|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2661
   |
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'M BACK
With that out of the way, I'd like to say three things:
1: Pokey has said mostly what I would have, therefore, my opinion is his. Same for the kitty.
2: The only thing I haven't seen mentioned, at least not much is balance between logistic vehicles. Simply put, if each has about equal strengths in what I call the logistic triangle (logistic actions that vehicles can do, which is ferrying infantry, repping things, and rearming things), then not all three will be used as much as the other, but rather which one is the most efficient at doing them all at once. Therefore, I say that there should be three logistic vehicles, and each should get bonuses for only 1 area of the triangle And since we already got models of them, LLV's can get repping (the special infantry rep, but instead of it being like a vehicle rep which was broken, a nanohive-like bubble around the LLV) and LDS's can get the transport (the CRU on it should be not the same as the regular one, but active, having a much faster spawn rate), and when MAV's come, a LMV should be introduced (and it should get a mobile Supply depot).
3: Along with some old modules (I want my heat sinks back dammit  ), new ones, maybe even a new section of addons for vehilces needs to be added for deployables like vehicle nanohives.
That is all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2661
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all? Yes I would. No joke.
What in the absolute ****?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2664
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more. Personally I can only see it as a bettering of what we have.....which is mildly because the idea was mine..... but also because currently the large blaster is inappropriate as a tank turret. Firstly it isn't one. Secondly it does not fulfil the primarily role of the main gun of a tank.
That matters why? My statement still stands, shotty blaster would end up being better than a PLC blaster, as a PLC blaster would end up being used like a short range rail, which could be done through tracking computers if they were brung back, so pointless
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.
1. This 2. So far everything is trying to make it like it was in the past but somehow worse and yes im looking at ppl who want specalized HAVs to be 4/2 so then do we get another tank which has a 5/3? 3. Even Uprising 1.0 days the HAV vs HAV battles were fun between the STD HAVs, FG were in a good place aswell the only true AV problems were the broken AV nades and SL and the Enforcers had militia stats 4. Chrome was fun for the Marauders and Missile turrets which actually had splash damage
Why do you number everything?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
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.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 20:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote: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?
Having it be full auto in CQ makes it just better, but limiting it to semi auto would hurt it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: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. Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Go to the Gal FW store. Now tell me, where's my Gal rails.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote: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. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely
Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger)
Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 02:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote: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. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One. Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system
You said largely, which is just wrong, because it's more half and half for Gallente.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
....................
Do you understand what my above statement said?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 06:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said? Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats.
heatsinks, both active and passive
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 20:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair.
My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain.
You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain. You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said. Later iterations of the Sherman could deal with them adequately especially those that mounted the 105mm Howitzer, most with lesser armaments like the 76mm gun were fodder for the tiger as a result of the innovations in armour plating Henschel and Porsche made during the conflicts. The only downside to early Sherman tanks was the misconception based of misinterpreted reports by Brittish Gunnery teams that a small calibre 6 Pdr gun could knock out a Tiger.....which it could.....at short range against the thinly armoured 62mm plates, as such the original Sherman's were built with the 75mm gun and assumed to be superior to the Tiger. The result was that many of the lighter German tanks that were also fitting 7.5cm KwK 40 cannons like the Panzer IV, StuG III, and Marder III could engage and destroy Sherman's from a distance. The first Sherman's equipped with 76mm guns were fielded in early 1944..... at the time very late in the war. Also if I remember correctly an 88mm Gun (the standard Tiger armament) was almost always powerful enough to penetrate Sherman armour at range which meant hit from those guns were devastating to the crewmen inside.
All true, but those requirements were:
You had to find and hit the sherman
You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you
my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2670
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 17:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles.
Tank history nerd.
But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well?
It is a concern.
However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls.
In terms of AV, since I think both HAVs and LAVs will be changing is to ask "How does AV perform against Dropships in the current iteration". If it is performing properly against Basic and Assault dropships, then don't change AV. If it is under or overperforming, then I would buff/nerf AV accordingly and then rebuild the HAVs and LAVs around those AV values. I unfortunately know very little about dropships and how they currently perform against AV so I can't comment much further on that. You raise good points that the Marauder would likely need to be the AP HAV. Perhaps it's role bonus should be +% Tracking Speed & Damage of Small Turrets, and then it's racial bonuses be specific to boosting that race's tanking style? As Mr. Adamance pointed out, it would need to have downsides to offset the advantage of bolstered defenses, and in particular mirror the sort of advantages the Enforcer has. Reduction to mobility and effectiveness of large turrets is probably the pillars that should be focused on. What sort of mobility downsides do you guys see being appropriate? Acceleration? Torque? Top Speed? Hull Rotation? What sort of Large Turret downsides do you see as appropriate? Damage? Tracking Speed? Reload Speed? Magazine Size?
Acceleration and Top speed and hull rotation should be reduced. Large turret doesn't at that point need nerfing due to already handling worse than a regular HAV or a enforcer. Nerfing it would just be pointless, especially since it's not buffed against infantry (has to have support to even use those bonuses). The thing is made for defense clearly, not roaming, and if you nerf it's defense capabilities against say a HAV, then you're actively nerfing them.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
Blub
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game.
So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then?
Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:44:00 -
[20] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?
That would actually make sense, well unless the Enforcer is fast, and therefore might try and orbit something, in which it won't have its face pointing towards the other HAV, but rather its sides and even back.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I've had another thought.
Perhaps it's easier to balance tanks around this ideal
Tanks have less generalised slots and more specialise slot lay outs.
Large Turret Slots (Slow RoF high damage cannon)
Secondary Small Turret Slots (High RoF Anti Infantry guns)
Armour/Shielding Slot (Designed to accommodate the tier of armour from Light to Heavy determining the vehicle primary HP and and mobility attributes)
Defensive Slot 1 (designed to accommodate defensive modules that affect Shields or armour functionality from passive resistance to regenerative functions)
Utility Slot 1 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
Utility Slot 2 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
From here vehicles and the angles of armour they are engaged at have standard resistance values depending firstly of the logical location the armour/shields would be thickest and then by racial attributes perhaps.
Frontal Armour - Basic 25% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Side Armour - Basic 10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Rear Armour - 0% - "-"10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier (not rear armour also have the weak point on it so additional damage vs this face is likely)
Turret - 0% Resistance to damage.
A Tank theoretically could look like this.
Large Turret Slot: 80GJ Charged Electron Cannon
Small Turret Slot: 20GJ Compressed Light Railgun
Armour Slot: 120mm Armour Plating
Offensive Slot: Plasma Focusing Array (adjusts Turret functionality)
Defensive Slot: Active Nanite Injection System (passive regenerative feature ...blegh)
Utility Slot 1: Damage Control Unit
Utility Slot 2: Nitrous Injector
Frontal Armour Damage Profile: 65% Damage
Side Armour Damage Profile: 85% Damage
Rear Armour Damage Profile: 115% Damage
Turret Armour Profile: 100%
The Turret Slots determine what basic functionality you want your tank to have. DPS vs Alpha.
Armour Slot Conveys in this case a fair static armour boost and moderate mobility penalties. Pilot wants this tank to move reasonable quickly.
Defensive Slot: Pilot wants this tank to passively repair itself during combat or actively at a slower rate outside of combat.
Utility Slot 1: Pilot wants to have small resistance boosts for short periods of time to manage damage taken vs regenerated.
Utility Slot 2: Pilot wants this tank to be able to accelerate quickly for a short time at a moments notice.
If this ever was considered then.....
