|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
738
   |
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
first thing i noticed in your proposal is that cpu/pg are the same for gunnlogi and Madrugar.
the Madrugar needs more of both. it cant make full use of its slots without fitting mods. itcan fit all basic gear without needing fitting mods. the gunnlogi on the other hand can fit whatever it wants because it can use its low slot for fitting mods. no one complains about it because there aren't any other useful low slot mods anyways.
the next thing is that it looks like youre looking to maintain current mechanics. but those mechanics were put in place after removing most of the old modules. is a rework of vehicle mechanics possible? or at least the modules?
can we get increased slot layouts if we want them? bringing back all the old modules is great, but without anywhere to put them we really wont have much in terms of viable fitting choices. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
739
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:27:00 -
[2] - 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.
they shouldve just fixed skirmish 1.0 instead of scrapping it. i know there were issues but none were beyond fixing.
the big issue was attackers would lose if they didnt get the first point fast enough. the should have been to replenish the MCC's hp by 25% each time a point was taken. id love to see it come back |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
739
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:31:00 -
[3] - 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.
teamwork for "one" tank.
what happens when there's 6 of them?
we dont have enough players per team for that.
we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill
Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill
So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill?
I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine.
Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
I just want to point out that no matter how much sp and isk you invest in making your tank more powerful, a suicide jeep will still kill you.
Suicide jeep = greatest av
I hate suicide jeeps |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
745
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 23:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that.
Missiles don't need more before having to reload.
Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else.
Use a shield booster instead of extender and boost after the initial volley. You end getting most of your hp back he and doesn't have his burst dps anymore to help him. Use a rail turret and if you don't overheat it you'll win. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 08:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that.
Missiles don't need more before having to reload.
Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. Use a shield booster instead of extender and boost after the initial volley. You end getting most of your hp back he and doesn't have his burst dps anymore to help him. Use a rail turret and if you don't overheat it you'll win. Double Hardened without extender gives you a little less than 5000shield HP. Assuming you get the booster off in time thats about 2000 more HP. SO lets say 7000 Shield eHP + 1500 armor HP. So lets say they're using a standard missile launcher at 415 damage a missile, 22 missiles, 0.15 interval. 9130 Damage. The Shields will obsorb 8400 of that damage so your armor is getting hit by the remaining 730 damage but experience 876, leaving you at 0 shield, 624 Armor. If you are not at 100% HP when that happens, You die. If they use a damage mod, you die. If they use a better launcher, you die.
what?
how are you calculating damage reduction?
when i did the math i had one hardener at 40%
the second hardener at 34.8%
so ill round it up to 75% damage reduction.
missiles at 415 direct damage reduced by 75% is 103.75. multiply by 12 missiles and you get 1245 damage. then you reduce it again by 15% because of missile damage profile, and youre only doing 1058.25 damage.
you still will have 1592 shields left after the first volley, and you havent even touched the shield booster yet.
without any modules at all. you effective shield HP against missiles is actually about 3118. the two hardeners put you around 16,306 eHP against missiles. and adding the booster pushes it further, to 28,304 eHP against missiles.
ive never died to missiles with two hardeners on unless i had under 1k shields going into the fight. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 09:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:DeathwindRising wrote: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. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once. You're right. I guess it's impossible for the same 2-3 people in AV to switch targets after they've killed one tank.
thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone
ive seen this happen with ADS too |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone
ive seen this happen with ADS too
But then that's not a matter of OP vehicle its team work in the same way infantry work to keep one another alive, secure points, and achieve a goal.
its a matter of theres only 16 people per team and if 16 of them must switch to av to fight 6 guys in tanks, then it leaves 10 guys on the tanks team free to do whatever they like
its clone efficiency. 6 guys in tanks forcing 16 av to try and kill them. not saying 16 guys cant kill 6 tanks without a problem, but when have you ever seen 16 guys running av? on top of that 10 assaults would have no trouble dealing with a team of av guys.
im not saying tanks are OP. im saying that when theres a limited number of slots per team available clone for clone... 16 vs 6 is imbalanced.
but then we can always say, well then those 16 av guys should get 6 tanks to counter them. now we have small as a closet maps with 12 tanks on them with 20 guys left over wondering why scotty the matchmaker screwed them all so hard.
every scenario must be looked at. just because it doesnt happen often does not mean you can skip over it when you design and balance the game.
no map in dust can reasonably support 12 tanks. the maps are just too small and poorly designed for vehicle use. this is another area that should be noted to the devs. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote: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?
decreased dispersion for better accuracy at range while rapid firing |
|
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
just watched a guy in a gunnlogi with double hardeners (maybe triple) take down three madrugars while being focused fired on.
his shields didnt move
some one mentioned eHP stacking makes any and all passive tanks inferior. only way i see passive tanking working is if passive tanks are built around having huge raw HP pools to outlast hardener durations.
id make passive tanks have huge HP pools, with slow regen
make active tanks with low HP pools with high resistances. short module durations and high regen.
so basically passive tanks would be good in 1v1 fights and can stay on field longer, while active tanks would be good in larger tank battles but shorter time on field.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 12:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment.
Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this.
Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc.
Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc.
In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing.
Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4
Light Shield Extender
Energized Shield Ward Field
Damage Control or Light Shield extender
Tracking Computer
Thorough-put Stabilization Field
Power Diagnostics System
5618.59 eHP on this hull.
Alright forgive me if I'm over simplifying/misunderstanding this, but basically you're saying that the Enforcer would not have a significant amount of PG/CPU increase (assuming properly balancing resources in Armor/Shields first). Utility modules would be significantly cheaper than HP, so that 4th slot would be filled with utility and not HP because there isn't enough additional PG/CPU to actually fill it with an HP module. So in short you have less resources overall per slot, forcing a lower grade of your 3 primary defensive modules, making the HAV less defensive oriented, but allowing enough slots for additional utility since utility mods are cheaper to fit? If that's what you're getting at, its an interesting line of thought, though I think it might be very tricky to properly balance resources to achieve that without allowing for abuse.
thats easy to balance. if the modules directly effects HP or resists the fitting costs will be alot higher. anything else gets super cheap fitting costs.
an example:
5/3 high/low
cpu = 250
pg = 500
cpu/pg
extender costs 50/150- high slot
scanner costs 50/25 - high slot
tracking computer 15/25 - high slot
heat sink 20/25 - high slot
overdrive 30/50 - low slot
damage mod 75/50 - low slot
ammo cache 0/0 - low slot
3 extenders cost 150/450 so you have 100 cpu and 50 pg left with 2 high slots and 3 low slots left. obviously you need to dump an extender if you want to use the other 5 slots on the tank, or fill whats left will cheap fitting mods. you could fill your 2 leftover high slots with a scanner and tracking computer and it'd leave you with 35 cpu and 0 pg. and since the ammo cache cost 0 pg you could put it on too.
what you cant do is fit 5 extenders lol. if you added fitting mods then maybe you could get 3 extenders on with enough pg for some other stuff, but youre losing slots to make it work.
the other way could fit the same tank would be to go for only two extenders, leaving you 150 cpu and 200 pg. now you can fit the scanner, tracking computer, and heat sink in you 3 left over high slots, and the damage mod, overdrive, and ammo cache in your lows.
less HP overall but a more useful and complete vehicle. the point is to make HP mods too resource intensive to fit. so if you did see a vehicle with high HP you'd know right away its lacking all kinds of things most likely |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 10:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason.
yep, except that reason didnt include anti infantry.
ask for medium turrets instead of OP large blaster turrets |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters
its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2.
give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles.
small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.
oh no dont get me wrong. in no way do i feel tanks should be effective without support. they should be weak against infantry without their own infantry support |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops 1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?
are trying to snipe them? small blaster shooting out to 100m is like asking for an ion pistol to have the same range as the plasma rifle.
that siad. i kill heavies out to somewhere between 50m and 70m. which feels good enough for defense. on a LAV its more useful as you can move around more to keep safe distance but apply damage.
most of my small blaster kills were done while on a LAV.
on a tank, the issue is that no one wants to get close enough to use small blasters because tank handling is poor. so if you get into some thick stuff you might not make it out. so everyone tries to keep distance and use the large blaster since it has more range. this range is outside of small blasters, so theyre useless as a supplement to the large blaster.
this could be fixed, by allowing tanks increased range on small turrets, but idk if its really needed |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
777
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 06:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields?
If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields?
Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets.
Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
781
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation. Missile Pros and cons Pro: High aplha DPS Bonus to Amor Neutral: Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you Cons: Low sustainable DPS Long reload times 10 secondsWeak vs shields Poor vs infantry Thanks for that link, now I can calculate sustained DPS values (I couldn't find it)...although it is a bit out of date
id like to see the eHP for a dual shield hardened gunnlogi with a shield booster. its missing from your proposal and it should be shown. i think that combo has higher eHP than a maddy other than the dual plate + hardner fit you had.
people claim missile kill anything and everything, but not that particular gunnlogi. its the toughest tank combo in the game and you can run it full complex mods with dual small proto rails and the 1 large proto rail |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
810
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
It just changes things around. A month or two and we will have new fits. The big issue for me is that maddys always come out to stomp infantry. But the guy that comes to kill the maddy doesn't use a maddy. He uses a gunnlogi with missiles and dual hardeners. When the maddy dies he comes back with a gunnlogi rail fit. The first gunnlogi goes back to the redline and swaps out for a gunnlogi rail fit.
Any other tank that gets called in at this point will be the same thing because the rail lets you engage other tanks without having to get into range of av infantry, and also because blasters and missiles suck at long range against shield tanks. There is no other option for large multi tank battles.
Both tanks have crap fitting space and should be addressed |
|
|
|
|
| |
|