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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15903	Posted - 2014.12.15 09:38:00 - [1] - Quote 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 *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15904	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:29:00 - [2] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced. That's honestly debatable. One thing I think most pilots and AV liked about Marauders was the cost. To fit them out, to take pride in them, and when the vehicle goes up in smoke the satisfaction of a really juicy kill. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15904	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:45:00 - [3] - Quote Just to get some things early in the thread for Rattati's eyes to see I'll throw down some links to specific vehicle suggestions threads and can update them as required as more are posted. Pokey Dravon's Vehicle Rebalance https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing True Adamance's Reintroduction of the 180mm Reinforced Armour Plate https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2517569#post2517569 True Adamance's Redesignation of the Large Blaster Turret https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=182471 Tesfa Alem's Vehicle Module Discussion Thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=184256&find=unread Deathwind Rising's Sagaris Discussion Thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2507447#post2507447 Here are a few but its 11:44 and I have to get up at 6:30 for a bike ride and head off to work. Will post more as I find them during my breaks. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15924	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:00:00 - [4] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer. The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed. So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots. Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...) Yet T2 Ships almost always have more module slots that T1's. The issue I see with it is that even if the power of Marauders or Enforcers in is their role bonuses that tanks themselves aren't very interesting or enjoyable to use. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15928	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:52:00 - [5] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry. We fight over those tall towers all the time near that old objective with the pipes.We could have a high up objective on a tower that we have to stay near or have a hacking module on the vehicle to hack it up in the air with a dropship. Big Rolling hills with the old Chromsome Vehicle Weight station Resupply that is activated by vehicle weight to attack enemy mcc.It only fires at a mcc if a vehicle is on it. Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal. Lets not get distracted. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15929	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:12:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order. Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine) Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat Determine preferred slot layouts Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.) Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles Grrr Pokey. I spent an hour this morning agonizing over a bare bones post that summarised my points...... and you surmised them all in bullet points, probably in minutes...... Certainly the latter two are very important. Which modules if any are coming back, how will they affect the balance of vehicles and what will they achieve, once all is said and done the vehicle base stats are a small part that really don't need to be drastically different tank to tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:59:00 - [7] - Quote Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:07:00 - [8] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. Do do I. Yet to be fair consider that, shameless self advertisement, if Rails remain as they are, missile remain as they are, Blasters fall under the model I suggested, we have two rather simple existing models that we could use for the other turrets. Big Laser Beams...... and the only blaster mechanics for Auto Cannons........ but yes I cry for the thought of Beams lancing from a Blaster turret...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:18:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15939	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:46:00 - [10] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Gunnlogi (2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender) Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base) Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base) Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle 60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP 15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 75s Average eHP = 6747 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s (Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.) Recharge Delay 4s Burst Hardener eHP Cycle 30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP 45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 105s Average eHP = 6877 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s Recharge Delay 4s Madrugar (1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate) Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base) Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles Assumed Pure Armor Tanking 45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP 37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s Average eHP = 7887 eHP Repair Rate = 138HP/s Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s Recharge Delay 0s Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep. If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals. 1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs 2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows. My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV? Nope this is simply how HAV are currently. This is bad. No HAV should ever have high static eHP values AND regenerative power like the Gunnlogi has now. Instead vehicle pilots need to be able to determine what they want to do with their vehicle. Do they active tank and fit module that provide transient benefits (powerful reps or resistances) or passive tank and receive constant but smaller benefits and less regenerative power..... or somewhere in between. But no vehicle pilot should ever have both. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15945	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:04:00 - [11] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill? I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine. Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost. Yes and no. Because something is expensive, and thus a limiting factor in its use in the same way Prototype dropsuits are vs Basic, it should have benefit that allow it to become tougher through skilled use. At the same time no as in it should never be something that cannot be destroyed. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15948	Posted - 2014.12.16 02:38:00 - [12] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? The Barrel of the Combat Rifle into the Caldari one...... = Boom solved all art asset issues! Frankensteined laser turrets wouldn't be so bad, I don't think it would work quite so well for projectiles though. Chuck the HMG barrel on a Caldari Turret. Or a Large Combat Rifle Barrel and forward sections of the gun's body. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15964	Posted - 2014.12.16 08:07:00 - [13] - Quote Just so people are aware. A Tank Destroyer historically referred to an Armoured Fighting Vehicle expressly designed to fight other tanks. Basically the Tank Destroyer was an incredibly large calibre self propelled artillery piece armed with a fixed angle turret. The rounds fired from these tanks travelled at incredibly velocities adding to the vehicles penetrative power. Additionally most Tank destroyers due to the fixed angle of their guns had angled armour along the frontal hull of the vehicle to deflect incoming rounds away from the vehicle. While in modern times the Tank Destroyer is not a part of most military armoured divisions as Main Battle Tanks now fulfil multiple roles on a single hull there has been a resurgence in these kinds of vehicles under the name "Protected Gun Systems". I mention this because of a specific design philosophy that I think that the Enforcer Tanks should have kept in mind while CCP Rattati is working on them. The Enforcer is designed to simulate the Tank Destroyer Role. The Tank Destroyer had incredibly large calibre guns at a fixed angle, and one of the common traits for larger main cannon was that the turret tracked more slowly, or in most cases did not track at all. Now we cannot just take full turret traversal away from the Enforcer Tank, I doubt most HAV pilots would support that idea, but what could be looked at is the idea that the Enforcer should be considered a "Protected Gun System" and should in theory to simulate its larger gun and designation as Anti Tank Platform be reliant, or encourage its pilots to fit weapons systems modules. For Example- Heat Sinks (Laser Weapons) Gyrostabilisers (Projectile Weapons) Flux Stabilisation Fields (Hyrbid Weapons) Loading Bay Co-ordinators (Missile Weapons) Tracking Computers (High Slot Active Tracking Modules) Tracking Enhancers (Low Slot Passive Tracking Modules) Torque Modules Ammunition Modules Etc There are a number of ways to encourage this kind of gameplay. One if to make such modules rather cheap to fit in comparison to eHP modules and Repair Modules thereby making them useful. Another means is to give the Enforcer less fitting allocations meaning that less eHP and Repair modules can be fitted, while some will be required a limited number of these kinds of fittings prevents eHP stacking and then damage module stacking for abuse. Turret Tracking Penalties on the Enforcer Hull as a Role wide penalty to encourage the use of tracking modules and or less ammunition carried on the hull. Coupled with fair hull turning capabilities this should make for trade offs when considering precise target acquisition. There are more of less artificial means of placing the vehicle in the role but I feel in some respects they are fair and almost necessary to prevent pilots from being the exploitative creatures we are. A real world parallel is the Jagdtiger which was a heavily armoured and fixed angle German Tank Destroyer equipped with a 128mm Gun (40mm large in calibre than the standard German 88mm Artillery piece). An EVE side comparison could be something like the "BattleCruiser Platforms" which is a pseudo class of battle cruiser comprised of ships that gain fitting bonuses to Large (battleship class) Turrets with all the benefits those entail such as range and fire power but are usually considered paper thin in terms of eHP. The penalties however for using these turrets are capacitor consumption and slow tracking meaning they suffer when trying to engage much smaller vessels. The vessels also