Rig Slots: An Additional Slot that general enhances or focuses on boosting one single small aspect of your hull while coming with a slight penalty as well.
E.G- Nanite Repair Systems Overclocker - Boosts the % of armour repaired by the Active Nanite Injection System by 10% however increases the cool down time of the unit by 5% or increases the PG of the unit by 10% etc.
Armour Damage Profiles =
Gallente - The Gallente are specialists of the scoot and shoot style of armoured warfare. A Gallentean Vehicle will rapidly approach and enemy column presenting its thicker forward armour at an angle firing a volley before reloading on the move. Thus Gallentea vehicles can rapidly agress and de-agress enemies with ease. However Gallentean tanks are usually constructed with lighter alloys to preserve mobility and this have weakened internal structures on the turret and rear sections of the hull.
+10% resistance to Forward Armour Damage Profile
+5% resistance to Side Armour Damage Profile
-15% resistance to Rear Armour Damage Profile
+0% resistance to Turret Armour Damage Profile
So ideally when a Gallentean Tanker is on the field they are trying to be mobile, preserve their ability to manoeuvre for aggressive and passive actions and close in on their targets for maximum DPS while presenting either their forward or side armours.
Meh just an off the cuff idea I've been mulling over. I got bored really and thought of ways to adjust the dynamic of tanks.
Specialisations could function like this
Marauder - +1 Defensive Module Slot - 25% Mobility Values and -15% Cool down to Utility Modules Fitted
Enforcer - +1 Offensive Systems Module Slot -15% Defensive Values - 20% Turret Tracking Speed
Black Ops - +2 Utility Systems Module Slots -10% to Offensive Systems Slot cooldown -10% to Defensive Systems Slot Cooldown.
Or some other ****.
The slot layout stuff, absolutely ******* no. That's a more extreme way of doing 1.7, limiting choice because balance.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking.
We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit.
As I told you, that should exclude turret damage values, as they were as broken as now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? That would actually make sense, well unless the Enforcer is fast, and therefore might try and orbit something, in which it won't have its face pointing towards the other HAV, but rather its sides and even back. Well give the Caldari Enforcer the Hardened Front Facing Armor/Shield, and give the Gallente hardened Side armor?
That would make sense.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it
You can hurt them so bad that they will back off, but vehicle turrets are generally (aka not the blaster) too strong for that, they'll just kill them before they escape, or AV as well for that matter.
EDIT: Read your idea, sounds neat, but I'm not sure if that would change much, but would be nice to have.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense?
You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun.
1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim.
2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is ******* silly.
Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up.
Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large...
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess.
I would have changes ready to go out though, of many kinds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:05:00 -
[30] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
WT might as well be the closest thing to a tank simulator out this generation of gaming. Trumps that arcade World of Tanks crap..
If you look at sim mode for Ground forces, maybe even realistic, sure. Arcade is a hell no, handles nothing like those tanks.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module.Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that. I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity. It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs. Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field.
Forcing Teamwork is never a good idea, no matter how you slice it. Hell no. Making it to where it is a really good idea to have teamwork is better, you know, making it to where all the large turrets sucks ass at killing infantry could help.
Also, even when they were good, I had people for the most part just hop in for a ride, and if I needed infantry support, they would follow me in a LAV, simply because it's a lot easier that way. The front turret is terribly positioned imo, and the top turret is although better, for some reason inaccurate when aiming the large. A lot of the teams I was on had repping lAV's, which would follow me or another HAV, and infantry would go with us. It just worked.
In short, there's better ways of getting people to work together rather than forcing people, and forcing people doesn't really help anything.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
This. Give me something to blwo up other than a Squid HAV.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:12:00 -
[33] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. More to the point I will not ignore HAVs because HAV drivers NEVER ignore infantry, instead opportunistically slaughtering infantry for free kills wherever possible. The people who bang the loudest on the "I only want to fight other tanks" have historically been the ones I see with a maxed out HAV harvesting Infantry kills like a God-possessed Combine Harvester until I engage them. We exist on the same battlefield. You are on the opposing team. You are a target for extermination. Just like your blue dots on foot.
Most of the time I ignore infantry. I see them, but I just don't care about them. It's only when I've ran out of targets or they pissed me off is when I shoot at them.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large... 2 types. 1 small say 1m square but not solid and looks like a caltrop which you can carry lots of but can be shotup quite easily and the other 1-2m square (or just length or height) which is a solid block of ehp like a big block of rock or in this case a big block of armor plate to chew through which are fewer in number. to get the full effect these would have to be given in reasonable quantities with high deploy count with optimal effect using up both types.
So say enough to black entrances? I like. Could be a beginning to things like actual structures like actual gates and stuff.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2680
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern 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. Sounds good to me. Any ETA on when we might see Logistics vehicles returning?
Hopefully not for awhile, they still need to be fleshed out and balanced well.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2680
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again?
You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 11:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again? You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game. Goddamn he'd hate it. OHKO penetrations. crew kills, Artillery Spam.....
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:11:00 -
[38] - Quote
To the people who thinks that making blasters into a giant PLC is a good idea: How in the hell does a precision weapon such as a PLC makes sense? Also, would you ever use a PLC over a FG?
Shotty blaster makes more sense.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
So instead of increasing the base stats on the hulls, why not increase the HP given by armor plates themselves? (or re-examine the damage bonus from the tailpipe weakspot)
Chromosome the base hulls were flimsy and improved by the quality of fitting you could clock into it. When uprising rolled around CCP decided to re-invent the wheel and reverse the apple cart and make the fittings less important and front-load the benefits on the hulls themselves. this had the added side effect of the dumbing down of vehicle mods. Do I think the passive regen is horrible? Nah, but it should have been provided along with active regen options as well for armor. a lot of the issue is when your base hull has 4,000 EHP, then in order to balance things out without randomly buffing the crap out of AV you have to dumb down the modules. If the HAVs were more fit-centric as they were in chrome more options open up. The hull-centric model saw the removal of more options than it added by far.
There was so many valid fit options in chromo, I loved it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:22:00 -
[40] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim.
They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever.
It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2683
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim. They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever. It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this. This doesn't answer WHY it was done. I know HOW it was done.
Yes it does Breakin, again, CCP logic AKA no reason at all, nobody asking for it, just the complete opposite.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2686
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:36:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense?
My point.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2686
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense? My point. When Rattati started doing things that made sense I got all freaked out "Wait....whats the catch? Did they hand Dust over to another company? What is this sorcery?! "
I just thought, "Oh, they have someone that is not a dumbass for once, I wonder if he can actually fix vehicles though"
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Pokey, do you have a skype? I'd very much like some help hammering down my numbers (and ask you a bit about yours)
It would be a good idea to make a channel discussing this, live talking is better than this imo.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:59:00 -
[45] - Quote
Golden Day wrote:Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves
Quote:we will just work on it internally.
This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:19:00 -
[46] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Golden Day wrote:Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves Quote:we will just work on it internally.
This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it. It devolved mostly because I don't want to budge on vehicles, and believe AV should be a deterrent. In his own words, he wants tanks to counter each other. Sounds to me like AV is gonna get put on the chopping block. It's been a long time coming.
