examples are current fittings with current values (The Semi-viable ones I could think of)...(so if they're similar to the sagaris, take that as a little indication of AV's current situation vs armor) that's a magazine and a half from proto IAFG to kill. average TTK well over 15 seconds. With current HAV speeds that's a guaranteed escape. How do you intend to balance the marauders, which are even more bricky traditionally? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6392	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:34:00 - [175] - Quote found the chrome AV nade values. Guess what's going into my proposal... EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6392	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:44:00 - [176] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: What if you had 3 flavors? Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime This I like. Remind me later. Bedtime. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 04:38:00 - [177] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels Laser strike = Rattati's own words. That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 04:46:00 - [178] - Quote alright: the following items need to be addressed for my proposal to work. Dropships: too squishy. am going to do a combination of fitting buffs and resistances Surya: Inordinately higher EHP than the sagaris. a bit more is fine, but not by THAT much. Surya simply represents a reversal of what we have now. Needs to be toned down to be closer to sagaris, though still higher. Sica: too squishy. want to compensate by making faster Soma: Too squishy. want to compensate by making faster enforcers need stats. Need speed values for the HAVs. HAV speed needs to be dropped back to chrome for these values to work. Exception: enforcers/mlt HAVs. Potentially slight speed increase for maddy/gunnlogi from chrome values EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 05:19:00 - [179] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels Laser strike = Rattati's own words. That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else. Dunno what you don't understand about his own words. I escaped the edge of a laser strike in a Maddy, because I think quickly and had my NOS ready to go. Problem was there was a tank not far, so I had to engage it with very little health. Next you're going to say quick thinking is OP. Again, I don't understand what you don't understand about his own words. he wants to double the EHP of marauders from their chrome stats. This is not in any way balanced, nor should it be considered in any way a sane proposal. If you said orbital strikes do 50% less damage I would be on board. But not doubling the EHP. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 06:11:00 - [180] - Quote Lazer fo cused's proposal DOUBLES MARAUDER EHP FROM CHROMOSOME LEVELS. What is so hard to comprehend about this? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6396	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:07:00 - [181] - Quote Auris Lionesse wrote: one question? can there be a new control scheme added for vehicles? specifically modeled after battlefield with a left shoulders brake/reverse and a right r2 acceleration button? considering one of the tank destroyers would be aimed through actual positioning of the vehicle. itd be cool to have the turret only move marginally with the right stick for fine adjustments, (20-30degrees max) and use left stick for steering/aiming and positioning with l1 l2 for break and reverse, make r2 accelerate and r1 becomes the new module radial. unless the halfway analog deadzone has been addressed already, cause currently theyre just a pain to drive. i cant imagine trying to use the destroyer with the current scheme. i need to be able to stop on a dime and reverse if my gun cant be aimed well. thats how tank hunting in battlefield is. you play peekaboo. drive out, pop someone with the gun, and while its reloaded you haul it back before he can turn and kill you and its back to cat and mouse. thats how i see the enforcers at least. ive wanted a dedicated tank destroyer for sometime. i initially saw it as the medium assault vehicle fitted with a large cannon av turret. mobile, low health, easy to sneakup on a tank and mess it up and spider away quickly when people realize youre there. dampened and quiet until you start firing. marauders... well thats self explanatory. in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module. make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active. otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp. bastion modules are nonviable in DUST. They would allow AV gunners to trivially kill vehicles. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6398	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:22:00 - [182] - Quote immobility is death, because vehicles have weakspots EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6399	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:02:00 - [183] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. 1. Its a role bonus like the logi gets, its either armor or shield but not both and even if it was its not much on 1000armor and by then once you are down to that on a shield vehicle you are as good as dead 2. How? The sagaris is at chrome levels, the shield skill offers 5% per level to shield HP as it did before, i just added resistance if its supposed to be a point defence machine 3. Again how? its 5% to armor repair amount so your repper will repair 25% more at level 5 than it does at a base? ahhh you fixed it Ok. first up, the sagaris was bloody powerful. adding 25% resistance plus 25% HP would only bring it's EHP upward towards the Surya, and the surya EHP was excessive in a bad way. second, the buff to the surya takes it's average EHP (someone was kind enough to link the fit) from over 16k to over 20k. Given the SUrya was almost untouchable that's an unacceptable result. There is no other instance in this game where an upgrade from a weapon, suit or module provides double or triple the base EHP benefit of the unit before. Your scaling is off. The only way for the bonus you suggest to work is to strip SIGNIFICANT fitting power from marauders. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6404	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:59:00 - [184] - Quote your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it. The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6406	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:20:00 - [185] - Quote whoever said enforcers were glass cannons was smoking the biggest crack pipe when they were playing them Same slot layout as marauders... check Miniscule PG/CPU reduction... check. Higher base hull HP... Check. Same bonus as marauders -5% overall efficacy... check Glass cannons my ass. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6406	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:26:00 - [186] - Quote 1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows. 2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak 3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV Surya EHP was excessive. 4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesh*t. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps. 5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs[/quote] Yes, because the corp battle players weren't ever complaining that marauders were dominating the matches. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6406	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:53:00 - [187] - Quote meh screw it, I'm not talking to you any more lazer. I'll do my thing, you do yours. Your ability to justify anything so long as vehicles are untouchable by infantry is nothing short of amazing. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6410	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:55:00 - [188] - Quote Alright, I am actually winding down a bit, and running out of things I can justify changing. the raw numbers in chrome are fun in some aspects, and enraging in others. I am well aware that there was no "golden age" for any aspect of the game, but this one has the distinction of being entertaining to me. My numbers can be found here. the door will remain open if anyone wants to provide feedback. all of my proposed changes are in the various theorycrafting tabs. the TL;DR of these changes are as follows. All changes are from base chrome stats Hulls: Viper and Gorgon: +15% buff to base PG/CPU Sica and Soma should retain current speeds in uprising 1.10 build Gunnlogi and madrugar: since I don't have data on moement, speed reduced from current Surya: Skill changed to +5% repaired per level with armor repair modules from +4% damage per level Sagaris: skill changed to +5% per level of amount gained via shield boosters from +4% damage per level Myron and Grimsnes: 30% buff to base PG and CPU Eryx: comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Shield Transporter, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level Prometheus:comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Remote Armor Repair, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level Charybdis Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Remote Armor Repair Limbus Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Shield Transporter Falchion: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large missiles, 5%/level to reload speed Vayu: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large blasters, 5%/level to reload speed Modules: Added remote armor rep for use as a small turret Added remote shield rep for use as a turret Reduced base protection of 180mm plates by 20% AV: Restored Forge guns to Chromosome, minus 12 base damage Reduced Plasma Cannon reload and reduced charge time to allow it to act in a real anti vehicle capacity Added theoretical stats to Scrambler lance Added Theoretical stats to Heavy Autocannon Added theoretical stats to plasma mortar Heavy and Burst Machineguns: Reduce base damage 10%, Restore older heat values, toggle off aim assist. Heavy Damage mods restored to 5/7/10 Swarms retained as CURRENT (Uprising 1.0) type. AV grenades restored to chromosome values Theoretical stats including the lost weaponry bonus as a baseline included. As the weaponry bonus was crucial at the time. Stats with the weaponry bonus are added at the bottom, baseline stats retained at the top. All changes are annotated in the theorycraft tabs, not in the base numbers. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6443	Posted - 2015.01.15 13:04:00 - [189] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: things and stuff The forge gun changes are reversal TO chromosome stats as are AV nades. The prototype AV is viable versus the sagaris and surya, the intended targets. NOW. That being said, I haven't done much for dropships because I have been asking REPEATEDLY for input on how to set them up to retain their current TTK. My best idea for the militia and standard was to make them less reliant on fitting modules. I'm not touching the ADS without dropship pilot input. But as far as my initial impressions I'd jump them up to 5%/level rate of fire but so far I would love to know what fittings you would need in your ADS of either type to not get instapopped. And the wiyrkomi breach two shots dropships now, so that's hardly a change in status quo. Current meta for ADS is three hits from an IAFG. Starting there and working up to par is hardly what I consider unfair Care to collaborate on making dropships not a suicide SP trap like they were in chrome? Hell if you skype Id be more than happy to explain every single tweak and why. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6449	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:58:00 - [190] - Quote I was thinking giving the ADS a buff to acceleration so you can get into evasive maneuvering faster. Not getting hit > taking it like a champ. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6450	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:41:00 - [191] - Quote Valid concerns. Let's see if we can find an acceptable compromise point shall we? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6455	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:17:00 - [192] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can excuses, excuses. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:49:00 - [193] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley Ask me about my v