lack the ability in most cases to field drones. Usually these kinds of ships are used for Sniping (like Tank Destroyers) and are fitted to improve range, tracking, and DPS as much as possible. Additionally considering the Large Blaster Turret in relation to this class of Hull I fervently believe that either - The Gallente AND Caldari should have a bonus that applies to BOTH Railguns AND Blasters as both are Hyrbid Turrets - No Enforcer should receive buffs to Missiles as DPS is already too great - No Hull should suffer arbitrary tracking penalties that are not part of the turrets profile unless it is a class/hull wide modifier - An Enforcer should have moderate capacity to turn in place regardless of racial profile. All Anti Tank Vehicles would share this design feature regardless of who was designing it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15966	Posted - 2014.12.16 08:27:00 - [14] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15972	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:59:00 - [15] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: True Adamance wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them." Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one! Yes we do realise that..... it is only after all common sense.... But no the ultimate tank killer is any tank with an Xt-201 *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:54:00 - [16] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. The Maths of it is as follows. NB- Protofits uses the Projectile Damage Values for the LML? Is this an in game feature? That would make them even more powerful. PRO Tier - Xt-201 Large Missile Launchers Direct Damage - 539.5 Direct Damage vs Armour- 620.43 Direct Damage vs Shields- 458.58 DPS- 3596.7 Total Magazine Damage- 6474 Direct Damage vs a Hardened Shield HAV - 3301.92 (add damage module thats 3631.9) *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:05:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:25:00 - [18] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. To avoid damage creep we could potentially look at a fitting reduction bonus for Large Turrets to facilitate easier use of higher tiered turrets? Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:12:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! I suppose the thought is that decreasing the cost of the Large Turret means that it encourages the fitting of a higher tiered turret, over using a lower tiered one and using additional resources to overtank yourself and end up with a very speedy and tanky fit. I guess it kinda comes down to do you can it to be like an Assault or like a Commando? Similar role but different execution. Regardless you raise valid points about a straight damage bonus, just understand my fear of HAV battles turning into nothing but 1-2 shotting each other with rails because that's all that is effective due to damage creep. So lets just say a preliminary cut in comparison to a standard HAV, all values are just placeholders so people don't get a bad case of bunched panties. Enforcer +15% to Top Speed & Torque -15% to Base HP (could play with the balance of shield/armor +1 Module to Off-Rack Both would end up being 3/3, damage mods or speed mods would work well for Gallente Enforcers, though we really need low slot items for shield enforcers. Perhaps bring back the Low Slot passive but less effective versions of High-Slot active modules? Overdrives, Nanofibres, ect. Enforcer Role Bonus: +2% Large Turret Damage/Lvl or +5% PG/CPU Cost Reduction for Large Turrets/Lvl Caldari Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Reload Speed/Lvl (Very useful for sustained DPS, particularly for Large Missiles) Gallente Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Dispersion Decay/Lvl (Have to be careful with this, you don't want to turn Large Blasters into Anti-Personelle wrecking machines again, that's not the Enforcer's Role) or +3% to Falloff Damage? When I consider the Enforcer and this is perhaps the only time my opinion diverges from yours in terms of design I think of it more like this. Enforcer +X % to Torque (no speed benefits) -5% to base hull HP - 15% Turret Tracking +1 Slot Adjusted Fitting Capacity Design Philosophy: The Enforcer should theoretically be a "Protected Gun System" basically a mechanised Artillery Hardpoint designed around its main gun and the systems that support this gun. As a result it suffers from having less PG and CPU than a standard Tank Hull as all sub systems are routed towards damage out put. The Enforcer would become a system that could fit and use few eHP modules and is designed to have weapons system modifications fitted in their place to adjust how the main gun fires. In EVE eHP modules are significantly more expensive to fit than weapons modifications. I believe that the Enforcer (whatever the tanks name is) should be designed around its Superior Main Gun and the modules that affect that guns efficiency. - The severe penalties to the hulls HP are not required as players would seek to plug that weakness with eHP modules - 3/3 Slot lay out is odd to say the least - Reduced fitting capacity to high cost HP modules could and will prevent stacking and encourage the use of relatively low cost weapons systems modules. E.g- The Vayu has 880 Shields 3460 Armour and a 2/4 slot lay out. It also has 100 PG and 100 CPU after the main gun (for examples sake) which is less than than 200/200 of the Standard hull. A 180mm armour plate costs 75/50, a Heavy Repper Costs 50/25, and an Armour Hardener Costs 40/ 25. Trying to fit Plating, Repairers, and Hardeners is impossible and not part of the hulls design. Fitting a repairer and a hardener is possible but leaves you hull with low static eHP. This leaves 2 High Slots and 2 Low slots unfilled. 