|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
   |
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please don't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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
+1 great idea, maybe we could also give turrets on tanks higher elevation capability to combat dropships, although DS is kinda UP right now
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!!
Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
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.
Honestly, I think that if they buff proto av to counter the new tanks, then it would be fine. Give std an extra slot for their racial tank, buff AV accordingly. Then the new tanks would only have one extra slot, making balance much easier. Only problemi see is other vehicle types getting slaughtered, but this can be countered by buffing them up.
These changes wouldn't change anything except giving vehicles extra slots for more variety.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:[quote=Vitharr Foebane] anti shield AV solution quote]
simple
flux grenades
plasma cannon
forge guns
theres your anti shield av.
Forge guns are anti armor
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:Vell0cet wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!! Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though). If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages: 1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for: 2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions. 3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts. It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake. Hey Darth, this guy got it, why didn't you? More importantly, why doesn't CCP?
I never said I disagreed with your post did I? I just said that the kind of feedback you gave was not the kind we need, so I asked you to go away. You could have posted feedback in a positive way, and I would have completely agreed with you. Instead, you decided to go the 12 year old route and flame the post.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
If you had given constructive feedback in the first place, then nobody would have had a problem with it. Sure, the post got my attention, but for all the wrong reasons. If you left out all the crap, then CCP might actually pay attention to it. As well as the other people on the forums. As far as I know, flame posts have NEVER brought any change to the game. Only the good ones have.
And now you seem to be after me because I pointed out your feedback was not needed. Please continue if you wish.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
142
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 22:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have a question. What kind of missile bonus should a caldari enforcer get? Range? Velocity? It shouldn't get extra missiles or damage I think, but what kind of bonus would be useful?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
142
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 22:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal?
Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets.
Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate.
Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity *might* be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more.
You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there.
I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example.
Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
142
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal?
Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets.
Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate.
Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity *might* be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more.
You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment.
What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods I also think armor gardeners need to be buffed.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
142
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal?
Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets.
Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate.
Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity *might* be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more.
You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment. What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed. obviously, 50% isn't an arbitrary number
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
143
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed.
Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage.
True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
143
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed.
Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive.
I know how you feel bro, you've seen my petition from forever ago. (Didn't mean for that to rhyme lol)
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
143
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Well lets not get too crazy with changing 20 things at once at this point.
Lets dial it back a bit and look at a couple options for the fundimentals
True's Suggestion
Basic HAVs have 3/2 and 2/3
Enforcers and Marauders have 4/2 and 2/4
Enforcers have more limiting PG/CPU, pushing defensive ability down
Utility Modules may need to be tweaked to make them inexpensive to fit (Pokey Note: Fitting Reduction Bonus for utility modules?)
Move Damage Modules to Low or add passive Low Damage Mod
Darth's Suggestion
Basic HAVs have 4/2 and 2/4
Enforcers have 4/3 and 3/4
Marauders have 5/2 and 2/5
Need to tweak defensive modules (Pokey Note: Possibly less base HP for enforcer to force weaker defenses than Basic HAV?)
I agree with all of Trues points except the slot layout, you can put that in if you want
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 16:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Dergle wrote:There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. We had them, but we got punished for having good aim. Thus, the blaster was nerfed. Blame infantry Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry. Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things. I will agree that small Blasters need some love though.
While I agree, why are small rails considered AV then? Why are small missiles a hybrid of av and ai? In fact, the only small turret that is only for killing small things is the blaster.....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Which would require you to have the skills trained you already have trained lol. Say they release Caldari Enforcers. It requires Caldari HAV 3. Why do I need a respec to get the SP I've already spent on Caldari HAV, just so I can re-spend it on Caldari HAV?
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles. At this point that argument is rather..... moot. More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread.
I think I'll make a thread that takes all of the best ideas of the thread and puts them together without having ten pages to go through. Lot easier to read.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
153
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Traits: Generalist's Hull
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Traits: Generalist Hull
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).