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:11:00 - [194] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? for me, not for you. I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:27:00 - [195] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed. so long as you can walk me through the numbers that you have relative to the numbers we have NOW, I can absolutely do the conversions. I just have to understand from start to finish what's being nerfed, what's being buffed and what the numbers are going to look like in the end. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:35:00 - [196] - Quote awesome. in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets. have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:42:00 - [197] - Quote you available in skype right now? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6457	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:50:00 - [198] - Quote fair enough. used the forge guns as the baseline because LOLswarms. at each level the Scrambler lance is only 50 DPS from the Assault forge at each level. the Autocannon is within 50 of the standard forge at each level the plasma mortar is within 50 of the breach forge at each level. So there's predictable and consistent performance at all levels. Fast firing/high DPS run DPS similar to the IAFG, medium fire rate/alpha to the standard forge guns and the slow fire/high alpha to the breach. I'm letting the damage profiles and the actual differences in firing mechanics do the heavy lifting rather than having wildly varying performances that seem random as hell between weapons. It also makes creating variants less headache inducing because there's a guideline. so if you wanted the assault plasma mortar, you could start with the 575 DPS range, slightly below the IAFG and work the mechanics outward from there. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6458	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:10:00 - [199] - Quote feel free. Just bear in mind they need to change based on how your vehicles are set up. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6461	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:18:00 - [200] - Quote Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6474	Posted - 2015.01.16 10:40:00 - [201] - Quote So. Im trying to decide which is better for the mortar. 1 shot, then 1 sec reload or 1 second shot intervals with a magazine. Thoughts? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6474	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:48:00 - [202] - Quote Splash damage ad dispersion on turrets is literally the difference between vehicles being a dire threat toinfantry and farming infantry for KDR and WP. It's also make or break for the purpose of vehicles and AV fighting for dominance and AV automatically driving away the vehicles without recourse. The splash resistance on sentinels was a good compromise but unfortunately it had too much unanticipated effect on infantry ability to eject entrenched fatties. My thought would be to place turret splash at the halfway point between chrome numbers and current for radius. I also want to dump sentinel splash and make the role bonus the pg/cpu break on heavy weapons visible. Drop the resists to 10% on both resists and give them a racial weapon bonus. That way they will retain durability but lose unassailability vs. Splash weapons. It was awesome for surviving railguns but there's too much secondary marginalizing of other weapons. And I don't think making the bonuses do more DPS vs vehicles would be appropriate because I'd have to rework the AV numbers to account for it. Keeping chrome balance between V/AV is simple. Back engineering for DPS bonuses is not. More things like the gallente resists plasma splash. The amarr explodes more slowly as the lance overheats. Maybe ammo capacity for minmatar or reticle tightening. The caldari is hardest. I'm inclined to do something like a 3% fitting break on damage mods. The forge gun at this point is pretty tightly tuned. Reducing charge is a no. Reload is already fast enough. Suggestions? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6474	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:57:00 - [203] - Quote No. Making the forge outrange a large rail turret potentially is bad. I dont want to encourage even more idiots to treat it as a ghetto sniper cannon. Also the movement penalty would break the balance. The charging movement penalty kept me from shenanigans which would have been utterly unfair and abusive. It needs to slow you while charging. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6474	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:08:00 - [204] - Quote Goddamn my phone sux. Doora is a test alt. Not a test alliance alt you nubs. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6475	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:04:00 - [205] - Quote 320 optimal 320 absolute Snipers start at 350-450 and they will cry lime little girls if we bring the forge to equal range. And no nerfing something to make it useful by bonusing a suit is incredibly lazy. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6475	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:07:00 - [206] - Quote Could accelerate the projectile speed or tighten the reticle. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6475	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:08:00 - [207] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 320 optimal 320 absolute Snipers start at 350-450 and they will cry lime little girls if we bring the forge to equal range. So then Reduce it to 280 meter range, and give the Caldari Sentinel a 3% per level (CalSentinel would use it at 322m then)? Quit barking up this tree with me. Doing it to any weapon is stupid. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6481	Posted - 2015.01.16 15:49:00 - [208] - Quote I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants. Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6483	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:19:00 - [209] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants. Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant? Variety? Something we lack right now. I was reading the list wrong, it's exactly like the damn AV weapon lists, only a gigantic clusterf*ck of inconsistent performance. I HATE numbers that aren't working from a pattern that comes off as sane. For the chromosome vets: What was an acceptable baseline DPS level for most turrets to be competitive? I need a BASELINE so I can make the turrets perform consistently without havint ONE TURRET TO RULE THEM ALL. Not high DPS, not low DPS, pre-skills, no damage mods. Just a baseline, ballpark DPS level. AV baseline DPS before all other factors was right around 500 DPS to be considered viable, roughly depending on which flavor of psycho was running the gun. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6483	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:41:00 - [210] - Quote unless someone has a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm going to run as follows: Blasters: High DPS, High RoF, Low Alpha (700-ish DPS proto) Missiles: Mid DPS, Mid RoF, Mid Alpha (600 DPS-ish Proto) Rails: Low DPS, Low RoF, High Alpha. (500 DPS-ish Proto) Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6494	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:46:00 - [211] - Quote the reasons I want missiles in the middle is because their status as near-automatic win button versus armor HAVs. I want it to be so if the blaster gets into optimal it has the advantage, if the blaster CANNOT get into optimal the other two screwball it. If I put missiles into the high alpha bracket because of the +20 damage profile that means the TTK of armor takes an inordinately sharp drop as we have all seen in the past. and I'm making sure the damn railguns are dead meat if a blaster gets the drop on them. Blasters are going to have around a 200 DPS advantage on the rails by intent. And I'm going to make it so that the damage mods don't have such a humongous effect on the DPS as they did before. They'll be useful, they just won't be able to hit the numbers against armor that rails and missiles have enjoyed in the past. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6494	Posted - 2015.01.16 20:13:00 - [212] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range. The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking. that can be addressed in iteration. there's a lot of projectiles in DUST that move too slow to be effective. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6495	Posted - 2015.01.16 21:01:00 - [213] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range. The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking. that can be addressed in iteration. there's a lot of projectiles in DUST that move too slow to be effective. Whoever designed the damn Railgun, why the rippling HELL did you put TWO firing delay mechanics in together? Thaddeus I have a critique: there's no possible reason to have a 3k+ DPS weapon unless it's intended to be the God-Gun from which there is no recovery. Your various MLRS setups need a bit of checking there hoss. That's about enough firepower to instapop anything, especially when combined with skills and damage mods. Still working on it (DPS btw is DPS without reload considered), so are supposed to function similarly to the current Missiles Turrets Got some new numbers on the MLRS for you to check out, and what do you think of the new turret page format? I'm trying to plagiarize your turret table format, but I liked the simpler version better. I need to be able to see all the relevant data per turret type in a block, not stretched out. So I'm now doing the missiles with your heavy weapons template because I'm a spreadsheet novice. Welp. If my numbers are good, HAV pilots will get their wish. Engagements will last a bit longer. Between them. Unless someone decides to go joyriding in an enforcer. then things get dicey. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6495	Posted - 2015.01.16 21:05:00 - [214] - Quote 2,766 DPS? At Standard? I think I found out why Madrugars die when you sneeze on them in HAV vs HAV engagements! The damn missile turrets are insane. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6500	Posted - 2015.01.16 21:23:00 - [215] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 2,766 DPS? At Standard? I think I found out why Madrugars die when you sneeze on them in HAV vs HAV engagements! The damn missile turrets are insane. There's a reason why True Doesn't like them, their alpha would be Ok (see Damage Per Magazine...does need to be slightly tuned down) if they had lower sustained DPS numbers Guess what already crossed my mind here? going to annotate a note recommending accelerating the missiles to compensate for loss of RoF Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6535	Posted - 2015.01.17 07:14:00 - [216] - Quote I derp'd. Feel free to ignore this post. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6550	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:57:00 - [217] - Quote Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval. kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6550	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:12:00 - [218] - Quote the way I'm working it is blasters have the highest overall DPS, Missiles are middle ground, Rails are the Alpha kings. I'm removing the ability of a heavy missile turret to close on a madrugar or Surya and LOLarmorshotgunmissileblap the damn things. Missiles are going to be a medium sustained rate of fire rather than being able to saturate a target with 2700 DPS all in one giant frontload of death. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:55:00 - [219] - Quote added python and Incubus. Don't panic over the PG/CPU "nerf." the modules and turrets in chrome (and thusly this document) were cheaper fitting-wise. Yet More gratuitous numbers Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6560	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:24:00 - [220] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval. kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval. Do you still need it? Yup. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6561	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:04:00 - [221] - Quote gimmie a skype handle and I'll contact ya Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6572	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:19:00 - [222] - Quote assault guns are easy enough to build. The problem is the conceptual clash between "I want a machinegun turret" and "I want a cannon." It's why my turret builds are set up to accommodate both. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6574	Posted - 2015.01.18 18:21:00 - [223] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: We are 61 pages in, and THIS is what you point out? Get on topic, or I will end you ...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Ok you just made my day. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6574	Posted - 2015.01.18 20:13:00 - [224] - Quote alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6575	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:01:00 - [225] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6575	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:09:00 - [226] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Can't sorry. Squee me! I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does....... Since I'm pretty much done with core things... You really should open the racial parity tab I'm just doing things for FUN now. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6575	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:15:00 - [227] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Why does the Amarr HAV at a standard level has less armour than the gallentean counter part? I mean you were some close to the stats I was going to suggest to you of 800 Shields and 3200 armour Because I math'd wrong. good catch! Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6576	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:24:00 - [228] - Quote fixed. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6576	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:35:00 - [229] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: fixed. Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively. because I'm hashing out average baseline differences between armor values and shield values. I had to use the Surya as the baseline. then I'm finding the HP baseline for the Gungnir. then I'm changing the hull shield/armor/cpu/PG of the minmatar vehicles based on the percentages of change between the types of amarr hulls so the progression is even. I'm currently rounding off and am going to clean up the values so they aren't oddball numbers when I finish. rounding up or down as needed. I'm not done yet Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6576	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:38:00 - [230] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: fixed. Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively. Assuming that hopefully I could fit 180mm Poly Crystalline 1x Heat Sink 1x Damage Control 1x Passive Armour Hardener 2x Active Hardeners 1x Heavy Repper We'll see. I'm literally bashing numbers relative to the Surya for the amarr and the sagaris for the minmatar for the marauders, then doing alterations to lesser/enforcer hulls based on percentages of change between the gallente hull values between tier/classes. Hard to explain. I buggered up the armor, but that's fixed. with skills you should be able to get a reasonable fitting capability without trying to nova knife yourself. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6576	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:47:00 - [231] - Quote I kinda figured the Amarr for the types to consider the marauders to be main battle tanks, and what everyone ELSE thought as MBTs to be "scout tanks" and then get butthurt when CONCORD reclassifies the Seraphim a "Marauder." Penitent tanks might LITERALLY be a punishment detail. And Militia tanks are for weekend warrior reservists who couldn't be trusted with anything much more powerful than a tricycle. Just seems to be an amarr thing, Go big or GO HOME. with lasers. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6577	Posted - 2015.01.18 22:44:00 - [232] - Quote Its the exorcist. I misspoke. The seraph is the ADS Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6584	Posted - 2015.01.19 05:36:00 - [233] - Quote I think Thaddeus said it best. Who gives a crap which/if any proposal gets picked as long as it gives rattati ideas for successfully rebalancing vehicles? Giving ideas is the sum total of the objective. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:11:00 - [234] - Quote Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:48:00 - [235] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more. Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo The AV is a sidenote and fun between trying to kitbash the HAV numbers. It gives me something else to focus on when the math PISSES ME OFF. The turrets pissed me off intensely but the AV numbers had an unexpected side effect. They gave me a basis for building heavy turrets so that they are not going to be as fast-killing in AV, but remain a superior HAV killing option than a forge gun. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:57:00 - [236] - Quote Between 20-30% reduction in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 08:47:00 - [237] - Quote I think you are misunderstanding me. Turret TTK should increase 20-30%. So if the fights lasted 8 seconds before, they will now last 10-11 between vehicles. ONLY between vehicles. All heavy turrets will maintain higher overall DPS values than infantry at the core baseline. Because I'll be buggered if I can think of a legitimate reason why a handheld weapon should be more efficient at killing a tank. Capable? Absolutely. But an HAV turret should be the go-to option for vehicle hunting efficacy. That's what I'm doing. Heavy missile turrets are now the middle ground for Alpha and DPS. I adjusted them so their rate of fire is steady, taking away the ability to dump their entire payload into an armor vehicle in under 3 seconds for a near-instapop. Railguns are the lowest overall DPS with the highest per-shot alpha. Blasters have the lowest per-shot alpha but the highest DPS. It used to be blasters were inferior. Rails had the best sustained dps Missiles made running armor impossible. These three issues have been corrected. Damage mods will no longer allow instapop threshold damage by enhancing beast mode DPS. The falchion and vayu should be that thing that makes you Sh*t yourself if you find one in your back arc, but fragile enough to kill before he eliminates you if you maintain good awareness and you are more skilled. I want HAV V HAV combat to reward awareness, fitting creativity, tactical flexibility and audacity. Not reward cookie cutter of the month. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 10:54:00 - [238] - Quote Should be with swarms. I'm not changing them from what we have now because they will have the lowest alpha/refire ratio by a wide margin. Wiyrkomi swarms DPS is just shy of 400 higher than the IAFG today. 250-300 when compared to my AV tabes With chrome baseline AV. the lower alpha as compensation swarms are already sufficient to hunt marauders and the odd firing mechanics compared to other AV make it a literal "balance by feel" problem. I can predict direct fire/artillery style behavior mathematically. Homing missilesare a bit different for me. But the intent is for MLT/STD AV to have similar TTK to today's proto versus today's militia HAVs. Adv should have similar TTK versus standard HAVs and Enforcers as proto does versus the madrugar today. Prototype is entirely intended to fight the more heavily tanked marauders. If rattati builds metalocked matchmaking options then this breakdown will balance out and smooth the agony felt by newbros in their first HAVs by keeping ME from running up their ass with a triple modded IAFG. Forge guns and other AV weapons should be closer to chrome baseline TTKs. Madrugar and gunnlogi HAVS should be survivable to run and marauders should be tackled either by teams or by AV gunners who have dumped as much SP into their overall fits as marauder pilots . So yes, if you're fighting a marauder you're going to need to reload unless hammering the weakspot. If you're actually good at AV then this will be a difficult fight rather than a mugging or an insurmountable task. TL;DR: If you want to solo marauders then make sure you don't cheap out on the core skills, dropsuit support and AV skills. If you don't want to dedicate that level of commitment Then bring friends and don't cry to me that it's hard. It's intended to be hard. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 12:46:00 - [239] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I really do hope your proposals bring about the game play you speak of but I can still fore see armies of wiki swarms strapped to min commando's. I would have loved to see the Iintroduction of dammage profiles to hav's such as 30% natural dammage reduction to front side 20% dammage reduction to the side and top but with a much higher weak spot dammage multyplyer than we have now this would both reward the compotent tanker and compotent aver alike but I don't think that will ever happen that is beyond my capacity. I am a sperg with his very first spreadsheet, not a programmer. If we had a bigger dev team that might have been feasible. As it stands I have to work within the bounds of what we have. What we have might change in the future but until then I'm only keeping speculative changes to things that rattati said he wanted/would be willing to do, such as racial parity via reskinned but existing art assets. It's not a perfect solution, but too much of game balance is contingent upon weapons and vehicles we do not have. If he's willing to bring the stuff in, even if imperfectly, then I want to provide as much creative ammunition as possible to maximize the potential of seeing new stuff in the game. If the placeholders do the job well, and CCP can get more vehicle players back/ more infantry back/ more newbies who do not loathe the game on contact, we might get enough AUR sales to justify more devs being added to the team. My objective is fun and dynamic play. That is the long and short of my agenda. I want HAV and other pilots to feel like they are having fun in DUST because if they genuinely have fun playing? I get a target rich environment. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 12:51:00 - [240] - Quote Stefan the answers to your questions depend entirely on which of the proposals you are looking at. There is mine, which will be very close to chromosome balance with a few egregiosly easy exploits being smothered with a pillow gently. There is thaddeus, whose proposal is both comprehensive and ambitious. And pokey, who seems to be seeing if the current build of vehicles and AV can be kit-bashed into something fun. Lazer fo cused is also doing his own proposal based on chrome with a very different vision. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 13:05:00 - [241] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Hey, some questions here without having read more than two pages (I'm sorry, it's a really long thread): - What happens when you bring a STD HAV and someone brings proto AV? I'm asking this because the typical response to spotting a STD DS in a public match appears to be deploying a damage modded pro rail tank. When people decide to counter, they tend to go all the way - if they can. Since public matches generally carry several people with proto AV these days this may lead to a very high mortality rate for STD HAVs. - How many simultaneous STD SLs will it take to dislodge a blaster Marauder and how long will it take? While in competitive matches we'll be looking at marauders vs proto AV, in pubs I expect people to use the most expensive gear to harvest the worst equipped players. Right now two or three STD SLs can drive off an HAV well enough to give your team some breathing room. - I've recently found logic in having blaster turrets be the thing that ties HAVs into infantry play. Use blaster to kill infantry, use rail to kill blaster. Proceed with rail v rail combat until rail-superiority is achieved and then use this to field blasters. Missiles act as a hybrid AV-AI solution if you don't want to commit either way. As an example this is what currently happens with DS. If you have rail-superiority on your team you can have DS act much more offensively than otherwise. What's your stance on this? In chrome gunnlogi