10 PG and 50 CPU to mess around with Good thing for you those turret modifications and core utility modules are very easy to fit. Heat Sink II 1 PG and 10 CPU Tracking Enhancer 3 PG and 20 CPU Damage Control 1 PG and 5 CPU Stabiliser Field 5 PG and 15 CPU I agree with your bonuses though. Roll Bonus should be damage at a static value at Racial Enforcer's V. While the bonuses should affect that races chosen turret. -However Gallente DO use BOTH Railguns and Blasters and should get a bonus that affects both. - Caldari typically EITHER get a bonus to Missiles alone OR Hybrid Turrets both Blasters and Railguns. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:45:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:59:00 - [21] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:00:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. Alright forgive me if I'm over simplifying/misunderstanding this, but basically you're saying that the Enforcer would not have a significant amount of PG/CPU increase (assuming properly balancing resources in Armor/Shields first). Utility modules would be significantly cheaper than HP, so that 4th slot would be filled with utility and not HP because there isn't enough additional PG/CPU to actually fill it with an HP module. So in short you have less resources overall per slot, forcing a lower grade of your 3 primary defensive modules, making the HAV less defensive oriented, but allowing enough slots for additional utility since utility mods are cheaper to fit? If that's what you're getting at, its an interesting line of thought, though I think it might be very tricky to properly balance resources to achieve that without allowing for abuse. It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:11:00 - [23] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. Would be a waste on a tank like this to use fitting modules. Not only do they get less CPU/PG per module but if Damage Modules were in the low slots like they should be it would make more sense to fit those instead. However you have to admit this model while tricky to balance does produce HAV with fairly equivalent values for eHP, DPS, regen, etc. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:17:00 - [24] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Lack of slots does cause issues. Standard HAVs with 4/2 and 2/4, Enforces with 4/3 and 3/4, and Marauders with 5/2 and 2/5 would work. However you can't touch Hardeners because that would affect the other vehicles as a whole. All balancing would basically have to be done through base attributes and Heavy modules. I actually rather like that line of development more, it seems a little cleaner than some of the other suggestions. You would have to touch Hardeners. 40% is too effective. A standardised Active Hardener value is more than fair. Especially if weaker hulls have small HP buffs to bring their Shield/Armour allocations more in line with how they should be. Additionally. Passive Shield Reistance modules could have slightly higher values E.G- Basic Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 15% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation I Advanced Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 15.75% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation III Complex Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 16.75% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation IV Basic Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 16% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation I Advanced Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 17% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation III Complex Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 17.5% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation IV Again under this model Shield and Armour values for each kind of vehicle can attain fair parity even at Dropship and LAV tiers. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:19:00 - [25] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment. What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed. These are not Bastion Modules. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15982	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:23:00 - [26] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods. I also think armor hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15988	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:54:00 - [27] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Roden shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Your Marauder is what the MAV should be with Medium Turrets. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15988	Posted - 2014.12.17 00:12:00 - [28] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Roden shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Your Marauder is what the MAV should be with Medium Turrets. I would suggest putting on 2 more small turrets as sponsons and another one facing back...but I don't know if that's even possible XD (If it isn't obvious, I really want an MAV...or a Baneblade (Stormlord)...) but in this case a really heavy version of the MAV This game could not handle a Baneblade..