What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses. That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists. It may be that we cannot have both....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands. Some of the currently suggested ideas include. - Racial Benefits to their respective tanking modules Caldari - Shield resists Amarr- Armour resists Gallente - Armour repairs Minmatar- Shield boosters - Reduced cool downs on defensive modules - Increased duration on defensive modules - Passive Resistances - Static Base Shield or Armour increases
Is it really in his hands? He's asked us on how to do it, so it's kinda in our hands. Also,new idea... What if marauders get fitting bonuses towards racial defensive mods, and either shield or armor regen on the racial skill books, then the marauder skill bonus could be defensive module duration and cool down. Thus, we can have the extra slot without giving bonuses that would be OP. Again, shield tanks would have to be looked at so they aren't too good but this doesn't seem like a bad idea too me.
Btw, how was your sandwich?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
It was a very good sandwich.
In terms of fitting modules...... I don't know...... seems appropriate.....but underwhelming if you know what I mean....and regen wise? Regen is a sore spot for me right now.
Just for my sake so I can understand what you want propose to me a ........
Role Bonus ( the bonus that either each Marauder has or the bonus that the Marauder's skill affects on the Sagaris vs Surya)
and the
Hull Bonus (The bonus unique to the hull perhaps affected by the Caldari/Gallente HAV skill)
K, the hull bonus would be the regen and module fitting bonus, and the role bonus would be the duration and cool down. Indirectly causing the tank to have much greater defensive capabilities but mostly through it having a fifth slot. You could say the extra slot IS the role bonus in a way.
Tl:dr of all my posts: I want that extra slot while being balanced. Badly
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
Why reduce base HP only to have to use a module to make up for what we had?
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
From what I understand about EVE lore, Caldari shields constantly regenerate with no stopping no matter how much damage is taken, and the Gallente prefer reps over max armor such as the Amarr do. Could of course have a short delay before the regen restarts for shields when they're depleted.
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
They both need to have their CPU, PG, armor and shield skill back on par with infantry, as well as a little more base CPU and PG overall.
@ #1, so we can have more variety in our fittings. 4 slots with ok base stats is better than 3 slots with good base stats. I'm tired of seeing about 4 different tank fittings on the field. Adding in old mods + another slot goes a lot towards personalizing tanks.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
156
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.
Increase PG cost of plates while reducing cup costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved The Madrugar doesn't have enough PG to fit what you want on it. Why would you further gimp the armor tank by increasing the PG cost of plates even more?
I was on the understanding that the Madrugar needed more CPU, not PG. I'm sorry, I don't use them
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:40:00 -
[25] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield.
The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
158
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout
2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
As I've said before,
Standard HAV 4/2
Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3
Marauder HAV 5/2
Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
159
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is.
I mean basically what happened with the "rework":
Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued.
Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit.
Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate.
Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless.
Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness.
And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily *some* of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up.
I think if mlt tanks got a 2/1 layout with these changes than mlt tanks would actually suck like they're supposed to.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. [/quote]
Correction: I admittedi don't use Madrugars. Read into posts a bit, I never said anything about gunnies, or Pythons, which I use extensively. Have you read my sig?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:52:00 -
[29] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable.
We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3)
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting. LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book. So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed. Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors.
The whole point of changing the slot layout and base hp is so you ARENT forced to tank....... If you want to build a tank around utility, you can with these ideas. If you want hp, you can put on hp mods, but you don't have to. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your arguing about.....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
75MPH LandShark wrote:
The one thing I would like to note is,
when the vehicle respec happened, and the other tanks where pulled. You also pulled the speed mods. The tanks where initially faster so this wasn't an issue, now they have been slowed down and nerfed to the point where they seem slower then before the vehicle re spec. In both movement speed and turn ratio speed, Can we at least get the speed mods back?
The other thing that was pulled was the vehicle support system.
I was solely a Limbus driver and supported tanks with the Limbus. That was taken away too.
There is a nice array to support drop suits, healing nano hives, repair tool, but nothing for a tank or LAV support, you can't keep up on foot with a repair item, and repair nano hives do not effect/heal them,
Is it possible when/if they bring in more vehicle items that we can bring back vehicle support. It made the game much more fun and interesting with the Limbus supporting the tank.
I realize I was maybe the 1-5% that actually utilized the Limbus as a support vehicle instead of a "murder taxi". However I had a long list of players who would swear by my support in combat.
Please don't discount or disregard vehicle support when considering re adding/introducing new tank types.
And please bring back speed modules, it doesn't unbalance anything as one has to sacrifice armor, repair and shields to place a speed module. Just like scouts fast and soft. Heavy can take a punch but can't run from anything.
