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)
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 600	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:25:00 - [1] - Quote Some constructive Critiscm of the Tank fitting philopshy as per your spreadsheet. For the Falchion: - Slow Turn Speed - Low HP - Same slots - Fast Turret tracking -Slow Forward Speed This is pretty much the epitome of the Redline RailTank. Without the HP buffer to at least survive an infantry ambush, or the speed to get away through an ambush, these guys will only be safe within the redline, trying to snipe tanks and other infantry then roll backwards. Which double and triple modded tanks already do, yet the slow turret tracking speed helps to counter this somewhat. It ougt to more closley follow in the Vayu below. Maurader - Normal Turn Speed - Massive HP - Same slots - Slow turret tracking - Normal Forward speed This is a good philosophy for a hard hitting tank, makes it tough to engage head on but gives other faster tanks a fighting chance. Vayu - Fast turn Speed - Low HP - Same slots - Slow Turret Tracking - Fast Forward SpeedSide grade to MBT This is more what i envision a tank destroyer to be. Very fast, low hp but hit and run Maruader - Slow turn speed - Massive HP - Same slots - Normal Turret tracking - Normal Forward speed I envision this pretty much aas a beefier maddy. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 605	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:43:00 - [2] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Al the destroyer wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once. Tank ISK prices have not changed since 1.7 dropped. Why do you think its extremely rare right now to encounter 6 enemy tanks? Give me 6 forge gunners and see how quickly those 6 tanks disapear, either dead or in the redline. Plus tanks usually run into enemy tanks. We dont even see 6 militia fit sicas any more, i can't see why your worrying about a match where you would find very expensive 6 proto fit maruaders. Its half a million for a proto fit gunlogi right now, i can't see 6 players spending 3,000,000 or more isk in a pub match, let alone the cost of the higher tier tanks. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 639	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:30:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with. Assumptions: All Skills to 5 Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules Must fit Large Turret Optional to fit Small Turrets Arbitrary Example: Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - None Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Advanced Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - Basic Turrets Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Fitting Main Turret - Proto Turret Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 660	Posted - 2014.12.27 10:44:00 - [4] - Quote Wow and i thought the ADS threads went south, more than half of this seems to be crying about whether breaking stuff is a tanker or not. Who cares? I in fact respect his opinion NOT because he agreed with pilots that the nerf was harsh, but spent good time testing it out ingame to verify the findings. Like it or not we need a dedicated rational AV player (scrub) to help balance out what we want from the tanks, and what the infantry will have to deal with. Can we get back on subject? If not,its seems like the Rational voices are being drowned out. Would love to continues this elsewhere. True, Pokey, Breakingstuff, other players who can have a discussion about vehicles coming back can catch me in game or on skype. Tesfa514. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 664	Posted - 2014.12.29 16:14:00 - [5] - Quote Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 665	Posted - 2014.12.29 20:39:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can. You can take it easy man, its not your actual job. From what i can glean, you've got the best compilation of ideas pitched here. Once it gets a bit streamlined hopefully we can put together a new feedback thread. This one has gone slightly off the rails. no pun intended. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 665	Posted - 2014.12.29 23:15:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall. Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion. So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff. Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at. And this is pretty typical behavior. Fun, huh? Asking to call off the HAV reintroduction because of two guys you cant get along with, is counterproductive. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 673	Posted - 2015.01.02 09:28:00 - [8] - Quote 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 687	Posted - 2015.01.09 04:22:00 - [9] - Quote A couple questions on the numbers. This isnt meant to be offesnsive, but its sure isnt going to be nice. 1) Why would i run a tank with a negative 25% damage bonus to a very expensive turret? Basically your Sagaris and Suraya are fat slow piniatas. 2) Why the STD tank redesign, and i do not have kind words for the stats on the maddy and gunlogi. I would not like a 4-0 gunlogi with a passive shield regen of 18.1. My militia dropsuits rep shields faster than that. hell all of the shield regen numbers are bad, the infantry would riot if they had those numbers. There is no use for a 3-3 madrugar, espeially with you slash proposed base hp stats from 5200 to 3400. 3) Caldari enforcer a 50% increase to range is in no way acceptable. 450 meters is from one red line to the other. 4)Amarr 15% natural armor resists, nope. Not with 4 low slots. 