I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however
It really does sound like he wants tanks to beat the hell out of each other. And as far as Chrome V/AV balance goes, yeah, that was a really good time for vehicles. AV was a deterrent, and the escalation for tank warfare was awesome. Going from quite expensive MLT tanks, to more expensive STD tanks, to the behemoth Marauders that I think cost 2.5mil to 3mil ISK - I wouldn't know because I never had the SP for them. Obviously, if someone was stupid enough to stay still and not know how to use the mods, AV would bury them. But we have the experience to make the most out of our vehicles, and I've even gotten back into using the Madrugar. It usually comes down to experience. And I pray that the Madrugar gets brought up to the Gunnlogi, instead of the Gunnlogi being brought down to the Madrugar. They need validity in the face of the Enforcers and Marauders. If both are weak, then anybody that considers themselves a pilot will only use the specialized tanks, and nobody will take them out in pubs at all. Vehicles need to be strong, and they need to stand up to AV.
They did beat the hell out of each other, too much in fact. TTK was bad as it is now.
As for the T I vs. T II HAV's, that is obvious. If they were just buffs in general, they are broke.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:56:00 -
[48] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls. Insane railgun damage as well as damage mods. Uprising 1.0 TTK was much better, because a tank wasn't wiped out in 2-3 rounds. Very experienced pilots could probably make a fight last 20 seconds or so. We need more concrete ideas for what Rattati wants to do. We need to see what he's looking at.
To breakin, this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:57:00 -
[49] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls.
I would go with that, hell yes.
Although, I still want a shotty blaster. Hell, looking at the T II blasters, it would make a hell of a lot more sense than what it was before (you know, scattered being a upgraded normal, compressed being a gimped normal, and stabilized actually varying, but fitting it was ****?).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money.
I'd rather have tiercide than meta lock, but that's just me.......
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:48:00 -
[51] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. 1. 3 main slots is still bad 2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe 3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP 4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off
Read the entire spreadsheet before posting.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:54:00 -
[52] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Let's work both angles. I'll work on resurrecting the chrome stuff you guys run the other angle.
Multiple reasonable proposals are always better than all eggs in one basket. So while I may disagree with your approach, don't think I'm going to try and roadblock you.
The reason I prefer reverting back towards chrome is because vehicle fits used to be dynamic and unpredictable. There were niche fits that one pilot would use to great effect that others just couldn't make work to save their lives.
The HAVs varied greatly between SP levels and playstyles and provided a dynamic and fluid engagement where it wasn't written in absolutes.
I couldn't predict if the old maddies would pop in 3 shots or 5.
I couldn't guess if the old sagaris would eat six or even seven before vaporizing.
When I said that I found it reasonable to kill a sagaris in six shots that glosses over that rarely was I able to drop a mad on the first attack. Usually it took between three and six separate attempts to pin down the pilot, his tactics and his fit to finally rip off that six shot attack string.
There was no margin for error. Four shots, reload, two more shots before he can escape or get to cover. I usually arranged attacks where I could killbox the target to keep them from having an easy out.
Now it's easy to say that here in the forums but it's much harder to put a paper abstraction to achieve the same effect. I want to use the chrome hull and module stats vs. The old AV stats because they WORKED.
The turrets are a lot more negotiable for my project proposal. If HAV drivers want longer HAV vs. HAV battles I'm hardly going to complain.
Just this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:57:00 -
[53] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Bright Cloud wrote:I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground. Rattati's been interested in reintroducing logistics vehicles for a while. Honestly I'm hoping he chooses to transfer the repair functions to the turret rather than the ungodly weird target-lock-proximity thing.
I've actually talked to Pokey about this. Remote repairs are fine, and the special infantry rep needs to be a bubble. Remote repairs although sometimes a little buggy (sometimes they would shut off), and had kind of a short range (It was like 10m iirc), locking was really easy.However, the special infantry rep wasn't so easy, but a bubble rep would solve that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:15:00 -
[54] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
I think we can come up with better values than that. My thought on viable enforcers would be to scale the models down 25% to give them a lower profile and make them harder to hit, and make them the fast ones.
4b. If they are too fragile then they are useless aka the old enforcers which lost to basic HAVs
To the first thing, I don't necessarily think that they should be the "Fast ones". Faster than say Marauders or maybe T I HAV's, sure. But Fastest should go to BO HAV's (yes, I still want those things to come back, and fixed.).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:58:00 -
[56] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. 1. 3 main slots is still bad 2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe 3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP 4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off Read the entire spreadsheet before posting. 1. Already did and he complained that i complained about working on the 3 tank slot layout, rattati has it in his spreadsheet so until its updated its working with 3 which is still bad no matter what angle you look at it from 2. I still dont like the docu
So you're complaining that he isn't going fast enough? wtf?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:59:00 -
[57] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's). This sounds like maybe something if we ask nicely Rattati might include in his PC revamp. I had an idea (based on something that Adamance had said) where we give NULL Cannons HP Values like Supply Depots, when it's depleted they go into lock-down for a short time (During which they cannot fire). If the possessing team Reps them back up to a certain % of Armor, the NULL Cannon comes back online, if they don't it defaults to neutral with full armor(Something along those lines to make them relevant in objective modes)...
This kind of **** would be amazing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:46:00 -
[58] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still amazed that swarms have DPS values that would have been considered viable against chromosome marauders in TODAY's build.
This explains a lot.
Still waiting on feedback from anyone on dropships or *other things*
To put this into perspective, dropships in chrome were 2-shot-kills for a forge gun. 3 if you were maxed out on the tree (and I missed once).
I'd like to be able to propose numbers to fix this but I need someone familiar with dropship weaknesses during chrome to weigh in. Alternately we can just drop these changes and let Rattati adjust them.
Just give the ADS a 5% RoF per level if you do.
Or we can leave dropships on the hull-centric model (which everyone hates based on all of the feedback I have seen) and let them figure it out.
I don't know enough about dropship fitting to sanely poke at these numbers without likely buggering them up!!!
Or I can look at pokey's proposals and steal from his notes, as I have been stealing from everyone else.
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 -
[59] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:taxi bastard wrote:my concern is the balance vs AV and cost.
a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying.
if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced.
a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks?
militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo which proposal are you looking at? My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode. the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in. a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points. And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion. the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks.
The only time it was truely fun was when a rail or missile higher than STD wasn't on the field though iirc.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:55:00 -
[60] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're d*cked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers.
I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
@Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 00:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations. Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time.
I'd seriously rather not. That's going back to the waves of opportunity ****, and we saw how that went.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 00:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits.
Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits. Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing. That's fair but I am looking at the old modules and if I am not mistaken they were 60 second active duration with 15 seconds down time. That's not micromanaging that's being constantly powerful. I might as well be have been using passive modules back on since I only had to toggle a button once a minute.
If you used say 3, you could use them in a verity of ways, it wasn't always a "thy're on" situation, and if it was, you had a ****** tank compared to turning them all on, obviously. If you were doing that, then yes, you might as well been using passive modules, unless you're trying to get more speed out of your fit, in which cool, use the active modules (see, that's what's called variation of fits, something that doesn't exist now).
Also, iirc, the cooldown was made much higher, so you had to time it much more, and even then, you still had like 15 seconds of downtime or something like that. Would you want that?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2694
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
So Breakin and me just cussed each other out for a solid 2 hrs. or so (again), but it was about Logis vehicles. From what I understand, he wants:
1: Both LLV's and LDS's to rep things
2: for repping turrets to replace remote reppers
3: For HAV's not to be able to fit them easily (kinda like a cloak on a assault deal).