Even if you have to pay for the Limbus like a BPO item, I would happily pay for that to get vehicle support back into the game. I still don't fully understand why it was first nerfed and then removed completely.
Oh the times we had when you would shield boost my Falchion and I could take on 2 tanks and a proto assault forge at once...
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vordred Knight wrote:Why can't the Gallente Marauders have a bonus to reps?
Who said they couldn't? We're just trying to find the most balanced bonuses while retaining a good slot count
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:59:00 -
[33] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
All the good missile tankers do semi auto anyway, but the thing I want the most for my Falchion fit when they come back is some long range missiles. Maybe bring a long range burst turret like we had before?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
166
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank.
I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 00:46:00 -
[35] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring. Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me.
In which case they deserve to destroy you. They pull out around 150k each to come blow your tank up, which is their SOLE purpose. If 2 or three proto forge gunners hitting you in your weak spot wouldn't kill you, then what the hell would?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere.
Make a thread about what you guys talk about if you do continue, I enjoy reading what you 2 have to say about this stuff.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool.
So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally.
No, because you're nerfing them out the box.
I don't understand how you nerf something before it exists..... doesn't it have to have to be in game with stats first?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
183
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 15:01:00 -
[38] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!
Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
183
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 03:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES! Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too. To an extent. To be fair, most dropsuits cant fit Proto EVERYTHING. Typically the sidearm and/or grenades are of a lower tier. So Proto Modules and Large Turret? Totally. But proto smalls on top of that? I'd have to say they would be a notch or two lower
Well, that's what I meant. Infantry sacrifice a lower tier sidearm usually, tanks sacrifice smalls
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
184
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 03:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
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.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:16:00 -
[41] - Quote
Alright guys, everyone else has been giving great ideas, so I wanted to summarize my own. This is based on my personal experience as a tanker, along with all of the feedback I've seen here and elsewhere. Please keep in mind that all of this is my opinion.
WARNING: wall of text
First of all, major changes need to be worked into tanks at the Standard level. I believe that the Gunnlogi and Mardugar each need an extra slot for their racial tank, with a buff to AV. This works on the philosophy that a tanks power should lie in its modules, not its base stats. This would also inject a lot of variety to tanks, which is a good thing. Only problem I see with this is that the other vehicle types would get destroyed, which means they would need an extra slot for their racial tank as well (maybe an off rack mod for ADS). this might mean that vehicles would need a buff to their CPU and PG to accommodate this.
Second change for standard tanks, the Gunny needs to lose the ability to dual tank, while the Madrugar needs to gain the ability to fit a full proto racial tank + a proto large turret with little room for much else. The same would go for the Gunnlogi, full proto racial tank + a large proto turret. Example fit: Gunnlogi, 2 Heavy Complex shield Extenders, 1 complex hardener, I complex heavy booster, XT-201 Missile Launcher, Basic passive damage mod and a ammo expansion unit in the lows. Madrugar: 1 180mm Polycrystalline plate, 2 Complex Reppers, 1 complex Hardener, 80GJ Ion Cannon, basic fuel injector and scanner.
Now, on to skills, which also need major rework. Here are my suggestions on the vehicle skills and bonuses as far as tanks go.
It should be Vehicle command 5>HAV operation 3> Racial HAV operation 3> Specialized Racial HAV operation
HAV Operation unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation at level 3, giving a 1% bonus to overall HP per level.
Caldari HAV Operation unlocks Gunnlogi at 1, Caldari Enforcer at 3, Caldari Marauder at 5, giving a 3% bonus to shield recharge rate per level.
Caldari Enforcer Operation unlocks the Falchion, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Missile Velocity and Range per level, also giving a 5% bonus to Large Railguns Cooldown and all damage mod fitting per level (Enforcer Role Bonus)
Caldari Marauder Operation unlocks the Sagaris, gives a 5% bonus to Shield Module fitting per level, 2% to shield resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus of 5% to small turret fitting and damage.
Gallente HAV Operation unlocks the same way as Cal, gives a 3% bonus to armor repair per level.
Gallente Enforcer Operation unlocks the Vayu, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Blaster rof and Dispersion decay per level (circle decays slower) as well as the large rail and damage mod bonus above.