5) those turret stats, trying not to offend, but ........i dont know where to begin. if you want pro rail turrets to do 3242 damage per shot...sigh just tell me where did you get these numbers from? some ideas are okay, but the majority, no. I think you are trying to take on too much at once, and those stats seem impossible to get rght without testing, and since nothing in vehicle related in dust is tested until after release, no i dont want to sit through months of these numbers at all. I think you shoud not tweak the base hulls that we already have and move the maruaders up and the enforces down the ladder respectively. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 687	Posted - 2015.01.10 01:39:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 690	Posted - 2015.01.10 11:55:00 - [11] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds... I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now. I dont think seconds is the apppropiate standard AV fights though they seem instantaneous has realtivley long engagement time. I think we should focus on number of shots to kill a tank, and we have to stay with current AV values. To make things a bit more complicated you're going to have to theory craft alot of fits, but once you have the formula down (i dont even math bros) then its just about punching in numbers and excell does the rest. i.e Swarms vs Armor - 1 volley does X amount of damage vs Madrugar with 3 slots - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate + 1 hardener + 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 2 plates 1 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 3 plates 0 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 2 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 3 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 0 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 2 hardener 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 1 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 0 hardener 3 repper it takes n shots to kill it something like that Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 690	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:43:00 - [12] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Just added AV Grenades...I forgot them (Should I add Flux Grenades as well?) Want me to use the current 2/3? My currently proposed 3/3? and should I account for possible utility modules and such? (mCRUs, Scanners, Nitro etc?) (I've got a bunch of modules I still have to add to the vehicle modules page first, so I'll have to finish that first) Once I have that done I'll start theory-crafting the possible fits for the Maddy (hopefully by lunchtime), then I'll try the same for the Gunnlogi...then the other two proposed racial HAVs (should be easier once I have the two others done) I think you should use the current vehicle and module stats first, and then make adjustments from that. As far as we know, these are not going to change anytime soon, and we need to have a solid foundation to begin with. Current vahicle stats and Av stats is it. Its not something that you should take on by yourself, but if we can get some other guys interested to put up the various possible fits stats for eHP (looking at you tankers). This way if you add say 1 more slot for the enforcer for example, you only have to do the additional math for one slot. Also, Breaking stuff, the Swarms were just an example, the real pain in the ass is going to be getting the stats for all AV that can damage vehicles, including small turrets for dropship, and large turrets. Once we have this sort of foundation, theory crafting the Enforcers and Marudars etc can be measured using real data. We can all see the effects of adding an extra harderner and what it means for AV of all types, using most of our real gameplay experience we can judge whether an extra say 2 shots with a specific forge gun is going to feel OP or UP. Swarmers can comment on how many extra volleys they think it should require to bring various maruader tank fits, Pilots can see how many extra small rail rounds they might need, and other tankers will know how much fire power they will need to bring a new tank down. I think its better than random stabs in the dark we are working with now. There are some very good ideas, but they are being based on what people want tanks to be rather than adjusting based on what we have solidly infront of us. Forget new modules, or turrets, or racial vehicles that we have no clue whether or not they are going to be implemntedin the near future. Frankly we need to have a spreadsheet based on the current dust reality that says here is a tank fit, it can have this much ehp and requires this to destroy it in this many shots. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 699	Posted - 2015.01.12 11:46:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons? Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation. Missile Pros and cons Pro: High aplha DPS Bonus to Amor Neutral: Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you Cons: Low sustainable DPS Long reload times 10 seconds Weak vs shields Poor vs infantry Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 706	Posted - 2015.01.14 06:42:00 - [14] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer fo cused's proposal DOUBLES MARAUDER EHP FROM CHROMOSOME LEVELS. What is so hard to comprehend about this? Agreed, this is completley unacceptable. Muh Orbitals are a poor reason to advocate this. In fact, i would ignore the impact that orbitals have completley on tank balance, orbitals are supossed to kill everything in its blast radius. if you want to bring out a devastating tank but its too slow to escape, and it gets nuked, its called a sad day for you. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 710	Posted - 2015.01.15 11:40:00 - [15] - Quote I do like most of you proposal, lol at naming officer weapons after you and your buddies, but the Av changes....well, well, well. I disagree to the your forge guns changes, heavy damage mod changes, and the AV grenades. Not sure if i'm going to describe you as biased, but adding roughly over 1000 potential damage (factor in damage mod stacking and you number changes) and removing all draw backs for Forge guns (breach charge wont lock you in place, charge time decreased for all forge guns)... Current Forge numbers are more than suffcient. Wirykami breach max skills currently do 2415 damage without damage mods. Your version would do 2500 base, + max skills 2,875 without damage mods. Add a new 10% damage mod to that 3162, + 10% damage to armor 3478, Dropships already have a hard enough time as it is, i'd like for you not to have to land one shot to take down a python and two to take down an incubus without having to use damage mods. Fully damage mod stacked on a caldari heavy, one round woud be all you need to clean the sky, thats extremley OP. 3.5 seconds between shots max skills...And you want breach forge guns to roam free? I'm onto you. The old chrome grenades were extremley OP, and to revert back to them now will negate the purpose of bringing in AV fits to begin with. 5,292 damage in three grenades, why would you even need a swarm fit or a forge gun fit when two squadmates can do 10,384 damage chucking these auto homing things from behind a supply depot or nanite field? You've already concurred that current swarms have noo need of a buff vs chrome vehicles, i have hard time fathoming why a form of Av with does less damage than current forge gun is capapble, and yet forge guns need to buffed to compensate for new vales? I think you know by now that I may have a pro vehicle bias, but i do want the game to balanced for everyone. I'd say look at how the stats, play out, and if we end up returning the bad old days of 1.7 then bring the Forge and AV grenades up to spec. But man, i really dont like the idea of limping along in my incubus after one hit from you proposed forge guns hit takes me from 4274 hp down to 796 hp with one damage mod. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:55:00 - [16] - Quote sure dude, you can find me on skype tesfa514 Back the Forge gun numbers vs ADS, yes it would still be a two shot to the dropship. TTK from the breach wont change so much. Yet, with current stats Prof 5 W. breach (+ 10% damage + 10% bonus to armor) i would still have that extra 1,351 HP on the incubus. I can evade and possibly negate the effect of a swarm missile fired in conjunction. No enough to survive another direct hit, but enought to survive a following strike with swarms. ROF bonus would be nice, but that doesn't necessarily help with survivability. They are an offensive measure and not a defensive one. Perhaps theory craft an addtional high for inc. For the python, that should be left to the dedicated python pilots, i don't thing they would have much use for another low slot except for another CPU or PG upgrade slot to fit better high slot modules. An extra high on the inc could be used for either a shield extender or shield booster without sacrificing the afterburner. Hard to say really. AV grenades, yes i know its the old school chrome grenades, but they were insanely OP even back then. Would not want to go back to those days at all. And the pre 1.7 days, you didn't really need a dedicated AV fit, because grenades were enough on thier own to kill any tank. They should be a finisher, and not the equavalent primary weapon. Overall though, big two thumbs up, i like what i see. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:26:00 - [17] - Quote Evasive manouvers are fine (if you call sweaty nerve racking moments of circling a forge gun on the roof in a fight of attrition fine) vs forges. i'm not a python pilot so i'm used to my flying brick. I prefer the idea of an active module as a densive counter measure to use as soon as we do get hit. As long as the ADS has to sacrfice slots to fit PG and CPU they will always be minus one low slot, screwing wih the theorcrafting. To be fair, i havnt taken into consideration how the return of old modules would affect the ADS, mostly i've been looking at things from a tankers perspective. e.g Will the proposed hardener stats hold up? Will Active reppers do well? i have no idea, i was a transport pilot ( loved my gorgon) back then and was trying to spec into the Logi DS. Certainly will need 5% ROF buff or a rail gun buff to deal with the high ehp tanks. If you've ever seen a dropship try to take out a blaster installtion that cant even move, you know how miserable it may be trying to small rail a 12,k hp Sagaris. which leads me back to the Av nade point. Why not just up the count to three nades and leave damage stats as they are? Yes i hear ya, The sagaris and suraya have tons of eHP, but the other tanks and LAVs dont. I think of how many people each match pull out core locus grenades, and by only changing the 'nades on the suit, 3 nades will pop anything that wasn't a Proto fit suraya or sagaris, for a minute fraction of the cost. Being an AV should be more than that, and we run the risk of making the suraya and sagirs into what the gulogi is today, i.e. The only viable fit vs AV so thats what tankers run. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:16:00 - [18] - Quote Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 712	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:40:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: unless someone has a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm going to run as follows: Blasters: High DPS, High RoF, Low Alpha (700-ish DPS proto) Missiles: Mid DPS, Mid RoF, Mid Alpha (600 DPS-ish Proto) Rails: Low DPS, Low RoF, High Alpha. (500 DPS-ish Proto) It should be: Missiles high alpha Rails low alpha I can only state this along the lines of current meta for a tank engagement : Missiles have do have high alpha but have to get involved in the fight. proto VS a shield tank it will take at least 2 full clips. Rails have the longest range and can kill a tank in 4-5 shots out of 9 round clip, Its alpha is already pretty high (you just dont shrug off a rail hit) combining high alpha with the protection of the redline is a deal breaker. More and more, i'm thining its the -20/+20 profile against armor that hurts tank meta more than just raw DPS. I would love to see them revert back to -10/+10 to more effectivley hurt shield tanks as well as give Armor tanks a fighting chance. That 10% is the difference between a militia damage mod and a complex one. Add on complex one on top of that, its no wonder armor tanks don't survive, when missiles can do 140% damage. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 718	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 - [20] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles. Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? cowers in fear Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in. You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data. Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 718	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:36:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data. Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost. Actually Tesfa I've been wondering. Since you are a pilot....(which kind of vehicle I am not to sure but DS and HAV seems to resonate) could you remind me about your opinions on the subject of rebalance/ redesign? I've talked with Breaking about some of this stuff. Dropships: Dedicated Inc pilot, i have the SP in place to run a proto python, but its jst not my thing. VS Infantry AV Dropship pilots just want to have a functioning counter to swarms. Not afterburn straight into the air to go back to the " lol swarms" days, or keep things as we have now. VS forges right now its all good. VS Tanks Its the pilots engagement to lose, even if the pilot cannot win. large turrets shouldn't reach so high, but i would love the small turrets on top of the tank to give a better angle for tank AAA defense. Not 90 degrees but perhaps 80 degrees might work. Slight buff to ROF or (as i think others have pointed out) a seperate designation for ADS small turrets. So we wont have two mini tank killers on the nose of a gunlogi or higher, but enough punch so that the inc wont be scared to engage the new heavy tanks. Tanks: VS Infantry AV I run both a gunlogi and madrugar, and shield tanks are in an excellent place right now. Regardless of what Spkr says, VS 1 swarmer i can switch on a hardener and drive around a corner. There is an option to drive away that some havent caught on to yet. Despite the complaints about no shield AV i've run into Plasma cannons over the last couple days that have given me a very rough time. It just that plasma cannons aren't popular to use. If they were as popular as swarms, man, shield tanks would be having a rough time of it. But hey, for my guni AV ignorance is bliss. Blasters however are pretty ineffective. They just need a few tweeks to be honest. Right now they are merley OK for killing infantry and the worst of the three for fighting other tanks. You are better off going only anti tank, and not running the blaster. VS Tanks Missiles are OP vs Armor tanks but very UP vs other shields. 2 clips of every missile hitting to kill another gunlogi, no other large turret requires 2 clips for a kill. That said, it hardly takes more than one burst to kill any armor tank. This is why i would rather up the armor tanks defenses rather than nerf missiles. in short i agree with pokeys basis for balance. Vehicle fights should be long enough to recover from an ambush if you are properly fit, but not so long that it becomes a fight for attrition or punishes the patient player who set up a proper ambush. Really, it all comes down balancing engagements within a few seconds. As long as we can give everyone a fighting chance (no to the rock paper scissors whay of doing things) then i'm down. I've told breaking before though, i can only give feedback based on my current experience and use that to try to work out if your hypotheticals may work or not. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:53:00 - [22] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it? What about damage bonuses? +10% -10% to shield for blasters -10%+10% rails? -20% +20% missiles is for sure. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 would get a 586 / 717.2 spread Highest base Missile DPS: 750 or a 600 / 900 spread Highest base blaster DPS: 850 or a 935 / 765 spread Also, becare full about the upclose blaster thing, its nothing for an armor tank to fit a speed booster and wreck you upclose. You dont need any stratgey you'll just charge in firing , and with the size of plalabe area on some maps being extremely small, its not something i would encourage. Thats how they fought rail tanks and lived to tell the tale, which only encouraged rail tanks to seek the saftey of the redlone to get out of blaster optimal. With the bonuses it looks like a close fight between the shield missile vs armor blaster. A blaster can still take on railtanks and win, but we have to watch out between balancing blasters for armor tanks, and see them equiped on a gunlogi. I've said this before, before you are sure something is balanced according to how you think it should be run, you also have to consider of all the bastardized ways someone else can put them together. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:14:00 - [23] - Quote @ Breaking yeah, mix and match is somehing that will have to be dealt with seperatley depnding on the tank fits. The more i think about it, the less i think it is the responsiblity of you to come up those proposals. Its something that tankers with experience should comment on after any changes got implemented, not really before. Any sort of random fits found to be rediculously overpowered, like the dual afterburners on a DS can be fixed later, maybe with a module cap or something. So don't bother with it. True Adamance wrote: Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:31:00 - [24] - Quote speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:00:00 - [25] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:25:00 - [26] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no? I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 722	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:53:00 - [27] - Quote 1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range? No. 2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range. 3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it. 4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved [/quote] Problem hasn't been solved, but lets not compound the problem even futher. By the way, to be clear, are you saying you want the 600m rail turrets to return? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 727	Posted - 2015.01.21 05:07:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Hi everyone, can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps. Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. You mean for current? If so, what True said. all right and Maddies? and there is no single best Turret ? Large turrets VS Armor tanks, missiles is the best turret, then rails and blasters last VS shield tanks, Rails, blasters, then missiles VS Dropships Rail, missiles, blaster VS infantry, blasters, rails a close second (ohk) ad missiles third So it depends on your test, but most competent tankers will have fis with all three turret variants and will bring the right one for the right job. "OP "Madurgar: Ion turret Fuel injector (leave second slot open to acount for low fitting space Plate Repper (add in module of choice here, probably either a second plate or a hardener) Maddies, well, the only thing going for them is the Ion Turret. Other than that meta wise they are far too flexible (if they dare get on the field) to come up with one OP fit. My own madrugar fit isn't popular. Also, i'll leave the "op" python fits to the python pilots. As an incubus pilot, this is the fit i run the most, and have fought the most. 1 complex Afterbuner Proto turret: (Rail or missile, this depends on situation though it doesn't change survivability. hunting tanks means i'm flying just as low as i need to to hunt infantry, and are thus succeptable to infantry AV as well ) 1 complex PG 1 complex 120 mm plate 1 complex light repper Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 727	Posted - 2015.01.21 05:39:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those. When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods. Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options. Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting? ? In regads to the redline gunnys, not asking for a nerf, just pointing out a very dangerous fit most don't consider. 4.4 K armor and 3.6 K shield + rail turret + damage mods, very leathal tank. just some side commentary, For vehicles the fitting philosphy is all about balancing survivability and costs, and whats the most powerfull turret you can fit with your prefered level of security. Cant really glass cannon it the way you would say an assault Ak/1 with two damage mods and a viziam, becuase the pro large turrets alone cost more than 250,000 isk. Thats why the meta has switched to shield tanks, they have the most survivability. In terms of having one good module, it is a bit restrictive. Maybe having multiple good modules but you can only keeping one active at a time. Two damage mods, sure, but instead of getting +40% damage output, your stuck at +20 consistently. Personaly, i would cap hardeners at two, and restrict damage mods to only having one active at a time. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 727	Posted - 2015.01.21 06:26:00 - [30] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike. Reagarding tanks fights, dont worry, most of this already is current meta. Gunlogis are very bad a turret tracking close range, and even missile tanks need to get that first shot in before the armor tanks can react. Nitrous booster will make a blaster tank dance around a rail gunlogi. Its armor tanks exended survivabliity vs missiles and infantry AV thats led to the current meta. regarding enforcers, I think in some proposals, they compensate the enforcer for a little less HP but a small bonus to damage outpput and speed. get in fast hit hard and then attempt to drive away, but if the enemy tank sees you first your a goner. Regarding dropships vs tanks: high speed and manuverable enough, just need a tweak to damage output. Tank small turrets should be angle high enough to counter ADS to compensate. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 729	Posted - 2015.01.21 18:57:00 - [31] - Quote @ Breaking I occured to me that though we are dropping our fav fits for the current build we ought to go over beast mode fits from your spreadsheet. The same goes for True, pokey, thaddeus and the like. Anybod with proper chrome or Pre 1.8 tank fits for enforcers and maruaders ought to put up thier favorite ones as well. Put it in your signature or something guys, I can't keep scrolling through near 70 pages of comments. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 730	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:01:00 - [32] - Quote [quote=True Adamance] Karkadan and Kargadan, or KhaRga represents a mythological carnivorous creatures that was like the apotheosis to the unicorn, and often depicted as a Rhinoceros. /quote] My Amarr tank karkadan Kardashian and my Amarr dropship, kargadan Cardigan.... Has a ring to it. I might rename my Incubus to Kardashian. Big rear, depends more on looks than actual talent. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

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.