I disagree with all three points (kinda)
1: There is a concept I dubbed "The Logistics Triangle". Currently, there's three main theme's of a logi, and that is repping things, transport (for infantry it's spawning with uplinks), and supplying infantry's boomsticks. Although there's no third logi vehicle, nor is there resupplying, that third one should get resupplying (I say that it's a LMV, sexy school bus with a MSD anyone?) We do have LDS's and LLV's, and they were balanced for the logistics triangle (or at this point line). LLV's were the better of the two for repping (although the special infantry rep sucked ass, we all know it) and could do some transport, and the although terribly balanced in the ideal situation would be much better at transport, and although would be terrible for repping could be half way decent at airdropping supplies in (maybe a giant nanohive kinda thing?). With this, it would be all out of whack. It would become whichever is the best gets used the most, and that is bad for balance.
2: This was the main one (and had the most time and the most insults). My problem is this: Before, it was simple: a person fitted their LLV in two ways: they would tank a little (not much, the reppers took up a lot) and had one kind of tank repper, or they had both tank reppers and no tank. The LLV pilot would then coordinate with a friendly HAV (not: due to the ****** repper, not infantry) on when to rep, when you had to leave due to being hammered (which happened a lot, yes a untanked or only lightly tanked LLV vs. AV or HAV's wasn't that tough, only the full tanked ones were)m things like that. You had to respond quickly, and you had to be really careful, one wrong move and you're both toast, as the HAV tanked more than repped, it wasn't just a normal fit (unless you were repping a random). Making them turrets would change all of that.
First off, it would require a full man to do just ONE tank (yes, you would need another full LLV to do this with, and we only have 16 man teams, as well as that price starts adding up to be real damn expensive for one HAV), a **** load of coordination is now added, seeing as you have to talk to now 3 new people for different tasks. It just becomes a mess of inefficiency, which I hate, as that is the opposite of what he wants to bring back, which is the chromosome vibe. One of his complaints was that he wants remote reppers to rep infantry as well, and to that, infantry repping as a vehicle was only available on the LLV, and I'd like it to stay that way (although that old rep as said needs to go, a bubble rep seems to be a good way to go about it from my talks with Pokey, but a turret for that would be fine with me), and combining them just to say that they are combined is beyond ******* silly.
3: I'm iffy on this one. It really comes down to if it can be balanced. Imo, it was, as it took a shitload of skill (especially in large numbers) to pull off. One wrong move, the engagement is over, your entire squad is dead (and yes, seen it happen a couple times, it's usually someone decides to lock someone else, or accidentally because of moving and aiming wrong).
That is all.
EDIT: reread 3, realized that it isn't worded right. To clarify, I want heavy remote repps to stay, but if they can't due to balance, remove them (but lights regardless needs to stay).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2694
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 11:49:00 -
[66] - Quote
[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2696
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least
6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP.
6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once.
6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no.
6d: Read 6 and 6a.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a. 6. The rep came out of the turret but you really had to be attached to the target tank which didnt allow much room, in comparision to a rep logi and sentinal i have alot of room 6a. HAV may not be repping vehicles but who is to say they cannot do it? I used to love using mine, put on a basic blaster and enough tank to survive and a few remote reps on were fun times - AOE heavy reps ive sorta gone meh on unless i create a module for the AOE heavy rep 6b. Needs stats for the special infantry rep plus it was inbuilt anyways on it, if lights do the same then tech its a bonus since it has a 2nd rep which can do the job except its AOE 6d. Ranges in game are quite small, i jotted a few numbers down but in game still seems small
6: It didn't come directly out the turret, although it did come out of the front, and went the other way. It should had went 180, but there was a bug that wouldn't let you. Again, it was a bug. Also, the difference between both is that the HAV's can still be REALLY fast. picture if two sentinels could rep each other, but with a specific setup, could easily move with almost as fast as assaults, but could move with as much freedom as before, and still use your HMG's.
6a: You can. But you would have to deal with not being able to do it as good as other vehicles that are (aka LLV). It's not made as a repping vehicle, so it shouldn't be good at it. That's like asking for a Assault to be as good as a scout at scanning and hiding from scans.
6b: Don't have them. Don't ask me for any chromo stats, all of mine were lost. Anyways, what are you saying at that last part? It made no sense to me.
6d: And they need to stay small. You shouldn't to be able to move freely while repping, as reps are quite strong.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 22:11:00 -
[69] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. The Tiger's armour designs are not derived from the sloped armour of the Russian T-34 as the Tiger has sheer armour angles. Which I think was very odd.
Dammit True, back on topic.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 00:02:00 -
[70] - Quote
I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:23:00 -
[71] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s. I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets
Question: You described the blasters as having shots per round at either 8 or 12. What are you describing exactly?
I'm just gong to assume shotty turret for the moment and pray that I'm correct, unless it's something cooler.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:37:00 -
[72] - Quote
Thaddeus, read my edit, your welcome.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:54:00 -
[73] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus, read my edit, your welcome. Fixed, sorry I didn't update that statistic, got distracted by something else
Oh, very nice. That would do just fine. Can I haz now?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:55:00 -
[74] - Quote
Speaking of turrets, that reminds me: FW turrets are still just AUR turrets, same as vehilces, and on top of that, we're missing my Gal rails. Where are they, huh? HUH?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:45:00 -
[75] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be?
Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go.
And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions:
1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?).
2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:47:00 -
[76] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Speaking of turrets, that reminds me: FW turrets are still just AUR turrets, same as vehilces, and on top of that, we're missing my Gal rails. Where are they, huh? HUH? as though people needed another reason to avoid fighting for the Caldari State...yeah...technically FedMarine Railguns should exist, and technically, the Cal/Gal dropsuits/vehicles should get bonuses to Hybrids, not just to rail and plasma... anyway, I hope we see some new LP vehicle stuff coming down with this...'Specialist' Turrets would be very useful
Hey, it's not my fault only scrubs fight for the squid army. 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:21:00 -
[77] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. LLAV now has new skill again - 99% reduction in PG needs of all remote repairers - Basically means it can fit on heavy remote reps too 1a. ECM Burst module skill is 5% reduction to sig profile, target breaker mod has no skill bonus yet 1b. Piloting skill has 2% to agility per level 1c. Vehicle manovering - 2% to accaleration per level 1d. Vehicle command - 2% to max top speed 2. Still missing certain modules, using EVE numbers instead currently 3. Scout LAV may have cloak also EWAR based for scans etc - cloak will be too hard to fit on other vehicles and also penalty added for measure 4. Not sure if marauder/enforcer should have a unique module to it 4a. Want to make basic hulls useful in comparision across all levels - need a role 5. PE detector - module maybe for pilot suit, not standard - currently has sound but by time you hear it you have hit them 5a. SL detector - should be standard in all DS 6. Pilot suits for all races yet to be added complete with bonuses and module ideas 7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
Heavy reps on a LLV would be pushing it, it was already doing good without heavy ones.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:24:00 -
[78] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles?
So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come.
I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:36:00 -
[79] - Quote
@ Thaddeus-
1: What is your motivation for putting in 90mm plates?
2: What's the difference between mounted DU and the mCRU?
3: nanofibres were a good addition to the game, and were used in quite a few fits. Would you say that bringing them back is a good idea?
4: I'm going to try and make some fits with your current stats at lvl 5 (because as soon as this drops, hopefull I will have lvl 5, or at least real close). I will report to see how the fits goes.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:48:00 -
[80] - Quote
By the way, this is what I'm using to make the fits. You're free to copy and edit as needed, as that's what I'm doing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 01:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:By the way, this is what I'm using to make the fits. You're free to copy and edit as needed, as that's what I'm doing. You need to change sharing permissions, right now one has to request access, open in up to Anyone With Link can View, or Anyone with Link Can Comment
Here. I'm afk now, so I can't keep on going, can you?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:08:00 -
[82] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles? So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come. I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for. As long as the slug throwing sized guns have decreased efficiency/ lower alpha/dps than their Larger equivalents that should be fine.