Gallente Marauder Operation Unlocks the Surya, and gives a 5% bonus to Armor Module fitting per level, 2% to armor resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus to small turrets.
Marauders have a weaker weak point (30% more damage). Enforcers have a hard time fitting defensive mods, 25% increase of CPU and PG of all defensive mods for Enforcers (boosters and reppers unaffected)
Now, for the hulls. Please note that I leave out CPU and PG values, with the slot changes I have no idea what they should be.
CPU and PG should go Marauder>STD=Enforcer>MLT (IMO)
Gunnlogi
4/2 layout
Cost of 100k
Above average acceleration and turn speed, lower top speed.
3250 shields, 1000 armor.
Generalist
Falchion
4/3 layout
Cost of 150K
Very fast top speed and Acceleration, only loses to the Vayu. Better tracking but lower turn speed.
3000 shields, 1000 armor
Hit and run from a distance, using the range of missiles to be a longe range mobile killer, but easily destroyed at close range.
Sagaris
5/2 layout
Cost of 300K
Very slow top speed and Acceleration, only faster than the Surya. Slower turn speed but better tracking.
3500 shields, 1250 armor.
Drives around an objective, using its small turrets to deter or kill any infantry around it.
Madrugar
2/4 layout
Cost of 100K
Slower than average Acceleration, higher top speed. Turn speed is lower than Gunny, but has the ability to aim lower.
3500 armor, 1000 shields
Generalist
Vayu
Cost of 150K
3/4 layout
Fastest tank in the game, in both speed and acceleration, but suffers from slower turn speed than the Falchion
3250 armor, 1000 shields
Close range, very fast hit and run. Nitrous in with dmg modded Blaster, tear s*** up, GTFO.
Surya
2/5 layout
Cost of 300K
3750 armor, 1250 shields
Slowest tank in the game, in both speed and Acceleration, but has better tracking than the Sagaris.
The Behemoth. Sits on an objective, eating everything the Infantry has got, until a smart AV'er or Enforcer hits its weak spot
That's all my hull stats. Now, here's some other tid bits.
Gunnlogi Shield recharge needs to be toned down, and I see 2 ways of doing it.
Option 1: Lower recharge to 60 per second able to be modified by rechargers and extenders, keep everything else except Maddy recharge gets dropped to 40.
Option 2: lower recharge to 30 per second but make it constant, modified by rechargers and energizers. Only shield vehicles would get constant recharge, Maddy gets 20 a second.
Modules need to be re introduced. All of them.
Make Booster work under fire
Turret variety would be nice.
Give tanks a role. Something other than tanks to shoot at. Logi Vehicles, MAV, etc. You could also let tanks damage null cannons to the point where they shut down and have to be re hacked.
That's about it guys, let me know what you think about my proposal, and keep in mind that I don't know what the exact stats should be for AV and other vehicles after this.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
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
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:58:00 -
[44] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
Well, you have my input on how tanks should be up above. The chrome stats were the best we have had, but I think that if we implement my proposal then we would have a nice vehicle interplay going on, with AV being toned up with the new tanks.
Under my proposal, with Marauders getting bonuses to Small turret and an extra racial tank slot compared to Std, they would be the ideal objective taking HAV, able to shred Infantry with ease as long as you have gunners, while being hard to destroy, but very slow. The Enforcer counters that, being agile and hard to hit while dishing out a ton of damage to the Marauders through their bonuses to their turrets and damage mods, but not being able to take as many hits.. Then the Std vehicles are the generalist hulls, not being able to take damage or dish it out like an Enforcer or Marauder, but being average in both.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 20:13:00 -
[45] - Quote
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
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
186
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
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.
Agreed. I don't know if a resist bonus would even work for Marauders, and I f there is 1 it would have to be like 1-2% because again, power in modules, not base stats (I've said that so many times in this thread....)
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 00:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced?
The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
188
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 02:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas.
Why is it a bad idea? A lock on large turret would be a bad idea, as you couldn't engage enemy AV.... At all. Meanwhile, guided missiles would let you engage both infantry AND vehicles more effectively (especially DS)..... Some times I don't get your reasoning Spkr, and infantry aren't the only ones with bad ideas....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
192
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 15:53:00 -
[49] - Quote
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.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
| |
|