and madrugar HAVs could weather 3-5 direct, non weakspot hits with a near maxed ishukone assault forge gun. Current meta is 4 for the maddy no matter what. Realistically 3-4 swarms could drive a marauder away. If the driver refuses to buy the hint swarms do 1000 alpha apiece, militia swarms can fire twice, STD three times. No skill swarms (no sp swarms) will require a significant gang up to ambush and kill a MAD. My stance on your last statement is I want a circular food chain with every hull having a role, and fitting flexibility. If you can hold the skies clear by all means bring out the missile pythons. You just have to contend with infantry AV. Enforcers are intended to be an AV first strike platform or "poor man's HAV." Fast, heavy hitting and squishy, in my brain they should be made a priority for killing by infantry AV so your team can hold ground armor superiority better. I would like to see more creative uses of fits to fit changing conditions rather than the current cookie cutter winmobile requirement. But doing things like wiping out enemy armor and swapping to hunter fits to completely suppress the enemy should be an option. My view of infantry AV is to keep the practice from being a given, or safe. Everyone should be in danger. Everyone needs to feel threatened. Now if only DUST rewarded audacity and bravery rather than risk aversion vehicle play would INSTANTLY change regardless of build. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6598	Posted - 2015.01.19 16:48:00 - [242] - Quote Yeah, I'm not going to push TTK upwards of half a minute to a minute. There's absolutely no point engaging when your opponent can always escape to the safety of the redline before you can destroy him. The fights will be a bit longer than chrome. But I'm not dragging them out that much. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6602	Posted - 2015.01.19 17:14:00 - [243] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Yeah, I'm not going to push TTK upwards of half a minute to a minute. There's absolutely no point engaging when your opponent can always escape to the safety of the redline before you can destroy him. The fights will be a bit longer than chrome. But I'm not dragging them out that much. Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles. Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight. Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly? adds a few seconds to the kill time. the only fastball killers should be when you get into CQC with a blaster. The others should be a bit more sane. But then I intended for knife fights to be bloody and brutal. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6606	Posted - 2015.01.19 17:54:00 - [244] - Quote That's nice godin. I'm not balancing for pre chrome. I didn't play then. What I have heard about it from everyone except a few HAV drivers doesn't make me want to try, either. If you want minute long tank engagements do your own balance sheet. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6606	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:22:00 - [245] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers. Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck. They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. cry harder. My tear bucket still has room. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6613	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 - [246] - Quote Because none of us want tanks to be untouchable god-engines. Any thread where someone suggests that HAVs should be destructible he threadcraps it up to try and remove any chance of constructive discussion till everyone else goes away except the very tiny minority of the HAV pilot population who want to be the kings of the game. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6618	Posted - 2015.01.19 22:05:00 - [247] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 05:33:00 - [248] - Quote Yes godin I realize that blasters have the shortest range. Get too close and they eat you. Tesfa, I didn't write the turrets with the idea that people wouldn't play mix'n match. Even at 850 DPS the blaster is still 150-1900 DPS slower than the turrets we have today or in chrome. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 08:12:00 - [249] - Quote I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS. If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6620	Posted - 2015.01.20 08:37:00 - [250] - Quote Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6621	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:06:00 - [251] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6626	Posted - 2015.01.20 12:41:00 - [252] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6631	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:43:00 - [253] - Quote without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more. Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all. I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6643	Posted - 2015.01.21 11:18:00 - [254] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike. So are my numbers barking completely up the wrong tree? If so I can find other things to do. If they're potentially viable for your purposes I'll finish. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6643	Posted - 2015.01.21 11:34:00 - [255] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: Im just gonna leave this link here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KNSdD8PYgY I remember fights like this. That damn Surya. The Sagaris was evil the Surya was ridiculous. those red dots. not a single solid AV gunner among the lot of them. with that many swarms, one Wyrkomi or IAFG would have turned that Surya into slag with the supporting fire. Solo? not as much. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6643	Posted - 2015.01.21 14:55:00 - [256] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike. So are my numbers barking completely up the wrong tree? If so I can find other things to do. If they're potentially viable for your purposes I'll finish. Absolutely not, please continue Excellent. All I care about is getting vehicles fun to drive and fun to fight again. I need to go back and bang out militia mods as well as many other things. I thought this would be simple. You may all point and laugh at my naivete. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6644	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:36:00 - [257] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: @ Breaking I occured to me that though we are dropping our fav fits for the current build we ought to go over beast mode fits from your spreadsheet. The same goes for True, pokey, thaddeus and the like. Anybod with proper chrome or Pre 1.8 tank fits for enforcers and maruaders ought to put up thier favorite ones as well. Put it in your signature or something guys, I can't keep scrolling through near 70 pages of comments. Link's too long, I need a bigger character limit for my sig. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6644	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:08:00 - [258] - Quote Rattati at least should appreciate the names I put on the minmatar dropships, if he makes the connection to what they are. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6644	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:58:00 - [259] - Quote Update: Changed Nanofiber plates to polycrystalline plates, renamed the third tier of plates Rolled Tungsten. Re-adding nanofiber plates as the ferroscale analogs as soon as my brain is up to kit-bashing them. Unless anyone can think of a reason not to I'm going to use the percentage differences between dropsuit plates and dropsuit ferroscales. Nanofiber plate movement penalty intended to be 50% of standard plates. Will hammer the numbers when I get home from work tomorrow morning. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6644	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:12:00 - [260] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since). Just my amateur feedback: Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi. Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank. Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse? I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay. First point: I occasionally drive a maddy. on the RARE occasion I get a rail Gunnlogi dead to rights I watch his turret, it's traversal is slower than my HAV, so if it stops moving I stop at a 180 degree angle from it. So long as that barrel is pointed elsewhere I'm safe, and it's massively obvious where he's pointing it. Second point: Turn speed gimmicks are only effective if the Rails continue to have a higher DPS value than blasters. This is something that's needed correcting since beta. Third point: Because the armor tanks have the short range weapons. They have to be able to get within optimal while eating the punishment delivered getting there. And I tend to agree to a point about shield tanks, long range yadda yadda yadda. The answer isn't to make them more vulnerable to swarms and forge gunners. The answer is to take rattati up on his stated intent to make anti shield AV weapons using existing art assets. That way weapons can be balanced so rails and projectiles actually do perform poorly versus shields, and lasers and plasma perform similarly poorly versus armor. This means that whenever we introduce heavy AV weapons for projectiles, plasma and lasers, I am of the opinion that the turrets for the lasers, and cannons, both small and large, should be introduced together. VHCL

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6645	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:29:00 - [261] - Quote I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing: 1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily). 2: Some dispersion reduction to Blasters. Not because of Infantry per se, that's only part of it, but because they're going to need to be able to consistently slam shots accurately into vehicle sized targets all the way out to their optimal cutoff. 3: Increased splash radius to missiles. If he goes with my numbers you aren't going to be able to machinegun the damn things anymore, so they'll need something to make them viable. they will also need to have the actual projectile accelerated so they can HIT targets outside blaster optimal. I say this as an AV gunner: HAVs, while they should not be lazily farming Infantry kills, SHOULD retain the capacity to both fight back against hostile infantry AV, and provide meaningful fire support to suppress enemies in support of an Infantry push. Simply making HAVs anti-vehicle is a rather shallow role with only so much battlefield utility. We need to broaden the perspective or the role will stagnate again. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6645	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:35:00 - [262] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing: 1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily). If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool! I also updated that post with additional info adamance, re-read. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6645	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:44:00 - [263] - Quote things with splash should never have been rapid fire. That's pretty much the long and short of it. the faster it shoots, the less it should be exploding and doing collateral damage at point of impact. Removing splash wasn't the answer, slowing down the rate of fire a bit was. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6645	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:47:00 - [264] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank". All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played. rather like with dropsuits, bricktanks are often the meta. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6645	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:29:00 - [265] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: lolwut? 60 seconds of uptime followed by 15 seconds cooldown. the cooldown was never huge. The primary reason a lot of that stuff was nerfed was... The Surya. Even with hardeners up the Sagaris could be splashed out of existence, it was just an unrighteous pain in the ass doing it. But combined with the Surya's EHP and short cooldown reps and things could get a little out of hand. VHCL

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.