Slightly higher alpha, lower DPS, as you've combined the entire shot into a single slug. I'd say even lower the rounds per mag at that point, and raise the heat.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 19:12:00 -
[83] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:the way I'm working it is blasters have the highest overall DPS, Missiles are middle ground, Rails are the Alpha kings.
I'm removing the ability of a heavy missile turret to close on a madrugar or Surya and LOLarmorshotgunmissileblap the damn things. Missiles are going to be a medium sustained rate of fire rather than being able to saturate a target with 2700 DPS all in one giant frontload of death.
Which is how it was before, you bombarded a HAV constantly until it died.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 21:04:00 -
[84] - Quote
Okay, that fitting tool is not usable for this, so I've decided that I'm making one. Give me your numbers, and I'll test them out
(note: It's going to take awhile to finish it, maybe a couple days up to a week, so they won't be done for awhile, but as far as fits goes, I can show you what you can fit on there, that includes skills that you made, and this will be done in a couple hours.)
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 03:52:00 -
[85] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:28:00 -
[86] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage). I'm not saying it doesn't and holistically I like the suggestions Thaddeus, Breaking, and Pokey Dravon have suggested however I disagree with Thaddeus's "Shotgun" Blaster idea. Not because I think it is bad but simply not quite "right". A Shotgun in a fundamental manner would not be good at dealing with penetration of things (do correctly me if I am wrong) due to its design being to project a grouping of fragments/pellets at a target also because the calibre of the pellets is small and not designed for long distance projection and thus would suffer against solid surfaces. If I am also not mistaken Shotgun can fire Slug Rounds which are designed to penetrate targets. Now again we have never truly had the fundamentals of Vehicle Shield and Armour operation in Dust 514 properly confirmed but I don't believe a "Shotgun Turret" would function efficiently. Though arguably my own suggestion is rather similar to Thaddeus' own in the sense that the Blaster I envision is a tri-barrelled electron accelerator that fires three almost simultaneous hybrid charges containing specific atoms suspended in a plasma state. This ideally would function in the same manner as a tandem warhead. The Three rounds fire directly and with minimal dispersion in a triangle sharped grouping. In terms of gameplay these rounds would almost land simultaneously each with its own small splash damage zone, the three in total comprising the equivalent of a full Railgun Volley, albeit with a slightly shorter reload to ensure DPS supremacy but not a huge supremacy. The design of which sees the three hybrid charged detonate in close proximity to one another one after the other hopefully achieving increased penetrative power. Fundamentally you could argue this is a shotgun weapon..... which.... it kind of is. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpgIf you have ever seen this picture..... you'll see what I mean. Honestly and I'll put it out there. I'd like to see every large turret in Dust 514 become a Main Battle Cannon. And I believe this can be achieved while keeping in mind the identity of the weapon, its functionality, and its characteristics according to CCP's designed in EVE online. Not an hour ago I was in a match chasing a scout down a hill with an Ion Canon and put rounds into him at about 40m. I was honestly thinking to myself how much more badass this would have been if my turret had been a railgun or an Electron Cannon.....as such the experience was cheapened by how easy the Blast ripped this poor guy apart.
That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them.
And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works.
As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because
1: They are ******* space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense
2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts.
3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations.
4: Specifically for the AC, why in the **** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss).
5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:56:00 -
[87] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them.
And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works.
As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because
1: They are ******* space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense
2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts.
3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations.
4: Specifically for the AC, why in the **** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss).
5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all.
As I've said I don't deny Thaddeus suggestion I a Good one. It is. I've just been talking about it with him and I can argue both ways about it for and against. I simply think mine is better. I've a means to balance all turrets to roughly similar DPS values, differing alpha's, forms of fire, etc all that good stuff while keeping the fundamental identity of the weapons themselves while keeping them roughly to a single shot long reload (arguably realistic) model. Now sure when it comes to rounds there are canister rounds that fire shells that fragment on impact and assuming Thaddeus rounds work like that (which I know they don't since he told me he wants them in a magazine something I am somewhat opposed to) that would be fine since it ensures relatively accurate delivery of the fragments. However I simply think that the Gallente could achieve a better anti tank gun (and hell I think in my suggestions Thaddeus actually altered the Void rounds so they fired in his shotgun manner) by firing three subsequent hybrid charges with a closer grouping for better accuracy even if their shot has a noticeably falloff. If we are talking AutoCannons..... I think Thaddeus and I just agreed that you ideally wouldn't fire auto cannons to a tank when a large calibre artillery piece would simply do better. However I am not saying I don' want AC and such in the game. I simply see them in a different place.....perhaps mounted to Dropships, Fighters, LAV, or MAV or maybe even as Light Turrets.
I get that you think his is good, and that you think your idea is better. I'm saying your idea doesn't make any sense, as
1: It tries to be realistic, as in modern day
2: It doesn't consider the ranges that you would be at with each gun, as well as how the vehicle itself is operated.
3: Instead of having a widely varying experiences yet still balanced, it leads to a although technically balanced, not really, as everything is very similar, but one does the experience better than everything else (kind of the FOTM situation with the rifles). It doesn't really lead to balance, but rather, it leads to the same situation of old and of now, where the best is used, and the rest is forgot about, and that I hate. I generally don't want that to return, like ever.
As for saying that AC's shouldn't even be a large turret, That would mean that there would only be one racial turret for Winmatar, versus two for every other race. Your response?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:03:00 -
[88] - Quote
Huh, apparently there's AP shotgun shells. Never seen them before.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:31:00 -
[90] - Quote
Also, I see you took the EVE way of going about balancing Hulls. Nice.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:38:00 -
[91] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option
It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully.
Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_-
You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:38:00 -
[92] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Stuff about turrets
If there was a more efficient way of doing this, tell me and we can do it.
1: Yes, and that's why they would have such a short range. I would agree with you if they were further away, but they are not. Remember, in his idea, the blaster is essentially firing multiple rounds at once, instead of just one in a rapid firing manner. Technically, they should have the same range as now, assuming they are the same charge, and the same or similar energy is given to each shot (which seems to be the case, seeing as the damage per shot is similar still).
Anyways, no, not canister shells (those are AP rounds, not AT), cluster shells. It's a shell sent at a target that sends smaller rounds into it mid flight, kinda like this, more or less (most likely less, unless there's nuclear warheads involved). They are in fact workable as far as killing tanks goes, and I was told there's shells like that for tanks, and that's newer tanks. Sure, a traditional AP round will pen more (and that's why a rail clearly has more direct damage than this), but this would be much easier to aim and hit with, especially when on the move and in closer ranges (assuming there's no guidance computers involved).
This is still a lore argument by the way, but it is interesting.
2: There's two parts to this:
A- Lots of people, not just myself, has grown to like the close range action that blasters, or anything of similar traits gives. If you want to play long range, hang back, grab a missile (and a actual missile, not these ******* rockets), rail, beam laser, or arty and let us do what we do.
B- tanks naturally get close to each other. It's bound to happen. Even with the ridiculous ranges that WWII tanks had (at least later in the war), they STILL got into close ranges with each other (a friend of my gramps shot the gun or a Sherman, and he told me how often he would get in close to the Germans, which apparently happened a lot). So far, I haven't seen any different in any game generally, and Dust is no exception.
