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)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2536	Posted - 2014.12.16 18:50:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. Rattati, should I link to my thread, or will it be no problem for you to find it multiple times if need be? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2537	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:00:00 - [2] - Quote 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 looked at his doc, it should be thrown out. It's terrible, and nerfing vehicles hard straight out the box. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2537	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:03:00 - [3] - Quote Canaan Knute wrote: How will these vehicles fare against AV? Due to what seems like great options, vehicles ought to be able to shrug off AV again to beat the hell out of each other again. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:13:00 - [4] - Quote 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 I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:15:00 - [5] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:18:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I'm going to shout down those commenting with absolutely terrible ideas. I'll post my response to your Google doc in a little while. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:21:00 - [7] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: [quote=Vitharr Foebane] anti shield AV solution quote] simple flux grenades plasma cannon forge guns theres your anti shield av. Forge isn't anti shield, it has a bonus against armor. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:27:00 - [8] - Quote Reply to Google Doc First off, the skills... They need to be on par with infantry again. Shield skills +5%, armor +5%, CPU and PG +5%. Will the Enforcers and Marauders have a built-in siege/bastion module? If you're going to offer a damage bonus to the Enforcers, Gallente should get a higher bonus due to having only one turret, as well as the turret with the least range. You need to get in a tank's face to destroy them, as 50m out just isn't enough. I like the idea of the Marauders get more HP. The Enforcers and Marauders need more slots if they're to fulfill their roles properly. Maybe only allow tanks to fit one damage mod like the NOS, keeping a built-in damage mod as well. It would provide a massive bonus for slaying. I'll respond more when you put out more information. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2544	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:33:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. XT-201s can already destroy an armor tank in one volley. 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2574	Posted - 2014.12.17 07:46:00 - [10] - Quote 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 I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2574	Posted - 2014.12.17 07:48:00 - [11] - Quote Zeke Dunevent wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. This may be a stupid question but considering on that spreadsheet you give EVE equivalents of these tanks by comparing them to different classes of spaceships, are we ever going to see a Dust equivalent of a Titan class ship????? No, because that would be overpowered to infantry, and they'd want AV buffed to compensate. Essentially wanting to carry weapons that could deal good damage to an MCC. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2576	Posted - 2014.12.17 17:50:00 - [12] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: just watched a guy in a gunnlogi with double hardeners (maybe triple) take down three madrugars while being focused fired on. his shields didnt move some one mentioned eHP stacking makes any and all passive tanks inferior. only way i see passive tanking working is if passive tanks are built around having huge raw HP pools to outlast hardener durations. id make passive tanks have huge HP pools, with slow regen make active tanks with low HP pools with high resistances. short module durations and high regen. so basically passive tanks would be good in 1v1 fights and can stay on field longer, while active tanks would be good in larger tank battles but shorter time on field. Not possible I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2583	Posted - 2014.12.18 16:07:00 - [13] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2585	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:40:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. No, but it would make fitting whatever we want on it a hell of a lot easier. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2585	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:42:00 - [15] - 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 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 may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2587	Posted - 2014.12.18 21:41:00 - [16] - Quote 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 may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:09:00 - [17] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways 5/3 is probably too much. [/quote] You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:15:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Falchion Shield: 3200 Armour: 1125 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour Vayu Shield: 980 Armour: 3625 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour We already had the Enforcers with MLT fitting. If they're brought back the same as Uprising 1.0, they'll be useless. Seems like they'd be taken out by a Sica in 3 rounds, which should not happen. They were true paper tanks, completely useless, wrecked by the Madrugar and Gunnlogi, and competent pilots in the MLT tanks using those for the lols in taking out an Enforcer with one. And you put the same slot layout for an armor tank as the shield tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:25:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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's when infantry didn't have vehicles by the balls. They have vehicles in the palm of their hands now, and we're trying to take that away from them. Don't nerf them straight out the box. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2591	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:31:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: sigh Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that? Assume? They already perform poorly against infantry. I had some sap whose tank I bested, who then proceeded to take out an assault suit and get me to less than 900 armor in just 3 volleys. If AV is going to stay as is, then yeah, Marauders need all those slots so they don't get taken out by infantry so easily. As I've said, AV should be a deterrent. Because video game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2592	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:48:00 - [21] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2595	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:35:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. With the bolded stipulation. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2597	Posted - 2014.12.20 21:02:00 - [23] - Quote Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments. (such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.12.21 03:12:00 - [24] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments. (such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.12.21 04:43:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments. (such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks. A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.12.21 05:03:00 - [26] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments. (such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said? Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.12.21 06:08:00 - [27] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Reducing Spooltime is directly increasing RoF...... that's essentially what all modules in EVE do for damage. Why would you not want to drecrease the time between shot. Oddly enough no one who plays Dust appreciates how fast our tanks fire especially the railguns. Railguns fire ridiculously slow. That's not what those modules do in Dust. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2599	Posted - 2014.12.21 07:43:00 - [28] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: heatsinks, both active and passive I was and still am a fan of the active heatsinks, passive not so much. I'd rather have to activate it and get more out of it, than have it always be there but not get a lot out of it. If they make it so we only get one more round out the rail with a heatsink active, then they're not worth it anyway. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2607	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:40:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay Back when tanks were real tanks. These days need to come back. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:39:00 - [30] - 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. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:58:00 - [31] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 - [32] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Reset vehicles and AV to uprising levels 1a. Bring in the current levels of swarms to uprising vehicles, same with AV nades 1b. Bring in PLC 1c. Bring back all the modules and skills for vehicles 1d. Tweek from then on With the core skills in line with infantry. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:15:00 - [33] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. 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? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 21:52:00 - [34] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:41:00 - [35] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring. Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:42:00 - [36] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise. And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door. My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics. It's not helpful to the topic at hand. If your PRO fits are getting shred to bits by MLT suits, then I think taking out a tank is the least of your worries. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:29:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV. Gunnlogi isn't overtanked, it's just the better hull with better mods and has resistance to 2 turrets and 2 forms of AV. The Madrugar is the really weak hull, having terrible PG and CPU with terrible reps because all infantry did was complain, and CCP bent over backwards to accomodate you. 2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening. But AV isn't patient, and fire at the very first opportunity. Don't shoot a shiny, that's all there is to it. I had a PC a few nights ago, with some mad forge gunner on a building and a terrible redline tanker shooting me from his redline. It's not hard to destroy a tank. I went blaster because we needed it - I still destroyed his tank: because experience. 3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills. You're counting core skills, aren't you. The forge gun is one weapon. Infantry core skills don't make a weapon better, it just allows them to fit better modules. Our core skills only make the armor repper better by itself - everything just makes our active mods last longer and cool down better. Aside from the aforementioned repper, our core skills don't make the mods better. Then there's turrets, which require level 5 in everything to get the most out of them. Infantry weapon operation decreases CPU usage by a small percentage - we don't have that for our turret operation. 5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down. I'm surprised you'd say that. 6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly. AV has consistently been buffed for well over 2 years, probably more like 3, while tanks have been nerfed that whole time. Enough with the AV buffs. Seriously, they don't need to be buffed anymore. Rattati is designing tank destroyers, and conversely, tanks with great defenses. You shouldn't be the end-all nuclear option, ever. AV was balanced around the idea of ADV tanks, which the Enforcers were not. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 16:37:00 - [38] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:10:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. I'm this way because of how many times vehicles have been nerfed and AV has been buffed, along with removing variety for vehicles in the form of mods as well. Infantry did the same thing we do when they were nerfing the new flavor of the weak. Flaylocks, Cal logis, TAR rifles, Gallente (master) scout, whatever, contact grenades, grenades in general, whatever. Infantry always cried about how it would be the end of Dust, nobody would play, etc. But everybody still played. Yet, look at how many pilots have completely quit the game. It's quite a lot of people that used to post regularly here, and who knows how many that didn't post on the forums. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:11:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 17:55:00 - [41] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm surprised you'd say that. that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself. takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot. It doesn't take any thought. Get 3 forge gunners behind a tank in a LAV and that's a dead tank. No thought I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:05:00 - [42] - 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. Of course it's irrelevant to you, because when we told infantry how to take out vehicles, tailored to specific vehicles, infantry always said it was too hard. So no, I don't care what you say, and when people complain so much about something they're actually told to do to be successful, then I can't respect someone. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:33:00 - [43] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.24 19:22:00 - [44] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. So the 5-post thread I created is irrational and crazy? Nerfing everything before Rattati gives us more information is irrational and crazy. You might as well cut off your nose if you don't like how it looks. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2614	Posted - 2014.12.25 00:22:00 - [45] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool. So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally. No, because you're nerfing them out the box. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2614	Posted - 2014.12.25 01:04:00 - [46] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool. So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally. No, because you're nerfing them out the box. I don't understand how you nerf something before it exists..... doesn't it have to have to be in game with stats first? If vehicles are nerfed before tweaks and new hulls are introduced, then they're not worth it. Pilot suits were case in point: literally all dedicated infantry on here were crying that the placeholder passive stats were going to be OP, even though they were better tank v tank, and as such, CCP completely scrapped the pilot suit idea. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2616	Posted - 2014.12.25 07:00:00 - [47] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2617	Posted - 2014.12.25 17:54:00 - [48] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? Yep. He said none. I agree with him. Have you gone against more than just MLT tanks? How about STD hulls with better than MLT turrets? You literally have no idea what it's like. Get in a tank, and don't jump out when you're on fire. Have you ever even been in a PC, with pilot harassing a team, unable to be destroyed by your team's tanks? That's a damn good pilot right there. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2623	Posted - 2014.12.26 16:22:00 - [49] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints. Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless. The dropsuit sidegrades ARE upgrades. The commando is all around better than the basic heavy frame, assault all around better than the basic medium frame, etc. The Gunnlogi and Madrugar are our basic heavy frame, not MLT frames. If you've never been a pilot, why are you here? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:30:00 - [50] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions: The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades, designed to fulfill the specific rolls (At least the kind of sidegrades we're looking for here) Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. Link What do ya'll think? Are you basing that on the current CPU and PG skills remaining the same, ie useless? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:33:00 - [51] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you've never been a pilot, why are you here? Until you learn to read, shut up. I had an advanced understanding of English. You're not a pilot, I don't want to hear your opinion on how bad vehicles should be and how great AV should be. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:35:00 - [52] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: because you never tanked through the old days Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey)) So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2630	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:50:00 - [53] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. Brought about by infantry, whose incessant whining made us decide to do that. You reap what you sow. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2630	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:57:00 - [54] - Quote MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2633	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:08:00 - [55] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion. I guess you're forgetting about the thread I made. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2633	Posted - 2014.12.28 16:15:00 - [56] - Quote BatKing Deltor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now Is this what your are looking for? Vehicles Old weapon stats Including AV Source Back when tanks used to be tanks. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2652	Posted - 2014.12.31 18:45:00 - [57] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.01 00:54:00 - [58] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.01 04:11:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen. Try not treating everyone else like they're made of pure sh*t and they'll stop treating you like a second class citizen. You know, courtesy if you want courtesy? It does work occasionally. So that's what you call my unwavering support of my chosen playstyle? Real nice I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.02 22:44:00 - [60] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: I dont understand the need to turn Dust Tanks into War Thunder Ground Forces. This is just as much unrelated to the OP as Tank Crews. Its still an FPS and not a tank simulator. We dont need to remodel tanks from the ground up, we just need the old tanks reintroduced with an aceeptable slot layout, pg and CPU. Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed. Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well. "Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 00:14:00 - [61] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed. Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well. "Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls. You just keep banging on that drum princess. You and Laser can start a HAV bitterness focus group. Oh boy, more trolling. I'm crying tears. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 18:41:00 - [62] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: And HAVS are currently practically immune from smll arms fire (concen trated fire will. still hurt it if the HAV has no armor reps....we've gotten 5 tank kills by finishing off the survivor of a slugging match with my squads rifles). Not saying we need that level of front facing resistance, but it illustrates the point (we don't need a full tank simulation, just a reasonable facsimile of one) Sorry for any mistakes, phone is freaking out Vehicles should be completely immune from rifles. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 18:43:00 - [63] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:11:00 - [64] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it? I don't play it, so how would I know? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 - [65] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module. Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:21:00 - [66] - 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 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? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2659	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:17:00 - [67] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. Blame infantry for that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2659	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:24:00 - [68] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity. No, because again, there was no way to get some giant idiot of a blue dot out of a small turret unless someone drove a LAV into either side of the tank to kill the idiot. Problem with that is along with the blue dot dying, so did the person trying to help you. Never trust a blue dot. No mandatory small turrets, ever. It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs. There was no "maximizing a fitting" with two small turrets eating up CPU and PG. Those are the difference between fitting an enhanced damage mod and a complex damage mod, or a plate vs needing a CPU/PG upgrade mod. Again, no more mandatory small turrets, ever. Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field. Wasn't that way all the time. My experience beat out some randoms. Now ever terrible red dots with about an hour's worth of experience in a tank is equivalent to taking on the best during Chrome. They've been that dumbed down to the point where someone with as much experience as I have has trouble to someone a week out of the battle academy. I know infantry is going to love that last one. You hop into a tank against AV and someone with my experience, and tell me how well you do. And you have to take the death in the tank, not jump out with PRO AV because you're worried about your KDR. But I know how it will go. You'll burn 8-10 times in one match. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2659	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:40:00 - [69] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. Blame infantry for that. But you can't. lolwut. ALL THEY DID for 3 years is complain about vehicles and how their rifles couldn't destroy them. I've read about a scout glitch where they could run faster than a tank. Nobody complained about that. Also the MLT NOS module making a tank fly away at the speed of sound. When was that fixed? The very next day. Why? Because infantry complained about it. Couldn't have fun with it for 2 or 3 days, to tell CCP, "You know, you could give this to us with a 3 second activation and longer cooldown." No, it got nerfed so hard, they may as well have taken them all out. Infantry rightfully had the after-swarm freeze fixed, at the cost of doing - 7000 damage before having to reload with swarms. Of course they thought it was fine, yet pilots were saying that would be the end of vehicles - and what do you know, look how many pilots we've lost? Pilots have been right, while infantry have been wrong. Whenever they can't destroy vehicles they get then nerfed, but AV OP? "Oh, it's just fine, it's perfectly balanced, you pilots can HTFU." I'm missing quite a lot but I'm reading something else. Vet players exploited tanks in the early Chromosome period using their accrued SP pools to ruin the time of most new beta players achieving scores of 80/1 because no one had the capacity to fight back. Again, glass tanks took care of those in literally 2-3 railgun shots. It's nobody's fault if one team has 4 pilots and the other has none. YOU CAN'T BALANCE THE DAMN GAME AROUND THAT. Infantry exploited the 50m rendering range and high building tops to ruin the days of tankers until Uprising 1.5. That's not an exploit, that's just horrible broken rendering, mechanics and coding. Same with CCP not fixing the railgun glitches. I'm actually surprised they fixed the damage vehicles suffered from going over rocks, and LAVs rolling and instantly exploding. I'm sure infantry thought that was fair and working as intended, too. Tankers exploited the **** out of OP tank ins 1.7. There weren't any exploits. Pilots wanted to remain pilots, and that was it. There were no "exploits." You're sounding less like a credible pilot to me. It's a massive circle of abusive game mechanics that has led to one side bitching incessantly until change is made. Currently its out turn. No, it's infantry constantly complaining that got us into the giant mess we're in now. When was the last time you remember vehicles getting a solid buff? I'll answer it for you = never. I'm damn tired of being treated like a second class citizen. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2660	Posted - 2015.01.04 07:27:00 - [70] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well. Where was I saying it was you jumping out? As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits. Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience? I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them. There's no better angle to take damage in this game. But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good. lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year. ^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2667	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:46:00 - [71] - Quote Text Grant wrote: While we are changing vehicles, I hope that you at least consider changes to the large blaster turret. A blaster tank is very effective vs infantry, and fairly effective vs enemy tanks. Because of this, it is easily the go to turret. You only get out a missile tank or rail tank if you expect to kill tanks or turrets. This should be changed to make the blaster less of an all around weapon. The missile tank is meant to be all around. I'm suggesting an increase to the fitting cost of a large blaster turret to lower its tanking ability. Blaster good against infantry? You haven't been in a tank in the last few months. It sounds like you also want to nerf the blaster again. More dispersion, higher fitting cost? What can a blaster do when a rail is 290m away, or a missile is 240m away? I already know the answer to that, and it's blow up. A blaster has to get in the face of any vehicle to have a chance at blowing it up. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2667	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:47:00 - [72] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well. Where was I saying it was you jumping out? As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits. Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience? I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them. There's no better angle to take damage in this game. But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good. lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year. ^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall It's not too fast. It used to be faster, and when we had more modules, we had passive mods that reduced the spool time even more. You just don't know what you're talking about. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2671	Posted - 2015.01.04 23:09:00 - [73] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pfff fires up to five rounds from a nine round chambering every 1.8 Seconds.... that's rapid fire if you ask me. Uh... no, because you can fire 3 rounds with an overheat. 5 if you wait for the bar to go all the way down and immediately fire again, and all 9 if you manage it well. It's not fast enough when you need to destroy a vehicle then GTFO. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2683	Posted - 2015.01.06 07:07:00 - [74] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I don't play it, so how would I know? So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2700	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:52:00 - [75] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi? People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2700	Posted - 2015.01.09 18:01:00 - [76] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer. I'm thinking the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will be the main battle tanks. 2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in. So instead of buffing the Madrugar to be on par with the Gunnlogi, you nerf the Gunnlogi to be on par with the Madrugar. Another bad idea. a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead) My Madrugar already nearly gets destroyed by a single Minmando. It doesn't need any less HP. c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming) Might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat. d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi) That's how it was in Chrome. I'm working on numbers with that in effect. 3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range. Yes it does, because a PRO breach forge hitting the 167% in the back has a real good chance of destroying a base HP tank in one shot. That's an insane bonus for a weapon that already does insane damage. 5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone, No, because it's the future. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2700	Posted - 2015.01.09 18:11:00 - [77] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi? People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart? Sentinel LOLWUT The sentinel has a -PG/CPU usage per level. Along with that, you really mean to tell me a PRO basic heavy frame has better PG and CPU than a PRO sentinel? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2700	Posted - 2015.01.09 18:12:00 - [78] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer. I'm thinking the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will be the main battle tanks. 2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in. So instead of buffing the Madrugar to be on par with the Gunnlogi, you nerf the Gunnlogi to be on par with the Madrugar. Another bad idea. a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead) My Madrugar already nearly gets destroyed by a single Minmando. It doesn't need any less HP. c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming) Might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat. d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi) That's how it was in Chrome. I'm working on numbers with that in effect. 3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range. Yes it does, because a PRO breach forge hitting the 167% in the back has a real good chance of destroying a base HP tank in one shot. That's an insane bonus for a weapon that already does insane damage. 5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone, No, because it's the future. I can't wait to see your numbers Spker (I really can't wait, you've got some strong opinions, so my expectations are very high), and I'm still working on mine. I've updated them slightly here in only the past 30 seconds. I also wanted things to be more focused on modules than hulls, so I rolled most of the nerfed stats into the modules themselves (take a look at that page, and notice the differences). Base Regen on the Gunnlogi needed a nerf, there is no arguing with that point (Especially if we do away with shield recharge delay). I also fail to see what a range bonus has to do with increasing damage...and as for a BFG one hitting a base HP tank...working as intended...fit some damn mods or gtfo. I personally don't like the RoF on the rails currently, but we can agree to disagree on this point Not letting them out need. Need confirmation I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2704	Posted - 2015.01.10 05:47:00 - [79] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Golden Day wrote: Quote: Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally. Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves Quote: we will just work on it internally. This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it. It devolved mostly because I don't want to budge on vehicles, and believe AV should be a deterrent. In his own words, he wants tanks to counter each other. Sounds to me like AV is gonna get put on the chopping block. It's been a long time coming. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2705	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:30:00 - [80] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however It really does sound like he wants tanks to beat the hell out of each other. And as far as Chrome V/AV balance goes, yeah, that was a really good time for vehicles. AV was a deterrent, and the escalation for tank warfare was awesome. Going from quite expensive MLT tanks, to more expensive STD tanks, to the behemoth Marauders that I think cost 2.5mil to 3mil ISK - I wouldn't know because I never had the SP for them. Obviously, if someone was stupid enough to stay still and not know how to use the mods, AV would bury them. But we have the experience to make the most out of our vehicles, and I've even gotten back into using the Madrugar. It usually comes down to experience. And I pray that the Madrugar gets brought up to the Gunnlogi, instead of the Gunnlogi being brought down to the Madrugar. They need validity in the face of the Enforcers and Marauders. If both are weak, then anybody that considers themselves a pilot will only use the specialized tanks, and nobody will take them out in pubs at all. Vehicles need to be strong, and they need to stand up to AV. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2705	Posted - 2015.01.10 07:16:00 - [81] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods? Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls. Insane railgun damage as well as damage mods. Uprising 1.0 TTK was much better, because a tank wasn't wiped out in 2-3 rounds. Very experienced pilots could probably make a fight last 20 seconds or so. We need more concrete ideas for what Rattati wants to do. We need to see what he's looking at. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2707	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:39:00 - [82] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2707	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:41:00 - [83] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: pegasis prime wrote: If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use . I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner. The problem you will have with the chrome skill trees is the drop suit ones like armour upgrades not only applied to drop suits but vehicles as well . They didn'tsseparate the skill tress properly till uprising At least all the skills worked properly. I didn't mind Uprising 1.0, but what I know killed it for all pilots was the PG skill nerf. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2707	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:45:00 - [84] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! I f*cking found it. Skill list located. So post it so we can work from it. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2707	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:54:00 - [85] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know. lol assuming I'm new I had a code to get in the closed beta whenever it was available. I'm not new to Dust by any stretch of the imagination. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:31:00 - [86] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:47:00 - [87] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game. I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know? And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:52:00 - [88] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now. The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts. Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:53:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game. I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know? And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks. that explains it. read the chrome spreadsheet. I attached the old HAV skill tree as well. And included the AV values for swarms and forges. I'll be dickering around adding things like the PLC as well later on, as well as putting in a theorycrafting tab for including updating the non assault forge guns so they aren't a bad joke, but don't take a merry leap off the cliff into easy kill farming. I will also be adding the REST of the chromosome modules that I found, like overdrives and such later tonight once I get some things done. Complex overdrive adds 12% to torque. Enhanced might be 8% and basic may be 5%. I still have a few of each. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 23:02:00 - [90] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now. The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts. Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low Maddy is current 4000; it's 200 more armor. Any more and people will claim the end of the game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 23:11:00 - [91] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now. The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts. Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low Maddy is current 4000; it's 200 more armor. Any more and people will claim the end of the game. The PG/CPU values...sorry should have clarified again (Currently the Maddy has significantly less fitting ability than the Gunnlogi) If you look at the old Chrome stats, the biggest plate that we had was less CPU than PRO AV was. As of now we have terrible fitting capability, and the shield vehicles have more CPU than the armor vehicles anyway, because shield mods require more CPU. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2712	Posted - 2015.01.11 04:00:00 - [92] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you look at the old Chrome stats, the biggest plate that we had was less CPU than PRO AV was. As of now we have terrible fitting capability, and the shield vehicles have more CPU than the armor vehicles anyway, because shield mods require more CPU. Hey Spkr4theDead, not trolling here but do you have any idea if any of this is possible or remotely likely? Even some of it, risk factors, likely hood of it getting nerfed the very next day? I am not asking for real numbers just general gut feeling. I haven't logged into Dust since 1.9 and that was one day. Just to check out the drop. Maybe it was 1.8. Anyway if they actually make vehicles viable it would be fun to check in once again. If not, well my tank (versus HAV) itch has a Lightning back scratcher currently. From my little forum searching it looks like turrets are still bugged as much as they were before except now they are nerfed as well. Cool. ADS was not worth flying last time. IMHO, as draw distance cutoff means AV rounds are still invisible. Not much chance they can ever fix that one, code changes required. And for all your effort, thanks and good luck. KR There's still sometimes when swarms are invisible, but I'd say 80% of the time you see them, and if you're close enough, you hear it leaving the tubes 100% of the time. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2716	Posted - 2015.01.11 18:45:00 - [93] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: But people like me, Atiim, and a few others know how to wreck the chrome vehicles. That's why hulls and modules were removed and vehicles overall nerfed, right? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2719	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:59:00 - [94] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move. I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2719	Posted - 2015.01.11 22:23:00 - [95] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging. Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move. I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant. You won't like this Spkr but the Large Missile Launcher is inappropriate as they currently are for a tank turret.....they need to be altered or removed. Lolwut Small missiles, not large. And that would be yet another nerf to tanks. Why do you support nerfing tanks? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 04:40:00 - [96] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 05:02:00 - [97] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. See Rattati's vision of the Falchion: insta-pop the Vayu. Dunno the HP he's considering for the hulls, or any possible turret stat changes, but I don't think the missiles will change much if at all. Instead of nerfing stuff into the ground to be on par with the lowest common denominator, we could bring the railguns and blasters back up some, and nerf the missiles only a little to get them to try to be on par. Then the only question becomes do you want vanilla, Neopolitan or Rocky Road flavor? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 05:03:00 - [98] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you. Ooooooooooooooooooooh... not asking for any specifics, but any idea on when you'll post that? And when you do, can you also post it in General Discussions? There's probably a few that only check this section of the forums when they're told about something. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 05:06:00 - [99] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you. Fantastic! I'm sure Pokey and Thaddeus will be pleased as I know they have brought their proposals to your attention. By the way please don't wholly mistake my mannerisms purely as bitterness. I do apologise for coming off in that manner. It's more zeal.... passion if you will. Dust made me too Amarrian for my own good. I've sent mine in as well, including turret numbers; I tweaked the MLT turrets to be slightly worse than the STD ones, mostly to encourage people to at least get level one into the turret operations. I also feel there should be a MLT large missile turret, and just the same as I put in a spreadsheet, slightly worse than the STD. I also added fragmented and AV small missiles; fragmented to get hopefully 80% of the old Python fire rate back, while doing far less than half the direct damage, but more splash than direct. Some will ask "how?" Answer: we have cluster bombs today. It's essentially that. AV is slower firing than the missile we have now, while doing more damage with a full meter less splash than the current missiles, and a lot less splash damage with a slightly slower fire rate. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 06:58:00 - [100] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks. Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly. Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields? If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields? Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets. Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors There isn't a brick Madrugar anymore. If you're carrying too much armor, you're gimping the fit by lowering acceleration and top speed. Dunno about maneuverability though. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2720	Posted - 2015.01.12 07:10:00 - [101] - Quote True Adamance wrote: how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons? Experience I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2736	Posted - 2015.01.14 04:34:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels Laser strike = Rattati's own words. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2736	Posted - 2015.01.14 05:06:00 - [103] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels Laser strike = Rattati's own words. That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else. Dunno what you don't understand about his own words. I escaped the edge of a laser strike in a Maddy, because I think quickly and had my NOS ready to go. Problem was there was a tank not far, so I had to engage it with very little health. Next you're going to say quick thinking is OP. Again, I don't understand what you don't understand about his own words. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2736	Posted - 2015.01.14 05:44:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: he wants to double the EHP of marauders from their chrome stats. Rattati wanted proposals, now he's working on his own. We don't know what modules he's considering, or slot layouts, or the bonuses the vehicles will have. If he wants the Marauders to remain 3/2 and 2/3, then yeah, they must have huge base HP to be (again, in his own words) mammoth tanks easily dispatched by a laser strike. I keep having to bring up things that Rattati has said he wants for vehicles. Why do you keep ignoring his vision? This is not in any way balanced, nor should it be considered in any way a sane proposal. 1.7 wasn't a sane hotfix. If you said orbital strikes do 50% less damage I would be on board. But not doubling the EHP. If I can escape a laser in a trash Maddy, then a Marauder should have a much better chance with all modules active as well as a NOS. Even now, warbarge strikes are child's play. Of course, you don't want Rattati's proposed mammoth tanks to have HP worthy of being considered 'mammoth'. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:31:00 - [105] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Viper and Gorgon: +15% buff to base PG/CPU lolwut. Buff that by a lot, but nothing else? lol Sica and Soma should retain current speeds in uprising 1.10 build Gunnlogi and madrugar: since I don't have data on moement, speed reduced from current So MLT hulls keep the same speed, but STD hulls move slower? That would be like Ferrari introducing a mid-level sedan. Surya: Skill changed to +5% repaired per level with armor repair modules Actually something smart. Sagaris: skill changed to +5% per level of amount gained via shield boosters Better off with higher recharge. So just one bonus, eh? I see Myron and Grimsnes: 30% buff to base PG and CPU These are quite fine right now actually. I still doubt you've ever set foot in the pilot's seat of any vehicle. Eryx: comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Shield Transporter, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level Prometheus:comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Remote Armor Repair, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level If spawn time on a logi ship isn't 5 seconds at level 5 at the very most, then it's not worth it in PC and FW, which is what the game is supposed to be balanced around. Charybdis Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Remote Armor Repair Limbus Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Shield Transporter If we have 5% PG/CPU per level, this won't be a problem. They should come pre-fit with infantry modules, with a third slot for remote vehicle modules. Falchion: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large missiles, 5%/level to reload speed Vayu: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large blasters, 5%/level to reload speed That's worse than the Uprising Enforcers. You're giving me a stronger feeling every time you post that you've never been in a vehicle, ever. Reduced fitting? It was that way in Uprising, they had MLT stats. 