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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3983	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:55:00 - [1] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer. The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed. So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots. Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...) Yet T2 Ships almost always have more module slots that T1's. The issue I see with it is that even if the power of Marauders or Enforcers in is their role bonuses that tanks themselves aren't very interesting or enjoyable to use. Well you know my concerns with more slots for Marauders. The modules are currently balanced around the assumption that at most you're getting 3-4 main racks at most, and on HAVs, Heavy modules assume 3 slots. Fitting is however....stupidly boring. I think more slots are fine as long as the base stats are not modified too heavily. Initially I envisioned a +15% or so increase to base HP with no additional slots, but if we want to approach it as an additional main rack slot without much change to the base HP, I think that would work as well. I would also encourage more "soft" bonuses to the HAVs. Avoid bonuses that directly increase eHP, especially if there are already more slots. I think a focus on HP recovery, increase duration of modules, increased module cooldown speed, ect. are good ways to make vehicles perform better without pushing the eHP way out of proportion. Preliminary thoughts then. Maruaders 4/2 and 2/4 Reduced Movement Speed Reduced Large Turret Tracking Speed Soft Bonuses to Defenses Enforcers 3/3 and 3/3 (Extra off-rack slot used for mobility or damage mods, depending on tank type) Increase Movement Speed Reduced base HP Soft Bonuses to Offense In addition we need more things vehicles can do such as large scale support functions. Things like mass infantry repping, big sweeping scans, troop transport, resupplying infantry, and providing mobile options to swap fits. Things like this give vehicles things they can do besides "Kill all the things!". I'd like to see the Marauder be the slow moving support platform, and not so much the "Anti Infantry HAV". It should be the HAV your troops use as cover and want to stay near because its capable of supporting them in a fight in ways other than actual fire support. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3983	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:03:00 - [2] - Quote Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order. Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine) Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat Determine preferred slot layouts Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.) Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3984	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:48:00 - [3] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: So i assume that the valchion will get bonuses to missiles and the vayu gets the bonus to blasters. But meh for pubs people will just flock to marauders like sagaris/surya to have better survivability. I'm very wary of anything that directly buffs turret DPS. Large Missiles in particular. I've already seen posts of people asking for more missiles in the magazine. Considering the Basic Large Missile turret outputs nearly 5000 damage in less than 2 seconds with only 12 missiles, anything that increases that magazine size is going to make Large MIssile turret quickly overpowered in Vehicle combat. Even a 25% increase (raise max ammo to 15) would be a massive benefit (an additional 1245 damage in the magazine). As someone else pointed out, there have been many points where vehicle matches basically turned into "Bring a rail and whoever shoots first wins". I don't want that. As the same poster also stated, I want bare fisted, bloody knuckle brawls with other vehicles. Flanking and beating the ** out each other. Honestly the most enjoyable HAV vs HAV fights I've ever had were two vehicles fighting with Large Blasters, dodging and weaving around the terrain where skill in piloting and moving won the fight, not sitting on a hill sniping each other. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3984	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:04:00 - [4] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal. Lets not get distracted. Nope the reason people are going off on so many tangents is because there are more underlying issues that need to be address at a higher priority BEFORE this new stuff should ever be added or addressed. Doing so now only makes the game worse not better. That's why so many side-tracks on this topic. Maybe CCP should take notice of that as an indicator of how poor a disc ion this is at this time. The more people are on topic the more likely it is what is needed, the more tangents or references to other stuff, the more likely it's not the right time for it to happen. I honestly think that adding HAV's at this point in time should be a dead topic as racial parity and lower tier vehicles need to be addressed first in order to create the "niches" for specialized HAV's to take advantage of. I tend to agree. I would prefer at the least we balance shield vs armor and get placeholders for Amarr and Minmatar of existing vehicle types so that when Marauders, Enforcers, LLAVs, ect. are design, we can do all 4 at once instead of basically doing it twice, once for GalCal and then again for MinAmarr. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3985	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:14:00 - [5] - Quote Gunnlogi (2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender) Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base) Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base) Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle 60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP 15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 75s Average eHP = 6747 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s (Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.) Recharge Delay 4s Burst Hardener eHP Cycle 30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP 45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 105s Average eHP = 6877 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s Recharge Delay 4s Madrugar (1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate) Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base) Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles Assumed Pure Armor Tanking 45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP 37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s Average eHP = 7887 eHP Repair Rate = 138HP/s Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s Recharge Delay 0s Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep. If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals. 1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs 2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3985	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:19:00 - [6] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first: Create racial parity for small turrets. -Assuming this is even a possibility right now given available resources Create racial parity for LAVs. -Placeholders are good, I agree Create specialized LAVs -Specialized LAVs are in the same boat as Specialized HAVs. You can't say one is more important than the other. Create racial parity for dropships. -Again, Placeholders are good. Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. -Same deal as specialized HAVs. All Specialized vehicles are equally important Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits -Already have a preliminary design, check Post #2, True posted a link to the community document. While I want these, I don't feel they are a requirement before specialized vehicles. Create racial parity for large turrets. -Same deal with the small turrets Create racial parity for HAVs. -Placeholders are still good Fix vehicle locking system. -Agreed Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) -This goes with my general concept for "Large Scale Support Functions" and this would be considered a specialized HAV/LAV/Dropship so...same deal as before. Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC -Lol you're funny. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3989	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:02:00 - [7] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. I mean....you could? But I just don't like it at all. I mean an Amarr tank is still an armor tank, it still moves similar to Gallente Tank, it has similar tanking style to a Gallente Tank. So an Amarr tank that looks and behaves like a Madrugar? I'm ok with that for now. But a Laser is nothing like a Railgun Hell its not even the right damage profile. Like I said it would work but it's just kinda tacky I guess? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3989	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:13:00 - [8] - Quote Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3991	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:24:00 - [9] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV? Im not really sure what you mean. All the listed math is using existing values. As for my suggestion, any HAV pilot will be able to tell you that its MUCH easier to fit a Gunnlogi (even without PG/CPU Upgrades) than it is a Madrugar. I'd be happy if I had enough resources of my Madrugar to actually put stuff in my high slots...I dont think letting me fit some scanners, fuel injectors, or god forbid a damage mod, would make me unkillable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3993	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:08:00 - [10] - Quote Kuruld Sengar wrote: True Adamance wrote: You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I was going to contribute, but upon reading the link above I have no reason to. It matches or trumps all of my ideas, and seems reasonably balanced for a first iteration of the vehicle deploy... Working on version 1.1. Basically ecompasing all of the comments and suggestions on the first pass into a clean doc, with some more specifics on designs for LLAVs, Marauders, and Enforcers (Even though I still think there are some more specific issues that need to be looked at first, namely PG/CPU of existing HAVS). Nevertheless I want to have it out by Friday, so please be sure to keep an eye out and give feedback. This is a community project, I'm just doing the formatting "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3999	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:26:00 - [11] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion. If that were the case, nobody would use the Enforcers. Again +2 Missiles in the magazine per level would increase Large Missile turrets to 22 shots before reloading. At basic levels of 415 damage a missile, that means the magazine would hold 9130 Damage that could be emptied into a target in 3.3 seconds. This would instantly kill any vehicle regardless of tier of module. Throw a single complex damage mod on there and now you're doing 10,956 damage in 3.3 seconds, with a basic turret, and 300m range. Not only would that be horrifically overpowered, but EVERYONE would use it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4001	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:39:00 - [12] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:28:00 - [13] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:08:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. To avoid damage creep we could potentially look at a fitting reduction bonus for Large Turrets to facilitate easier use of higher tiered turrets? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:32:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! I suppose the thought is that decreasing the cost of the Large Turret means that it encourages the fitting of a higher tiered turret, over using a lower tiered one and using additional resources to overtank yourself and end up with a very speedy and tanky fit. I guess it kinda comes down to do you can it to be like an Assault or like a Commando? Similar role but different execution. Regardless you raise valid points about a straight damage bonus, just understand my fear of HAV battles turning into nothing but 1-2 shotting each other with rails because that's all that is effective due to damage creep. So lets just say a preliminary cut in comparison to a standard HAV, all values are just placeholders so people don't get a bad case of bunched panties. Enforcer +15% to Top Speed & Torque -15% to Base HP (could play with the balance of shield/armor +1 Module to Off-Rack Both would end up being 3/3, damage mods or speed mods would work well for Gallente Enforcers, though we really need low slot items for shield enforcers. Perhaps bring back the Low Slot passive but less effective versions of High-Slot active modules? Overdrives, Nanofibres, ect. Enforcer Role Bonus: +2% Large Turret Damage/Lvl or +5% PG/CPU Cost Reduction for Large Turrets/Lvl Caldari Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Reload Speed/Lvl (Very useful for sustained DPS, particularly for Large Missiles) Gallente Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Dispersion Decay/Lvl (Have to be careful with this, you don't want to turn Large Blasters into Anti-Personelle wrecking machines again, that's not the Enforcer's Role) or +3% to Falloff Damage? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:11:00 - [16] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Rattati you should bring up actual skill/hull bonuses for those vehicles and not just claim what their intended function should be. Range bonus for missiles for example did no good on the old variant for it cause you could simply dodge the incoming missiles with no problem. I think he's asking us what those exact bonuses should be "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:39:00 - [17] - Quote Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:59:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. Alright forgive me if I'm over simplifying/misunderstanding this, but basically you're saying that the Enforcer would not have a significant amount of PG/CPU increase (assuming properly balancing resources in Armor/Shields first). Utility modules would be significantly cheaper than HP, so that 4th slot would be filled with utility and not HP because there isn't enough additional PG/CPU to actually fill it with an HP module. So in short you have less resources overall per slot, forcing a lower grade of your 3 primary defensive modules, making the HAV less defensive oriented, but allowing enough slots for additional utility since utility mods are cheaper to fit? If that's what you're getting at, its an interesting line of thought, though I think it might be very tricky to properly balance resources to achieve that without allowing for abuse. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:02:00 - [19] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Lack of slots does cause issues. Standard HAVs with 4/2 and 2/4, Enforces with 4/3 and 3/4, and Marauders with 5/2 and 2/5 would work. However you can't touch Hardeners because that would affect the other vehicles as a whole. All balancing would basically have to be done through base attributes and Heavy modules. I actually rather like that line of development more, it seems a little cleaner than some of the other suggestions. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:04:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:14:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. Would be a waste on a tank like this to use fitting modules. Not only do they get less CPU/PG per module but if Damage Modules were in the low slots like they should be it would make more sense to fit those instead. Can you put together some mock stats for one of these so I can try to break it? Totally get where you're going with it, I just want to make sure it can't be abused and still work as it should. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:18:00 - [22] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:27:00 - [23] - Quote Well lets not get too crazy with changing 20 things at once at this point. Lets dial it back a bit and look at a couple options for the fundimentals True's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 3/2 and 2/3 Enforcers and Marauders have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have more limiting PG/CPU, pushing defensive ability down Utility Modules may need to be tweaked to make them inexpensive to fit (Pokey Note: Fitting Reduction Bonus for utility modules?) Move Damage Modules to Low or add passive Low Damage Mod Darth's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have 4/3 and 3/4 Marauders have 5/2 and 2/5 Need to tweak defensive modules (Pokey Note: Possibly less base HP for enforcer to force weaker defenses than Basic HAV?) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:28:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive. True can come off as rough around the edges when it comes to vehicles but he really means well. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:44:00 - [25] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. Use a shield booster instead of extender and boost after the initial volley. You end getting most of your hp back he and doesn't have his burst dps anymore to help him. Use a rail turret and if you don't overheat it you'll win. Double Hardened without extender gives you a little less than 5000shield HP. Assuming you get the booster off in time thats about 2000 more HP. SO lets say 7000 Shield eHP + 1500 armor HP. So lets say they're using a standard missile launcher at 415 damage a missile, 22 missiles, 0.15 interval. 9130 Damage. The Shields will obsorb 8400 of that damage so your armor is getting hit by the remaining 730 damage but experience 876, leaving you at 0 shield, 624 Armor. If you are not at 100% HP when that happens, You die. If they use a damage mod, you die. If they use a better launcher, you die. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4004	Posted - 2014.12.17 01:19:00 - [26] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -Large Scale Logistics -Large Scale Scanning -Fortified Mobile Infantry Spawns -Fortified Troop Transport -Vehicle Repair Functions -Supply Transportation -Mobile Fitting Platform -Large Scale EWAR (Not just scanning) People love to throw around the talking point of "vehicles have no purpose" when there are plenty of things that vehicles can be made to do if a little thought if given to the issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4021	Posted - 2014.12.17 07:25:00 - [27] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I fully support this initiative and will provide likely TTK feedback for on foot AV based on current. My first thought is that we need to be careful with the things. We're at the point where the gunnlogi can shrug off AV fire with impunity. Where are these tanks intended to fit in the AV/V debate/debacle as far as design goes? My concern is that based on current EHP of HAVs re-introduction may necessitate a rework of AV again. Especially since the forge gun really has only one effective variant, and the PLC is situational. Nevermind you have to be using a wiyrkomi breach for damage mods to change TTK for heavy weapons. I am excited to get potentially new and fun targets again but concerned with their effect upon infantry AV. Don't bother, because you'll want the PRO breach forge to do 2500 base damage before proficiency and damage mods. Why would I want that thing's base damage buffed? That's an idiotic assessment even for you. Don't bother with that guy Breakin, he's like the Appia of HAVs. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4023	Posted - 2014.12.17 15:44:00 - [28] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: what? how are you calculating damage reduction? You misunderstand, I was responding to a previous suggestion that Caldari Enforcer should get +2 to missile magazine capacity/lvl which would increase the incoming damage from 12 missiles to 22. I think our damage resist calcs are the same, I was just using a considerably higher incoming damage due to the +10 to magazine size. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4023	Posted - 2014.12.17 15:53:00 - [29] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. We had them, but we got punished for having good aim. Thus, the blaster was nerfed. Blame infantry Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry. Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things. I will agree that small Blasters need some love though. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4023	Posted - 2014.12.17 16:14:00 - [30] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. We had them, but we got punished for having good aim. Thus, the blaster was nerfed. Blame infantry Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry. Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things. I will agree that small Blasters need some love though. While I agree, why are small rails considered AV then? Why are small missiles a hybrid of av and ai? In fact, the only small turret that is only for killing small things is the blaster..... Dude Small Rails wreck infantry with their damage levels and fire rate. They are the closest to AV of the small turrets, but I still consider them Anti-Personnel. All turrets are a hybrid of AV and AP, its just a matter of scale. You can use Large Turrets to kill infantry, just not very efficiently, just like you can use small turrets to kill vehicles, but not nearly as efficiently. It's kind of like the Plasma Cannon, its an AV weapon that can be used for anti-infantry, but it's difficult to do. Same with a Forge Gun, it's an AV weapon but can be used to kill infantry given the right circumstances. I'd probably rate them as such Anti-Vehicle <-------------> Anti-Personnel Large Railgun \| Large Missiles \| Large Blaster \| Small Rails \| Small Missiles \| Small Blaster Large Rail/Missiles is debatable since missiles ** the out of many vehicles, but I'd consider them a bit easier to get Infantry kills with. But again I could see those reversed. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4029	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:11:00 - [31] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4029	Posted - 2014.12.17 21:27:00 - [32] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books. So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4030	Posted - 2014.12.17 22:19:00 - [33] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books. So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol Except this is not just one suit, this is a crap ton of fixes and variants like logi LAV's, Marauders, Logi Drop ships, Enforcers and with a bunch of changes. Which would require you to have the skills trained you already have trained lol. Say they release Caldari Enforcers. It requires Caldari HAV 3. Why do I need a respec to get the SP I've already spent on Caldari HAV, just so I can re-spend it on Caldari HAV? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4031	Posted - 2014.12.17 22:29:00 - [34] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4032	Posted - 2014.12.17 23:48:00 - [35] - Quote True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4037	Posted - 2014.12.18 00:20:00 - [36] - Quote I guess my question is then...will people actually want to devote 2/3 of their slots to combat utility? EDIT: Again I apologize if I'm just not understanding, work + holidays = very fried brain. But to me the most intuitive setup is you devote all of your main-rack to defense, and then your off-rack to utility. Your proposal doesn't seem to follow that logic and I'm confused as to why. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4043	Posted - 2014.12.18 15:43:00 - [37] - Quote While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first. 1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes 2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen) 3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 16:02:00 - [38] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have 2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen 3. Agree 1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well. 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) 3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 16:16:00 - [39] - Quote Shadow of War88 wrote: @3. Hardeners are the cheap modules. If you use shield extenders or booster you wont have enough PG for plates. While that may be true, the fitting options for the Madrugar are still far more limited. Not to mention that if memory serve the average eHP on a 2 Hardener 1 Extender fit is not much different than a 1 hardener 2 extender fit, and since effective recharge is better with more hardeners, the two extender fit is arguably inferior...especially since the 2 hardener fit can also fit plates. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 16:52:00 - [40] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes Why reduce base HP only to have to use a module to make up for what we had? 2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen) From what I understand about EVE lore, Caldari shields constantly regenerate with no stopping no matter how much damage is taken, and the Gallente prefer reps over max armor such as the Amarr do. Could of course have a short delay before the regen restarts for shields when they're depleted. 3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar They both need to have their CPU, PG, armor and shield skill back on par with infantry, as well as a little more base CPU and PG overall. 1. This is a push to make the modules on the vehicle matter more than the hull itself. In particular its a nerf to Militia vehicles as a whole who enjoy relatively high eHP without fitting good/any modules. This is particularly evident in LAVs as well. Vehicle hulls should be relatively weak when unfit and their strength should be largely based off the strength what they put in their slots. Additionally it offers more options for fitting by allowing for more slots and this more flexibility if how you want to tweak and fit your vehicle. Ideally you should be able to maintain the same defensive power as you do now with the 3/2 system, but if you choose to forgo a defensive slot for a utility one, the impact is far less. 2. Its difficult to make a direct comparison to EVE. For one shields in EVE don't regen at a constant rate, their regen rate is based directly off how much shield HP they have. That is to say there is no "HP/s" regen rate, there is a "Time to fully recharge" Adding more HP doesn't change how long it takes to fully recharge and thus the rate effectively increases. In addition the rate at which shields recharge is not constant. at 1% shields regen is extremely slow, at 50% shields it is at its peach recharge rate, and at 99% is is extremely slow. Basically think of it like a bell curve. In other words, if you passive tank a shield ship, it takes an extremely long time to naturally recharge back to 100% shields, you'll tend to float around 50-70% because thats when your tank is at its strongest. It also means that if your shields drop below 50%, your tank gets weaker the more damage you take, because your recharge rate will decrease the closer to 0% shields you become. So while no shield delay may appealing, do understand that the constant-passive regen of shields in EVE is not without additional downsides that you don't experience in Dust. 3. Well skills aside, the Gunnlogi can easily fit a much higher meta level fit than a Madrugar can, I think this difference needs to be fixed first. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 17:01:00 - [41] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. Cap stable requires the capacitor which is much more needed - It is the core of balance 2a. While shield regs reduce the delay cannot forget that shield extenders do increase the passive rate of regen 3. The Gunlogi can put on all PROTO modules and turrets but its low slots will be used for CPU/PG expansion mods which are also proto but are needed to fit the tank or turrets or both - Its not ideal but better than the madrugar which can barely fit on everything enchanced but nowhere able to fit full proto and fill all slot spaces - Proto sentinal on the otherhand can fit everything proto on it 3a. The variety of modules which were removed from both tanks has lead to this, in my gunlogi i could fit PDS/DCU with nanofibres or dmg mods which happened to be passive - Madrugar on the flip side had heat sinks and scanners/nitros - if there are options to fit then they will be used because they were in chrome and uprising 2. I say "cap stable" in quotes as to mean, armor reps that run constantly and don't need to be cycled like a normal active rep. Call it a passive fit if you prefer. 2a. Not in Dust? Unless I've gone totally insane, I'm fairly certain there is currently no way to increase the natural rep rate of shields in Dust (Boosters obviously increase effective rep rate, but you get what I mean.) In EVE, sure, extenders increase regen rate, effectively. 3. You can actually fit a Standard Large Turret, 2 Complex Hardeners and 1 Complex Shield Extender without the need for any PG/CPU upgrade modules, and have enough change leftover to put on utility, plates, ect. (Though the plate might require a PG upgrade in the second low slot...I forget offhand). Madrugar can fit 1 Standard Large Turret, 1 Complex Repper, 1 Complex Plate, and 1 Complex Hardener and at that point its pretty much capped out on CPU. It cant fit anything in the highs or any small turrets. At the very least the Madrugar needs more resources to work with. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 17:59:00 - [42] - Quote 2a. facepalm whatever. Currently they don't in Dust. 3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:19:00 - [43] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2a. facepalm whatever. Currently they don't in Dust. 3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved Would also like to factor in 180mm Plates. I'd kinda consider them the standard Madrugar plate which would cost more PG, so you don't want to increase the cost on plates too much. Would a PG reduction on the Gunnlogi be more appropriate to discourage plate use without a PG enhancer? Perhaps a mix of both? Could also increase PG of Madrugar is the Plate increase is too expensive for it to handle. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:38:00 - [44] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:47:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all? Fair enough but do you think it should maintain the same HP/s if the delay was removed? And Spkr, I agree that an overall increase to resources may be in order (especially if the 4th slot is added) but I think we both agree that the Madrugar needs a bit more of a buff than the Gunnlogi at this time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4044	Posted - 2014.12.18 19:01:00 - [46] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2a. facepalm whatever. Currently they don't in Dust. 3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved The Madrugar doesn't have enough PG to fit what you want on it. Why would you further gimp the armor tank by increasing the PG cost of plates even more? I was on the understanding that the Madrugar needed more CPU, not PG. I'm sorry, I don't use them Well it really depends on what you're fitting. Blasters are very PG intensive so higher leveled ones are going to require more PG. I would say that in general the Madrugar needs both PG and CPU, though CPU to a larger degree. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4045	Posted - 2014.12.18 19:59:00 - [47] - Quote wrote: 168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep... Actually if you break it down, even with a delay, the Gunnlogi will regenerate to its peak eHP significantly faster than a Madrugar. There are of course many factors, but this spreadsheet breaks down the total regen over time for both HAVs. But if you read the context, we're talking about if the delay was removed, what the appropriate regen rate would be. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first. 1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes 2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen) 3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no... You should continue reading and realize that you should have continued reading. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4047	Posted - 2014.12.18 22:06:00 - [48] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first. 1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes 2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen) 3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no... What are you talking about, duster? I have no idea. Im guessing he didnt read like....the next post which says "Yeah, I mean that for Standard HAVs" I think in general we're all probably being a little more hostile than we should be, myself included. Lets all take a deep breath, relax, and get back to the subject at hand in a polite and constructive manner ^_^ Lets outline a couple of the key points I think most of us agree on. 1. Increase Slot layout for standard HAVs to 4/2 and 2/4 paired with a decrease in base HP to put less emphasis on the hull and more emphasis on the modules themselves 2. At the least bring back PG/CPU boosting skills to compensate for the additional fitted module. (Will this overbuff dropships?) 3. Madrugar needs an additional increase to resources, mostly in CPU but PG as well. 4. Reintroduce 180mm Armor Plates as the "standard" fitting for a Madrugar to push its eHP higher to offset the Gunnlogi's strong HP regen. 5. Reintroduce Active Armor Reps 6. Potentially remove delay from Shield recharge, lower recharge rate, allow it to recharge under fire. (Will this be confusing for players because it breaks convention from how Dropsuit Defenses work?) 6a. Allow players to fit a Recharge to increase passive regen by a low-moderate amount constantly 6b. Allow players to fit a Booster to increase regen rate greatly for a limited time with a cooldown I'd like to get an actual document set up in the next couple days with a solid outline. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4048	Posted - 2014.12.18 23:20:00 - [49] - Quote I agree True, current shield regen rate on an armor vehicle would be....insane if it was repping constantly against incoming fire. It would basically be negating the first 100dps of incoming damage constantly. That being said, if you want to go with this direction you have to be VERY careful with exactly how much passive regen is possible on a shield vehicle. Everyone knows how much of a pain in the ass it was to kill triple rep-maddys pre-nerf. Now imagine a similar situation, but now the vehicle has additional buffer and is hardening at 40-80% nearly constantly because it doesn't have to fit any modules to get that passive regen. Remember what I said about effective rep rate? You have to take resistance into account when looking at regen rates. If something reps at 168 HP/s but its resists 50% of the incoming damage, it's really repping at 252 eHP a second. The fact that it basically has a built in passive armor repair (but for shields obviously), the value HAS to be kept very low, that way it forces people who want higher regen to actually fit modules designed to do so. Again, focus needs to be on the MODULES, not the HULL. I just want to be clear to those of you who have not played EVE...passive shield recharge naturally is EXTREMELY slow. We're talking 5-10 minutes to recharge completely unassisted on a battleship. Now yes, the pace of EVE is much slower than Dust so you can't make regen THAT slow, but at the same time, unfitted, it should be taking you a noticeable amount of time to regen all of your HP. So like....168HP/s like it has now is completely out of the question. Toss a hardener on there and you'll be nearly immune to most AV for the duration of the hardener. Cycle a couple of them and now you're unkillable...so yeah...it's gotta be a low value unless fit with module designed to buff the regen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4049	Posted - 2014.12.19 15:41:00 - [50] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 16:11:00 - [51] - Quote Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is. I mean basically what happened with the "rework": Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued. Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit. Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate. Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless. Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness. And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily some of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 16:25:00 - [52] - Quote Standard at 4/2 and Militia at 2/1? Probably too much of a difference then. MLT tanks should suck, but not be totally a point Pinata Regardless I don't think Militia vehicles is really a thing we need to be thinking about at this point. They'll be based off of the STD vehicles so lets get those worked out first. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:23:00 - [53] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. Do Marauders really need 2 slots more than a Standard HAV? Even the old ones only had +1 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:27:00 - [54] - Quote sigh Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:33:00 - [55] - Quote ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:49:00 - [56] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:02:00 - [57] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3) Spkr4theDead wrote: 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. Maybe he just made a typo then. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:20:00 - [58] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:41:00 - [59] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. With the bolded stipulation. Well what I was trying to get at is simply looking specifically at Standard HAVs vs Marauder HAVs. If Marauders needed 5/3 to survive against AV, Standards obviously would be totally screwed. That would be bad. We have to balance the HAVs against one another first before balancing them against outside elements...that's the point I was trying to make. Yes the balance against AV needs to be adjusted at well, but that's outside the current phase of this design. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4051	Posted - 2014.12.19 21:39:00 - [60] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors. I think you're missing what I'm going for here. I'll use your analogy if it makes it less confusing. So currently the Gallente Sentinel has a 2/3 slot layout. A Complex armor plate is what, 135? So lets say I reduce the Gallente's Base Armor by 135, and give it a 4th low slot. So what you can do now is stick an armor plate back into that 4th slot, raising its HP by 135 (yes I know there are skill bonuses and whatnot that wont line up perfectly but bear with me) back up to what it was before the change. OR If you dont care about that extra HP, you could put something else in there, like a Kinkat or another Armor Repairer. I think we all agree that the current slot layout for HAVs is overly limited and lacks much room for creativity. So by adding a slot and reducing the base HP by similar value, you give people more fitting flexibility, but you also allow people who preferred the old way to simply fill that additional slot with an HP mod to counteract the decrease in base HP. I'd probably balance it against an Enhanced HP module, so fitting Enhanced would give you similar HP values, Complex would be a net increase. Does that make sense? As I've said before Work + Holidays leaves me a little fried. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4052	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:07:00 - [61] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Look, there is no point in choosing anything but tank ever. There is no point in anything because anything other than tank is not viable. When you see a gunnlogi- you most of the time (at least the successful ones) are running all tank modules. Not once do you ever see a Gunnlogi drive up with a freaking scanner and a dam fuel injector. I use Damage mods on my Gunnlogi's frequently. Back in the day I would often forgo main-rack defenses in exchange for specific utility if the situation dictated it. I used to have 5-10 different fits for each vehicle, all a little different and most not dedicated to 100% tank. Let me present it to you in reverse. As you know, all dropsuits within a role and race have the same base HP, regardless of tier. So assume for a moment that a Standard Amarr Sentinel has 1000 base armor, and no slots. Advanced has 1000 base armor and 1 low, and Prototype has 1000 base armor and 2 lows. Now if you fit those lows with complex armor plates, you end up with a bit over 1300 armor. Not only is this very boring in terms of fitting, but the difference between running an unfit standard suit, and running a fully fit Proto suit, is ~300 HP. So for the cost of a very cheap suit and no modules, you only gain 300 HP for the cost of a Proto suit and 2 additional modules. That's not a huge incentive to run more expensive stuff is it? Big benefit for nearly no cost. So by my logic what would make sense is say "Hey, lets lower the base HP but offer up more slots so that at proto full fit you still get ~1300 armor, but an unfit standard suit, or even a standard suit with crappy modules, is significantly less effective than a proto suit. So you end up with a progression exactly like we have now for the Sentinels. So for someone like you who prioritizes defenses over everything else, no its not going to offer much in terms of flexibility because you'll just fill it with HP anyways. That's fine. What it DOES do however is force you to spend the ISK on better modules to get a larger benefit, rather than relying on a substantial amount of base HP that just comes built in with the price of the hull. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4052	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:10:00 - [62] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4052	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:13:00 - [63] - 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. Well that's a pretty fundamental difference in opinion. Then I guess this conversation is over because I would never support anything like that. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4052	Posted - 2014.12.19 22:25:00 - [64] - Quote Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... yawn (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =( "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4061	Posted - 2014.12.20 01:11:00 - [65] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... yawn (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =( Teach me how to create a google doc and I'll have a list of modules, stats, etc that were in the game, skills, etc all the goodies up within the day. Do you have a google account? Gmail? Anything? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/ Log in, click the (+) in the lower right to open up a new sheet. Fill out the spreadsheet with informational goodness. When you're done look at the upper right for [SHARE] open that propt, look for the link "Create Share Link" and copy it back here. You can get me on skype too if you need help, name is leowen.dravon "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4068	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:13:00 - [66] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:06:00 - [67] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles. If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus. Done. Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs. AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:30:00 - [68] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles. If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus. Done. Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs. AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks. in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better. Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink. That really depends entirely on how deeply into the Glass Cannon mentality it goes. I don't think they should be "weak" to AV, rather they shouldn't be able to hang around as long compared to a Marauder, making it difficult to deal with AV directly. I don't particularly believe in a suit or vehicle being designed as throwaway, nor do I like the super expensive HAV model we had before. I think Specialty vehicles should cost more of course, but none of the crazy price hikes like we used to have. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:56:00 - [69] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field. I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because. I think we both agree that they need to be more expensive. Standards should be a lesser expensive model. I think where we disagree is to what degree. I guess for me is that people seem to assume "I spent 3 times as much on this, so I should be 3 times harder to kill" That assumption is that the relationship is linear and I suppose my personal viewpoint is that I dont want people trying to use the ISK cost as an argument to buff the vehicles into an overpowered state. But regardless I'm not very interested in debating over the singular detail that is ISK cost. I would rather like to move into an actual document with some groundwork numbers to work off of since this entire thread is kind of turning into a circular argument and I'd rather just push forward. Have you had a chance to put together that list of modules you mentioned before? I know things are busy with the holidays and whatnot. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4072	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:50:00 - [70] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say. I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks. I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc. Forgive me if you got the impression that I was referring to you with the x3 comment. I know you actually want a balanced approach and are very rational about it, so I wasn't referring to you. And yes ISK can be used as a balancing mechanic, to an extent. Honestly if the old prices come back I wont lose my ** over it, but I will grumble. I think the difference in price between Standard and Specialty was too great, but again it's not a huge factor for me. Honestly I would have no issue with the JLAV if it actually cost something considerable to pull it off, but as it stands now its akin to ramming a Battleship with a Rookie ship in EVE, both blowing up, and calling that "a valid tactic". Until they actually make it cost a considerable amount, its a BS tactic. Now people running up on foot and manually planting remotes on me? That's kinda like being knifed in the back, but you're in a vehicle instead. That much is totally legit. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4073	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:35:00 - [71] - Quote Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with. Assumptions: All Skills to 5 Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules Must fit Large Turret Optional to fit Small Turrets Arbitrary Example: Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - None Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Advanced Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - Basic Turrets Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Fitting Main Turret - Proto Turret Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4075	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:13:00 - [72] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost. Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can). I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4077	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:35:00 - [73] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... That was my general point. So where would you place your lot? Main Rack: Proto Off Rack: Proto Main Turret: Proto Small Turret: None/Basic? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4086	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:07:00 - [74] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Oh, a question I just remembered. Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course. Different fitting costs and different HP/s The name itself was just flavor text, the axed it in favor of the Basic/Enhanced/Complex progression for clarity. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4086	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:16:00 - [75] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Well....you have some merit of what you say, but I still feel like Enforcers should be a bit more zippy than what we have now. HAVs can reach pretty high speeds now, but they feel far from agile. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4087	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:38:00 - [76] - Quote Well you may be thinking of shield boosters vs armor repairers. Shield Boosters were on a shorter cycle and would generate HP at the start of the cycle but in smaller amounts. Armor Repairers would rep on a longer cycle and generate HP at the end of the cycle, but in larger amounts. It basically meant that you needed to start repping armor early because it would be a 3 second delay before you started getting HP back. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4087	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:42:00 - [77] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4089	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:00:00 - [78] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:43:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 - [80] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Indeed. If AV can't destroy vehicles reliably then the only way to counter a vehicle is with another vehicle, which is just bad design. I wish we had riched AV saturation in general. If AV weapons were easily accessible to infantry without having to sacrifice ton in order to do so, then you can have more people carrying AV on the field, and then individual AV weapons could be weaker. The issue is that because most suits must sacrifice substantial defense against infantry in order to use AV, that the AV has to be exceptionally strong in order to make that sacrifice worth it. I mean look at Titanfall. Every single infantry in the game has an AV weapon at all times. The weapons themselves are not particularly great, and Titans can shrug off 1-2 without much difficulty. But if people simply swap to AV on the fly, they can quickly dispose of vehicles if they focus fire. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:38:00 - [81] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: It's not bad design, it's working as intended. I'm going without knowledge of EVE, but it would be like a mining ship trying to take on a ship meant for battle. Why compare some terrible 6v6 game with Dust? And why do you keep trying to compromise vehicles so much that they'll be useless out the box when Rattati gets some solid figures up? Well actually you can kill combat ships with some mining ships in certain situations, but regardless. And Titanfall is a pretty meh game, but it landed AV perfectly. Singular AV weapons are a deterrent (as you want) but when used en-mass they can kill vehicles. And I'm trying to be reasonable because I honestly believe deep down that if someone like you were in charge of designing this stuff that we would end up with a vehicle system so broken, so fundamentally overpowered, that CCP and the community would simply hack it apart with a chainsaw and what we would end up with is a bloody stump rather than the polished, clean, enjoyable system that is fair for both sides. Like I appreciate your passion, and I've tried over and over to try to find a happy medium between your ideas and my own, but I think your views are way too extreme and you seem completely unwilling to even consider changing what you think out of sheer stubbornness. And who knows maybe a lot of it is lost in translation, but the fact of the matter is that I'm clearly going to take a more conservative and careful approach to things and not something as crude as "BLARRGGG NERF AV AND REVERT EVERYTHING BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE". So again while I appreciate your passion, it's getting a little tiresome of the negative and rough comments when I'm trying to move the conversation forward to actually put together some design concepts. I feel like half this thread is nothing but people throwing rocks at each other and repeating over and over the same concepts of their own personal opinion of how things should work, rather than trying to work together to combine the ideas into something that works and then actually moving forward, rather than moving in circles. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4126	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:22:00 - [82] - Quote Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4126	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:29:00 - [83] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4128	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:42:00 - [84] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty. You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots. @_@ What are you even talking about? I'm still a fan of the 4/2 and 2/4 system. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4131	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:58:00 - [85] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4133	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:09:00 - [86] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit. Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation. In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition. Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field. So with a 2/4 layout you could be looking at something like 180mm Plate + 2 Hardeners + 1 repper for your average fit? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4133	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:18:00 - [87] - Quote Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise. So 1200 Shield 6827 Armor x2 25% Armor Hardeners "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4137	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:42:00 - [88] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise. So 1200 Shield 6827 Armor x2 25% Armor Hardeners eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40% Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them. I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway... six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently. See I don't have an issue with double stacking hardeners. Burst tanking is a common thing in New Eden so it fits here as well, imo. So 4 shots...9-10 seconds against a non-hardened full health Maddy....gives time to get the hardener(s) up and running. I assume max skills for the forge, is that a damage modded fit? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4137	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:47:00 - [89] - Quote Fair enough. flips on the True Adamance signal We need your opinion! "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4139	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:04:00 - [90] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP. New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4139	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:07:00 - [91] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP. New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. +1 I will not compromise you filthy AVer. Likes have been nerfed over and over. I expect a +10 and nothing less. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4142	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:12:00 - [92] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Suck it, Tank nerd. Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4142	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:17:00 - [93] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Suck it, Tank nerd. Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum. Your marauder will be the first that I destroy to christen their return. This is why we hang out. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4144	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:36:00 - [94] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE. I respect those that don't whine about tanks being OP, that they shouldn't be their own best counter, that AV is UP, etc. It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4147	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:44:00 - [95] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn. The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now. I knew you would break and give me my +10. I'm glad we could agree on something. For the sake of science. You monster. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4147	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:46:00 - [96] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK! Here, it's in this Strongbox. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4154	Posted - 2014.12.24 22:09:00 - [97] - Quote Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool. So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4154	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:27:00 - [98] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4154	Posted - 2014.12.25 01:17:00 - [99] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere. Make a thread about what you guys talk about if you do continue, I enjoy reading what you 2 have to say about this stuff. Perhaps in a bit, I need a little breather from this for a few days lol. This thread has made me really grumpy and I don't want to be a douche. For those of you who want to have a reasonable discussion/just chat, hit me up on Skype: leowen.dravon "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4240	Posted - 2014.12.29 19:05:00 - [100] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 16:49:00 - [101] - 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. I think initially something like this is the best course of action. Systems such as higher frontal resistance, damage angle reflection, ect. are all very cool, but not really the core of the problem, so I'd like to tackle stuff like that at a later date. Additionally the Chrome days were better than what we had now but in general people tend to remember good things in the past far more readily than bad things, and as such I think many people in the thread seem to underestimate how imperfect the Chrome stats were. Better, yes, but they still need quite a bit of work. I'm trying to get the community PC redesign in a more solid place first, but then I intend to really dig back into the vehicle redesign initiative. The primary goals I'm looking at are as follows: More slots for HAVs and LAVs to allow more flexibility in fitting. General push to make modules a more important part of fitting, and base hull stats less important. Move armor repair back to an active module Keep shield recharge passive, but require a module of equal tier in order to surpass an armor repairer (Natural Shield Regen < Armor Repairer < Shield Regen + Recharger < Shield + Booster) Reduce Shield Recharge Rate on Armor Vehicles Make shield and armor vehicles have more similar total base HP, with main difference being in module HP/regen. Either move shields to 0 delay, or introduce skills & modules to reduce shield recharge delay. General rebuild of the skill system. Will attempt to leave existing skills intact, even if effect is modified (Avoid need for respec) Reintroduce/Add removed/needed modules. Explore options of Passive/Active modules with lesser/greater effectiveness. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:16:00 - [102] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:41:00 - [103] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4267	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs Well as long as the relative strength of both is unchanged, it doesn't really matter right? If a swarm had 200 attack and HAVs had 2000 defense in Chrome, would that not be the same if swams have 100 attack now and HAVs had 1000 defense? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4268	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 - [105] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4319	Posted - 2015.01.08 17:56:00 - [106] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank. You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods. Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger. Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank. The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank. And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES! Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too. To an extent. To be fair, most dropsuits cant fit Proto EVERYTHING. Typically the sidearm and/or grenades are of a lower tier. So Proto Modules and Large Turret? Totally. But proto smalls on top of that? I'd have to say they would be a notch or two lower "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4338	Posted - 2015.01.09 21:32:00 - [107] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4338	Posted - 2015.01.09 22:03:00 - [108] - Quote 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?! " "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4338	Posted - 2015.01.10 00:16:00 - [109] - Quote Random scribbles, just doing this ** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4341	Posted - 2015.01.10 02:04:00 - [110] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? Keep in mind I was mostly addressing two key issues -Gunnlogi's having far too much regen without any requirement of a module to reach such levels. -Madrugars falling short in both eHP and regen, when they should be superior in terms of eHP and inferior in terms of regen. So all values are really taken against each other, and it isnt intended to be a balance pass against AV at all. I just more or less used the Gunnlogi as a baseline and then adjust everything accordingly around that. So the values themselves will most definitely change, I was more looking at general concept of performance as well as relative performance to each other. Additionally I would like to see an increase in slots with relative adjustment values. That being said fits will likely have more hardeners equipped allowing a more consistent hardened state with a lot of player input to keep them cycling at the proper times. Again I was just taking the most simplistic setting for this pass (3 modules) to get some raw values out, and fully intend to expand out the fitting/modules more to provide a more balanced approach in terms of actual gameplay. You are correct though, doing a generalist pass with these values against AV was my next step. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4342	Posted - 2015.01.10 04:22:00 - [111] - 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) Sure thing, hit me up at leowen.dravon on skype "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4342	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:37:00 - [112] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey your premise will make tanks more powerful relative to AV/V interactions. Due to the nature of changes to primary AV over the last few iterations of DUST the gunnlogi is currently more powerful than the sagaris was relative to that interaction. As I said before, those numbers don't take AV into account at all, it was merely getting the relative balance between Shields and Armor. Values will of course be adjusted in accordance with AV values in the next pass. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4344	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:32:00 - [113] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. 3 main slots is still bad Pokey Dravon wrote: Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Do you actually read? Or do you just go straight for the numbered list button? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4353	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:16:00 - [114] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: nicely done with the DPS setup there Thaddeus. Ok someone click my link and please verify whether or not my updates took. You should see an asston of new tabs representing vehicle modules and the theorycrafting tab, which I am working on. My recommendations for changes to AV will include damage increases to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill which added 10% damage and heavy damage mod numbers being whacked in half (successful AV ran three damage mods in the highs) so if Rattati adopts this AV doesn't start in the land of impossible. if current damage values are higher, these will not be changed. There will be no change to damage for light AV weapons as those damage mods only lost 2% which is insufficient to realistically alter TTK. Again, anyone who has things they might like to see adjusted (dropship pilots I am talking to YOU) please post it so I can add it to the theorycraft tab. Are these pure Chromo stats or are they modified? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4353	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:06:00 - [115] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm not worried about the officer variants of anything. those are Rattati's problem, not mine. Agreed. Officer weapons are innately overpowered but they're random drops so that's OK. I'd only balance around MLT-PRO and forget the Officer weapons exist. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4353	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:22:00 - [116] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Screw it, ain't changing a damn thing involving loss of weaponry or damage mod modifications. I think I'd rather see how the numbers I have play out. The following has been done in the theorycrafting tab: adjusted forge guns to conform to chrome charge times, current damage values for Assault forge adjusted damage and charge time on the standard forge to place the DPS consistently 50 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted damage and charge time on the breach forge to place it 100 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted charge time and reload time of the PLC to increase baseline DPS above 370 DPS Vs. vehicles at the proto level current link is here. Just as an FYI, Gallente Commando with max reload and commando skills will break 900 DPS with an Allotek Plasma Cannon given your stats (No proficiency) 2.5 Reload +15% Rapid Reload +25% Commando Role Bonus 1.59s Reload 0.3 Charge Time +25% Reduction for Operations 0.225 Charge Time Effective Refire Time 1.59+0.225= 1.815s/shot 1501 Damage/shot 827DPS +10% Commando Bonus 909 DPS With Proficiency +15% against shields +10% Natural shield Weakness 1150 DPS against shields "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4353	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:02:00 - [117] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: A Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar (slightly lower) numbers because damage mods were hacked in half. Plasma cannon suffers from short range, arcing shots and lack of usability. This theorycrafting tab is predicated on if Rattati re-adopts the chromosome vehicle baseline. The values are ONLY valid if said values are used. I'm aligning the PLC as a close-range IAFG substitute for the purposes of chrome basis performance. I will be more than happy to provide feedback more in line with your proposal as well based on your numbers. Because the theorycrafting in this one, and the theorycrafting in your proposal will necessarily be incompatible. Mmmmk. Seems reasonable, just wanted to make sure you had a balance between the two in mind but obviously you do. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4358	Posted - 2015.01.13 06:47:00 - [118] - Quote Good to see you're watching the thread Rattati. I only wish I didn't have to many projects that are splitting my time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4376	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:29:00 - [119] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: honestly? COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming: cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. and not a bad one So basically a hardener better suited for a HAV vs HAV fight, for when you know exactly when the damage is coming but then suffer from long downtime as to make them unsuitable to fight against infantry. I like that general idea. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4376	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:42:00 - [120] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4376	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:07:00 - [121] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4377	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:47:00 - [122] - Quote Ah well, I wasn't aware of your intention in that regard. I guess for me I miss the micromanagement that was required to properly operate your vehicle's modules via cycling and whatnot...it's been a large driving force behind pushing back to having more module slots. But that's just my personal desire. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4379	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:37:00 - [123] - 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. I think those were the remote armor repairers, not the local reps, but I could be wrong. I totally get what you're saying between using passives if you want resistance all the time and using an active if you want it for short bursts, but personally I'd like having something in the middle ground as well. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:43:00 - [124] - Quote Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:01:00 - [125] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:25:00 - [126] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? for me, not for you. I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow. Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:32:00 - [127] - Quote Don't worry I intend to do a Current and Proposed comparison so you can easily see the deltas "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:40:00 - [128] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: awesome. in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets. have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency. Oh, how did you know that consistancy of design gets me all hot and bothered? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:44:00 - [129] - Quote Not really, I can sneak a forum message in ever so often but the boss is lurking so Skype would be pushing it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4421	Posted - 2015.01.19 18:41:00 - [130] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4424	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:40:00 - [131] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4424	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:46:00 - [132] - Quote True Adamance 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 Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid. Quiet peasants! He just falls into the common fallacy that if someone doesn't agree with him, then they must not know what they're talking about. I think what makes him so adorable is how he makes demands like he assumes I actually care what he thinks. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4427	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 - [133] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4427	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:56:00 - [134] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. So we have a difference of opinion, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a tanker or that I don't know what I'm talking about. People disagree. That's ok. You would do well to accept that and move on. I really don't know why you're so aggressive about it. Do you feel threatened? Are you worried that my ideas will be taken more seriously than your own? Like I honestly don't have an issue with your difference of opinion, I just wonder why you feel the need to be such a douche about it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4429	Posted - 2015.01.19 22:25:00 - [135] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4430	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:21:00 - [136] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.