C- This would mean that, again, Blasters, AC's, Pulse Lasers, Rockets, and anything else that COULD happen won't, because everything has to be a long range cannon. Even if they did, they would be useless, because everything long range would just snipe them down. On top of that, only the best long range turret (since they are all similar in nature, slow ROF cannons) would be used, creating a situation that we have now.
Speed tanking would exist MORE with good close range turrets. It makes zero sense with a long range turret however. Why would you even possibly need speed when you're not going anywhere very fast due to sniping things? Also, terrain is already used to advantage people, and was used even more when smart people played.
Shotgun turret with a lower ROF and a way smaller mag and reserve mag, and you go around killing infantry, even higher heat, and you go around killing infantry. Cool, your choice.
3: Changing the guns so it's everyone sniping at everyone would change jack. We trying to balance the hulls and raise the TTK back to old Uprising levels is in fact making that player skill return. As for your desc's of each turret, the way they work aside, that's generally what people is pushing for minus the splash (it varies). Otherwise, that is a VERY limited list of turrets to choose from, and a even more when you look at it from the above perspectives, so I'd rather not.
4: And that sill is valid. Looking at Thaddeus's AC, it looks like something to kill a HAV or a turret with, not infantry. the Barrage AC's would be the worst thing to kill infantry with, seeing as missing shots is probably easy enough to do, and you only get a grand total of three bursts before you've seized up. That is just unwieldy as hell for fighting infantry, but on a bigger target that you won't miss, that 1k DPS looks real nice.
Also, your point is to remove variation?
5: No, it is not. People build fits for situations they plan on getting into. They also play how the fit is built for (skilled people anyways). a MAJOR part of that is the turret. If everything turret is very similar, people would build their fits around very similar things, making only a couple fits per hull (hell, some hulls might even be useless compared to others, and entire ideas for hulls would be even cut out, and not just for HAV's; LLV's are best on amobile HAV, and worst on a hiding, camping HAV). This would have the opposite effect of variation, aka what we have now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:40:00 -
[93] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully. Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_- You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for. Well...the MD needs a better way to sight as well...but a sight that's something like this...with practice it can be very very accurate. Wait...do you want Tiered Turrets or do you want to Tiericide Turrets?
What exactly am I looking at above?
Tiercide, what confused you?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:49:00 -
[94] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I'll just say two more things before the conversation reverts back to what CCP Rattati actually asked for,
The First is that I do understand that Dust is not a conventionally military shooter game and therefore does not have to follow what I/we might consider to be conventional shooter game designs however what I find interesting about vehicle and tank use in other games that I do not in Dust is that they are grounded in the conventional even if the premise of the tank is not e.g the T85 Levkov from Battlefield 4 or the Magrider from Planetside 2, even the Starwars Battlefront 2 Hover Tanks which allowed you to fire anti infantry blasters but had slow firing rocket pods as your main damage dealer.
It's something that can be recognised by players universally and it means that its a solid platform for CCP to later say "Hey you guys know what?"
Also I see it as a move closer to EVE. In EVE as you know your turret modules are always cycling. Firing. Then Cycling again. Much like my proposed ideas. Also I see it as a chance to remove damage modules entirely form the game and let CCP base their base values which can be modified with things like Reload Speed Modules which do what Gyrostabilisers, Heat Sinks, Accelerators etc do in EVE.
Scifi shooters that has it imo has problems of their own, and I think are lazy by only having such turret types (and all three of those games has conventional tanks, so meh).
As for recognizing it right away, nobody said that you had to have such a thing. Whenever something is not in fact like the norm, and is done well, that usually ends up being a good thing, a really good thing in fact.
And as many have already said, we don't need to copy EVE onto Dust and make it a FPS. Things in EVE works (mostly) because EVE is made in a specific way. Things carbon cpoied into Dust however wouldn't, because Dust is made in a specific way. This should be clear to you now.
But you are right, we should get back onto business, but I think this conversation would help Master Splinter (All of it mind you, even the bits and pieces about WWII cannons shells ) make us better vehicles. Back to business then, shall we?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 08:20:00 -
[95] - Quote
Doing some initial fitting, it now does in fact matter that you're skilled. Without skills, it's impossible to even fill the low slots on a Maddy with assorted enhanced and complex things, you'll cap out really quick. Going to see about a full basic fit now, unskilled
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 08:49:00 -
[96] - Quote
Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:35:00 -
[97] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks
however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks.
It basically comes down to these two things, in which
Yes, you kinda do have to have fast firing weapons in CQC, as every second you're not putting rounds into the target is rounds wasted in CQC. It doesn't matter as much at range because you have to aim more, which gives more time to think. That's why good CQ weapons are most likely high DPS low alpha weapons, or a pseudo alpha like a shotgun.
I never said it wouldn't lead to balance, I said it would lead to constantly changing meta due to FOTM's. With this, everything preforms differently, and would preform better or wose depending on the situation you're in. It leads to pilots egging the opponents into the ideal situation, so it becomes a situation of who can get better positioning, who can break that to their advantage, or who can maintain it, while properly using their modules. It just works better for variations within variations, instead of everything being the same, which I'm frankly sick of in any game.
Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:assault guns are easy enough to build. The problem is the conceptual clash between "I want a machinegun turret" and "I want a cannon."
It's why my turret builds are set up to accommodate both.
Well, for the most part, Thaddeus's are not in fact machine gun turrets, but hard hitters that does good on big targets, but not much else.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:32:00 -
[99] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer). I just upped the fitting slightly, see if that changed anything...if not I'll look into armor mods efficiency vs shield mods more carefully
Well, that might take awhile, because the entire fitting tool deleted itself. Not sure how, but it's gone.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2702
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:59:00 -
[100] - Quote
Jathniel 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. TYPO underlined. I think you meant "Madrugar" not "Marauder". :)
We are 61 pages in, and THIS is what you point out?
Get on topic, or I will end you 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2704
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 02:40:00 -
[101] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks
however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks.
It basically comes down to these two things, in which Yes, you kinda do have to have fast firing weapons in CQC, as every second you're not putting rounds into the target is rounds wasted in CQC. It doesn't matter as much at range because you have to aim more, which gives more time to think. That's why good CQ weapons are most likely high DPS low alpha weapons, or a pseudo alpha like a shotgun. I never said it wouldn't lead to balance, I said it would lead to constantly changing meta due to FOTM's. With this, everything preforms differently, and would preform better or wose depending on the situation you're in. It leads to pilots egging the opponents into the ideal situation, so it becomes a situation of who can get better positioning, who can break that to their advantage, or who can maintain it, while properly using their modules. It just works better for variations within variations, instead of everything being the same, which I'm frankly sick of in any game. Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns? Simply put lack of penetrability vs a tank that repairs itself. Apparently according to Thaddeus graphene based technology is a very viable form of technology in New Eden alongside super dense alloys and what we'd consider FHA and RHA. Couple that with Nanite based technologies which repair damaged segements of armour while under-fire..... it honestly doesn't begin to make sense to use Assault weapons on a tank. I don't think it much matters about wasted seconds in CQC. You shouldn't ever want to get up close in a tank knowing full well you penetrate armour more easily and can be destroyed more easily not only this but as long as assault weapons exist tanking will never require any effort from its players who can just turn assault weapons high rates of fire against infantrymen, sustain that fire, and continue to abuse an insanely powerful hull. It requires more discipline from a player to make their shots could in close range with single shot weapons that it does to blaze away with a Plasma machinegun.
That logic is thrown out the window when you see that blasters themselves actually worked before, and the new blasters have now even more alpha than before.