50% reduction to fitting turrets? Terrible ideas Added remote armor rep for use as a small turret Added remote shield rep for use as a turret Why bother using them as logistics then? Anybody that tried using them found them to be slow, clunky and incredibly frustrating to use. Everybody else is a fan of area of effect, why bring back something that didn't work? Reduced base protection of 180mm plates by 20% Why bother having them if that's the case? AV: Reduced Plasma Cannon reload and reduced charge time to allow it to act in a real anti vehicle capacity They already get a reload skill, and another one on top of that when used with a commando suit. Heavy Damage mods restored to 5/7/10 lolwut Swarms retained as CURRENT (Uprising 1.0) type. Still broken AV grenades restored to chromosome values Might as well send down asteroids. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:42:00 - [106] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows. What part of his own words* don't you understand?* 2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak What's wrong with vehicles getting 5% per level to CPU, PG, shield and armor per level? Along with making base hulls weaker than current stats, but stronger than they currently are when those skills are at level 5? 3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV Surya EHP was excessive. No, the correct answer is............... nobody had AV. 4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesht. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps. 180mm polycrystalline plate didn't add that much.* 5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs Yes, because the corp battle players weren't ever complaining that marauders were dominating the matches. It's called teamwork, and I would imagine each team could field more than one vehicle pilot at all times. Because after all, why should the game be balanced around pubs? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:46:00 - [107] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it. The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained. Why do you always think in terms of "I must do this myself," rather than hoping there's a pilot on your team? That kind of thinking is poisonous. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:47:00 - [108] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.15 01:14:00 - [109] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2763	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:38:00 - [110] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. Paranoid I hear therapists are good for that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2770	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:16:00 - [111] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. Look what I found. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2797	Posted - 2015.01.19 17:58:00 - [112] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers. Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck. They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2798	Posted - 2015.01.19 18:30:00 - [113] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly? He doesn't know and won't tell you because he's not a pilot. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:38:00 - [114] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing. A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way. Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:39:00 - [115] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers. Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck. They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. cry harder. My tear bucket still has room. I'm crying tears. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:40:00 - [116] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers. Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck. They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. 7802.04 base Damage with an Explosive Damage Type in 8.1225 seconds assuming they where in a proto minmando with dual complex damage mods (only counting the first 5 volleys)....and had absolutely perfect timing with their locks Dual swarms, so not that long. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:47:00 - [117] - Quote 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 may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:49:00 - [118] - 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! lolwut I took a tank out practically every match I played last night. I may have lost 3-4, including one match where the enemy team most likely know who I am, and took out 3 shield-rail tanks to combat my armor-rail tank. Have you ever seen me in a match? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 - [119] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 don't care if people don't agree with me. If they don't have the experience, then their opinion means next to nothing. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2799	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:52:00 - [120] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles. Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? cowers in fear Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.21 18:33:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hi everyone, can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps. I don't know what you mean by undebatable fits, but we don't have "PRO" fits for tanks and dropships. We don't have PRO hulls, thus we can't have PRO fits. If you want a PRO turret, you need to sacrifice some defense for it. If you want the best defense you can fit, you have to sacrifice damage. Infantry doesn't have to do this since they get the best of both. I'm able to fit an assault Gk0 with a Balac's and Cala's with great defense, and I've even beat a sentinel with it in a PC. Here's some of my fits: For Madrugar: Ion Cannon basic NOS complex damage mod 2x armor rep CPU or PG upgrade, don't remember which Particle Cannon basic NOS complex damage mod 2x armor rep CPU upgrade Particle Cannon basic NOS complex damage mod armor rep basic hardener CPU or PG upgrade, don't remember which Gunnlogi: Particle Cannon 2x damage mods 1 hardener 1 armor plate 1 PG upgrade Particle Cannon 1 shield extender 2x shield hardeners 1 armor plate 1 PG upgrade XT-201 Missile 1 shield extender 2x shield hardeners 1 armor plate 1 PG upgrade There really isn't anything else that's viable. All variety was lost when 1.7 deployed. We used to be able to passive tank both hulls, using passive hardeners for fewer modules to worry about, or we could go for a strong tank with all active modules. I have a few more fits that I can't remember. I'll post exact fittings later. Vehicles are in a sorry state right now. I'm surprised there are still some pilots left. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

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.