The problem with this is that you don't pen armor in just one shot here, rather it absorbs the blast, and disperses over the armor, much like shields do, although, probably not as good. You won't get penetration until you kill the armor in general, which is why we don't have things like this in either EVE nor Dust.
You're quite trying to tie Modern day until FAR into the future (even with the fall taken into account).
And yes, you actually do think about wasted seconds in CQC. As I said before, the best CQ weapons are usually ones that are high DPS (SMG for most of Dust, and Assault SMG vs. Breach SMG, I think I've made my point). So yes, seconds missed is damage lost, because missing won't help you, in fact will hurt you. you can't at all rely on alpha in those situations. You're banking on having all large turrets cannons to be even valid, and that simply won't happen.
As for they killing infantry, look at his stats. Those things would be terrible for killing infantry. Blasters would have **** range due to spread, AC's would have trouble even hitting their targets, and Pulse lasers would overheat before they got a good shot at them. The only way your argument makes sense is if they were all like the current or old blaster, and they are not.
Not a single one of his are accurate machine guns, nor have I asked for such.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2704
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 02:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Bright Cloud wrote:The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions.
Funny, all three of those propsals have assault turrets in them. 
Also, all three of them wants a hybrid of sorts, they've been going off of each other, and as far as I know, they want Master Splinter to pick the best off of each.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 05:45:00 -
[103] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I think Thaddeus said it best.
Who gives a crap which/if any proposal gets picked as long as it gives rattati ideas for successfully rebalancing vehicles?
Giving ideas is the sum total of the objective.
That is true, however I'm an opinionated **** who wants only the best ****, and I so far thinks that Thaddeus is the best **** (Pokey is in last place, as I have seen not a bit of solid numbers and only old concepts from him, so there's that).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 06:40:00 -
[104] - Quote
Well, although my fitting tool deleted itself, I got another one, and I tried fitting such (all basic):
Madruger
Blasters in all slots
Nitro
Heavy armor repairer (active)
120mm plate
2x hardeners
Coolant injector
Tracking Computer
CPU is fine (actually has reamining CPU), but maxes out on PG by 304.
Still working on actual HP stats, give me a couple days for that, I got other things to do.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 06:42:00 -
[105] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks.
Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks.
And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****.
A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more.
Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 06:50:00 -
[106] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks.
Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks.
And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more. Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo The AV is a sidenote and fun between trying to kitbash the HAV numbers. It gives me something else to focus on when the math PISSES ME OFF. The turrets pissed me off intensely but the AV numbers had an unexpected side effect. They gave me a basis for building heavy turrets so that they are not going to be as fast-killing in AV, but remain a superior HAV killing option than a forge gun.
Oh, cool. Could you tell me what is the current general TTK you're shooting for?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 08:03:00 -
[107] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome.
AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side.
Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers.
Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck.
They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility.
Turret TTK as well? That would be a no.
EDIT: I think I found some numbers for you for turrets, stand by.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 16:43:00 -
[108] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I think you are misunderstanding me.
Turret TTK should increase 20-30%.
So if the fights lasted 8 seconds before, they will now last 10-11 between vehicles. ONLY between vehicles.
All heavy turrets will maintain higher overall DPS values than infantry at the core baseline.
Because I'll be buggered if I can think of a legitimate reason why a handheld weapon should be more efficient at killing a tank.
Capable? Absolutely.
But an HAV turret should be the go-to option for vehicle hunting efficacy. That's what I'm doing.
Heavy missile turrets are now the middle ground for Alpha and DPS. I adjusted them so their rate of fire is steady, taking away the ability to dump their entire payload into an armor vehicle in under 3 seconds for a near-instapop.
Railguns are the lowest overall DPS with the highest per-shot alpha.
Blasters have the lowest per-shot alpha but the highest DPS.
It used to be blasters were inferior.
Rails had the best sustained dps
Missiles made running armor impossible.
These three issues have been corrected.
Damage mods will no longer allow instapop threshold damage by enhancing beast mode DPS.
The falchion and vayu should be that thing that makes you Sh*t yourself if you find one in your back arc, but fragile enough to kill before he eliminates you if you maintain good awareness and you are more skilled.
I want HAV V HAV combat to reward awareness, fitting creativity, tactical flexibility and audacity. Not reward cookie cutter of the month.
Based on what exactly? Now?
If now, that's not very much, seeing as fights last a solid 10 seconds or so. Back then it was about the same. Fights inbetween then and now (and when during times like Codex even) could last from 30 seconds upwards (if done right) to a solid minute or so.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:00:00 -
[109] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:Hey, some questions here without having read more than two pages (I'm sorry, it's a really long thread):
- What happens when you bring a STD HAV and someone brings proto AV?
I'm asking this because the typical response to spotting a STD DS in a public match appears to be deploying a damage modded pro rail tank. When people decide to counter, they tend to go all the way - if they can. Since public matches generally carry several people with proto AV these days this may lead to a very high mortality rate for STD HAVs.
- How many simultaneous STD SLs will it take to dislodge a blaster Marauder and how long will it take?
While in competitive matches we'll be looking at marauders vs proto AV, in pubs I expect people to use the most expensive gear to harvest the worst equipped players. Right now two or three STD SLs can drive off an HAV well enough to give your team some breathing room.
- I've recently found logic in having blaster turrets be the thing that ties HAVs into infantry play. Use blaster to kill infantry, use rail to kill blaster. Proceed with rail v rail combat until rail-superiority is achieved and then use this to field blasters. Missiles act as a hybrid AV-AI solution if you don't want to commit either way.
As an example this is what currently happens with DS. If you have rail-superiority on your team you can have DS act much more offensively than otherwise.
What's your stance on this?
Define "STD HAV"
The turret doesn't decide the fit, so a better question would be how long to do it (generally, min, max) to dislodge a Marauder.
**** no. Large turrets are not machine guns. They should be made for killing big ****, like installations and other vehicles.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:06:00 -
[110] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to push TTK upwards of half a minute to a minute. There's absolutely no point engaging when your opponent can always escape to the safety of the redline before you can destroy him.
The fights will be a bit longer than chrome.
But I'm not dragging them out that much.
Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles.
Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight.
Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:51:00 -
[111] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to push TTK upwards of half a minute to a minute. There's absolutely no point engaging when your opponent can always escape to the safety of the redline before you can destroy him.
The fights will be a bit longer than chrome.
But I'm not dragging them out that much. Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles. Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight. Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly? adds a few seconds to the kill time. the only fastball killers should be when you get into CQC with a blaster. The others should be a bit more sane. But then I intended for knife fights to be bloody and brutal.
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 22:00:00 -
[112] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.
A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:15:00 -
[113] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Well I wont argue exact numbers, but my point is that if the rail engaged the blaster tank in a suboptimal location, the TTK needs to be long enough for the Blaster to get behind cover and reposition itself. Incidentally the TTK can't be so long that the rail is incapable of killing the Blaster, even if its positioning is optimal.
Well, even with the 30 second TTK, that's how it was. I don't remember anyone saying that that was too long of a TTK in the first place...........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:22:00 -
[114] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
What the ****?
Sparky, you're doing a CharChar right now. Quit it, and argue in a civilized manner. Back on topic, or I end you.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:24:00 -
[115] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it?
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I dont think it ever took 30 seconds of sustained fire to kill a vehicle with a railgun... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying
It didn't, but a railgun never consistently hit for a perfect DPS situation either. 30 seconds considered reps, hardeners, missing, pilot error, skills, etc. Fights ended up lasting between good pilots much longer than 10 seconds, in which now and during Chromo they really did last 10 seconds or less, even accounting for all those things.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 02:17:00 -
[117] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range......
2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV.
Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 03:33:00 -
[118] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range.
First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed.
That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient.
Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 03:35:00 -
[119] - Quote
Fizzer XCIV wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do.
Also this. Make sense True, you should be good at this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 04:36:00 -
[120] - Quote
Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts.
[/quote]
That is arguing based on size of the charge itself. And in clase range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:46:00 -
[121] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again?
That's not even the point. Seeing as you want extremely low TTK's, I won't even be able to approach the redline rail in time to kill it. That's like simple logic.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:47:00 -
[122] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again? nubs that want to farm infantry  All jokes aside, blasters need a further falloff it feels so abrupt. There's no point in between "full damage" and "holy **** I'm doing no damage ccplease"
Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list.
Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:49:00 -
[123] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope.
The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:33:00 -
[124] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want.
It doesn't matter what the TTK is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:36:00 -
[125] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want.
It doesn't matter what the DPS is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:38:00 -
[126] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either.
Which is why I have a massive issue with a low ass TTK. Kiting is a thing after all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 22:45:00 -
[127] - Quote
Breakin has explained his numbers in detail to me, what I described is now a non issue (unless someone seriously tries to use those numbers, in which case **** off, no.) in terms of his own idea, so far anyways.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:10:00 -
[128] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list.
Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it.
It's nothing about you, just a stab at the general idea most selfish infantry have towards people who want to tank.
Oh. **** my bad bro, I couldn't hear you that well. 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:15:00 -
[129] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models.
It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV.
Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:50:00 -
[130] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles. My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes.
So a XL turret being said several times as the equivalent of small EVE turrets (aka on models made for the game, models ingame) are lies because of dated quotes (which mind you haven't been changed due to new data, like ever)?
Cool story bro. Also, if that's the case, then I should be able to shoot OB's at things.
And the difference between XL and L turrets is massive (iirc XL missiles are Large 4 missiles put together), I don't want to here that they are only slightly larger.
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 02:51:00 -
[131] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters.
If it's still ****** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions.
Do you not know what min maxing is?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:47:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:56:00 -
[133] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
There is a reason historically tanks have not been fitted with short range rapid firing turrets. This is because they cannot penetrate the armours of the vehicles they are targeting unless they have significant force, power, etc behind them.
Even accounting that the projectile being fired is a small amount of plasma we are talking super dense materials, specialised armour designs,technologies which harden the armour and shielding, graphine based technologies in incredibly advanced manners etc.
There is quite literally no justification in using a smaller calibre rapid firing turret when a larger calibre comparatively slower firing weapons achieves a better result. Now I'm not saying that all turrets are going to be exactly the same, that would be pointless, however the core functionality of a tank turret is power, accuracy, and rate of fire.
You can achieve all three of these via the conventional tank turret with an Auto Loader producing a cannon with 15-17 RPM.
There is a specific reason these are mounted on top of heavily armoured main battle tanks and not in their place 25mm Auto-cannons.
I'm just going to start here, the rest I already covered
You say penetrate, when the balls of plasma can in fact penetrate. hell, a ******* Plasma Rifle could (if the shields kept down) pen a armor of a HAV. This is a known fact. You say "We have advanced armor!" That is bullshit, as I said, Plasma Rifles. Then you say "But historically" I can stop you right there. Real life, a story made up tens of thousands of years in the future, and where defensive systems work VASTLY different than our own, yet you try to actually say that that is a valid reason why a sub par turret that seeing as you're an Amarr RPer I assume would hardly even use, it seems to me that either you don't know what the **** you're even talking about, or that you're doing this to make Gallente purposefully worse.
Also, nowhere have I said that keeping machine gun type blasters is good. Stop misrepresenting me.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 04:08:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit.
You mean for current? If so, what True said.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:43:00 -
[135] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. The ones that True linked are the Meta Fits (minor alterations exist depending on the specific user and weather or not they want small guns)...I'd hardly call them unbeatable, but they are the current meta all other slots are pilot preference (although armor plate and pg upgrade are the preference for solo users) Either: Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Extenders 1x Hardener or Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Hardener 1x Extender
I'd also like to that that usually a rail is added to that fit
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:50:00 -
[136] - 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?
I'm pretty sure people get that.
As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:05:00 -
[137] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
1: They can, but they're not as fast, so they'll be using a gimped ass fit compared to the Gallente hull.
2: Gallente =/= Amarr. They don't sit still, they rush and pound. Sitting still is silly in those cases.
3: Both of the above things existed in Uprising up to 1.6, and I didn't have a issue pounding Cal vehicles.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:10:00 -
[138] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
2: Some dispersion reduction to Blasters. Not because of Infantry per se, that's only part of it, but because they're going to need to be able to consistently slam shots accurately into vehicle sized targets all the way out to their optimal cutoff.
3: Increased splash radius to missiles. If he goes with my numbers you aren't going to be able to machinegun the damn things anymore, so they'll need something to make them viable. they will also need to have the actual projectile accelerated so they can HIT targets outside blaster optimal.
I say this as an AV gunner:
HAVs, while they should not be lazily farming Infantry kills, SHOULD retain the capacity to both fight back against hostile infantry AV, and provide meaningful fire support to suppress enemies in support of an Infantry push.
Simply making HAVs anti-vehicle is a rather shallow role with only so much battlefield utility. We need to broaden the perspective or the role will stagnate again.
1: iirc heat was to balance for high amount of ammo they could fire out. since ammo is a thing now, I would agree that heat should be taken away.
2: Well, if we can't do shotty blasters (that would be a primary thing to do imo) fixing the ones we have now would be cool. I'd say reduce the dispersion, slow the ROF, make it hit harder, and add a little splash radius to each shot. As for "hitting to the optimal) That is a non issue even now, as regardless of ranges of the blaster, even before, optimals was at at best 40m, and that's while not even moving.
3: This would need to go with, as I said before, a reduction in damage. I'm not sure why they buffed both or nerfed both at the same time in the first place.............
Also, yes, they need more range. Rockets are silly being THIS short of a range, when even in EVE they have moer range (or anything similar to the rocket archetype, like assault missiles).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:22:00 -
[139] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank".
All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played.
It's pretty much the same in PC as far as I've been told.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:23:00 -
[140] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:I was a fan of the hybrid tanked Vayu with 7K shields, and a little "teamwork" if you know what I mean  This, however, was only tested in the early bits of Uprising and not Chrome.
Enforcers didn't exist in Chrome
that Vayu would get broke in half by a Maddy HAV 1v1, or seeing as you said support, 3v3.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:24:00 -
[141] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote: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?
I'm pretty sure people get that. As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point. They had 15 second cool downs didn't they.....? I wouldn't call that long ass.....
lolwut?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:33:00 -
[142] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
lolwut?
60 seconds of uptime followed by 15 seconds cooldown. the cooldown was never huge. The primary reason a lot of that stuff was nerfed was... The Surya. Even with hardeners up the Sagaris could be splashed out of existence, it was just an unrighteous pain in the ass doing it. But combined with the Surya's EHP and short cooldown reps and things could get a little out of hand.
This chart that I found must be wrong then, or got numbers mixed up or something. It's saying 35 second cooldown
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:57:00 -
[143] - Quote
Just a suguestion for you my Lord Master Splinter, although having nothing to do with HAV's, but LAV's (to be honest, we need to cover all vehicles, not just HAV's): Play The Crew, and use raid spec vehicles. THAT is a good model of how a LAV should handle imo.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|