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15994	Posted - 2014.12.17 00:44:00 - [29] - Quote Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16017	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:16:00 - [30] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -No point if tanks don't threaten infantry. -See above -See above -No indirect weaponry to bombard. -demolition of what? I've never said anywhere I do not want tanks engaging infantry. What I have said is that I would like to see tanks function in a useful and logical manner. I have suggested several times that large turrets gain access to a more meaningful splash damage value so that their turrets can adequately represent the large calibre cannon all tanks are equipped with. This would mean their PRIMARY goal is to engage other vehicles, installations, etc which SECONDARY and TERTIARY goals may have a focus on anti infantry work. I've made my suggestions regarding the Large Blaster (LBl) known and how I think it would open up more opportunities for the Autocannon if the LBl functioned more like the 25mm Main gun on the LAV (from Battlefield though I loathe to make the comparison). That has fair explosive and anti infantry capabilities while being a threat to the vehicles of the game. Moreover the LBl is the lowest DPS turret where it should be the highest. Now I feel if Large Turrets gain access to splash damage they will be able to achieve the roles of Suppression,Bombardment, and Field Demolition (the concept of removing installations from the map to your benefit). These following concepts are more or less what I consider are important when I am tanking either in this game or in War Thunder Suppression can be defined as whenever a Tank fires it's main gun at infantry. They should feel inclined to seek cover even if the chances of us hitting them is low. Guns should not only appear powerful, represent power, but also sounds powerful. Suppression is also the idea of using a turret with superior rate of fire to ensure constant barrage of projectiles at a specific location. Bombardment is the idea of sustained fire at a specific target/strong point. When a tank locks down a road or is attacking a specific section of the map where direct fire is not effective. Field Demolition the removal of tactical assets on the field from Anti Tank guns to specific hard points/ emplacements that the enemy can and will use against you. If you are concerned for Direct Infantry Support I can see this happening in two manners. The first is making use of you main gun to direct fire at enemies. Missiles can earn respectable numbers of kills, arguably the better shots of the game can do the same with Railguns, and under the "25mm Blaster" Tankers would have the ability to kill either through splash or through direct fire while having increased DPS vs tanks and vehicles. The other means is through the fitting of small turrets. More often than not I can sit 50-75moff the point, switch to a small turret, and eliminate enemy infantry with Railguns, either that or having someone crew your HAV. Siege is something I feel Marauders may do very well at being a tank designed to absorb damage. That's the idea of establishing yourself a bunker/emplacement, etc or being able to remain on field against a stronger AV presence. E.g- When Active Modules were a thing pre 1.7 I used a fit of something like 1x Heat Sink II 1x Damage Control II 1x 180mm Plate 2x Hardeners 1x Heavy Repper Blaster. Now if I had to destroy a CRU or mow down an infantry attack from or to an objective I would go into "Siege Mode" and activate all modules barring one hardener and the repper. The idea was to be able to take fire, adjust/ delay/ increase my resists and rep if required through incoming damage for a set duration until the job was done before leaving. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16017	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:21:00 - [31] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -Large Scale Logistics -Large Scale Scanning -Fortified Mobile Infantry Spawns -Fortified Troop Transport -Vehicle Repair Functions -Supply Transportation -Mobile Fitting Platform -Large Scale EWAR (Not just scanning) People love to throw around the talking point of "vehicles have no purpose" when there are plenty of things that vehicles can be made to do if a little thought if given to the issue. Thinking about it yeah Pre 1.7 I had tanks for - Force Recon - Spawning - Troop Transport Basically what I'd like to see happen is have vehicles be tailor made.... yeah I think you are right Mr Dravon vehicles can do a lot of things to be true and that certainly going to be a good thing when more module return to the game.... but at the same time it would do us well to remember what tanks are. Tanks are not armed with Large Calibre Cannons on whim. There is a purpose and function for it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16045	Posted - 2014.12.17 09:56:00 - [32] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone ive seen this happen with ADS too But then that's not a matter of OP vehicle its team work in the same way infantry work to keep one another alive, secure points, and achieve a goal. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 19:51:00 - [33] - Quote Dimitri Rascolovitch wrote: An idea i have, that could make ds and lavs more effective could be to remove small turret slots on all havs, and make them more powerful, especially against vehicles. Something like larger mags with more dps and rof. Kind of like the concept video in dust where the LAV rollsvup and insta pops a careless tank This could make the turret on the lavs actually viable, and would give people more reason to fit guns onto their ads You mean Medium Turrets? Yeah kind of want those too but there is no reason to remove the Small Turrets from HAV. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 20:23:00 - [34] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. The titles given to the HAVs, will they give an idea as to what we should expect? 1a. Cruiser - Militia HAV - Lowest slot layout 1b. Battlecruiser - Basic HAV - Increased slot layout, better HP 1c. Battleship - Marauders - Increased slot layout, best HP 1d. Destroyer - Enforcers - In EVE they have less slots than a cruiser but more missile/turret hardpoints, does this mean it possible may have 2 main turrets? but lower HP They are not the best example of what I think Rattati means....mainly because I don't think he's an EVE player.....but then again I might be wrong. I could be something more akin to...... MLT and Standard HAV - Cruiser ( smaller more ubiquitous hulls) Examples - Omen, Moa, Stabber, Vexor Marauder HAV - Combat Battle Cruiser (Typically higher eHP hulls with either passive resistances or rep bonuses) Examples- Prophecy, Drake, Brutix, Cyclone Enforcer HAV- Attack Battle Cruiser ( lower eHP but can fit Battleship Sized Turrets) Examples - Oracle, Talos, Naga, Typhoon *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 20:26:00 - [35] - Quote Dimitri Rascolovitch 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. which tiger tank are you referencing here rattati the Porsche tiger,the tiger H1, the kingtiger(P) or the kingtiger(H) Assuming that I've been the only one on this forum to reference the Tiger Tank in the last couple of weeks...... The PzKpfw VI Ausf. H. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16051	Posted - 2014.12.17 20:53:00 - [36] - Quote Sir Dukey 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. CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys. You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16052	Posted - 2014.12.17 22:23:00 - [37] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey 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. CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys. You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances. Yeah, but people had militia starter fits and I had a Scattered ION CANNON! Anyway, that is false, they had two hardeners active (mine did), it also had passive resistance from the fact that it was a Marauder and it had the best heavy shield repair possible. Well, actually, it had all the best shield modules possible. We'll never get the old Sagaris back the way it was. I have had a look into the statistics of the thing and normally you'd not be able to fit a Scattered Ion Cannon and a Heavy Clarity Ward Shield Booster, plus two Surge Hardners, and two Extenders to reach that 7000 Cap...... WITHOUT Maximum Fitting Values, and Low Slot Power Diagnostics. Grid Extenders...... AND after all of that just your gun and hull was 1,750,000 ISK with another 350,000 worth of module ISK, and 100,000 ISK for your turrets. NOT including the SP it took into core skill to use efficiently the Racial Marauders skill being a x12 skill, Racial HAV an 8x Skill, and the increased number of useful core skills. If I am not mistaken and you were not able to fit low slot damage modules your blaster would have done 180.1 damage per shot and a total DPS of almost 1400. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16053	Posted - 2014.12.17 23:12:00 - [38] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles. At this point that argument is rather..... moot. More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16055	Posted - 2014.12.17 23:28:00 - [39] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles. At this point that argument is rather..... moot. More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread. I think I'll make a thread that takes all of the best ideas of the thread and puts them together without having ten pages to go through. Lot easier to read. Leave that to Rattati. If he wants to clear this thread up then we should compile the best ideas and translate them. Let's not start making dozens of threads and dividing our suggestions. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16055	Posted - 2014.12.17 23:38:00 - [40] - Quote I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples. Tank Destroyers Russian ISU -122 German Jagdpather Heavy Infantry Tank German PzKpfw VI Ausf H American Sherman M4A2 Brittish Mk IV Churchill Russian Kv-85 Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say) Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell American M10 Wolverine German PzKpfw III Russian T-34 However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc. I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion) Gunlogi Shield: 3000 Armour: 1200 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now) Traits: Generalist's Hull Sagaris Shield: 3120 Armour: 1000 Slot Lay Out: 5/2 Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment. Falchion Shield: 3200 Armour: 1125 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque. Madrugar Shield: 1125 Armour: 3400 Slot Lay Out: 2/4 Traits: Generalist Hull Surya Shields: 1000 Armour: 3560 Slot Lay Out: 2/5 Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment. Vayu Shield: 980 Armour: 3625 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque. I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16057	Posted - 2014.12.18 00:01:00 - [41] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill. Also you will probably note the counter intuitive base HP allocations for enforcers. As I mentioned before that's because I want to give them a fair fighting chance in combat with their limitied capability to fit plates, reppers, hardeners. Also updated the design philosophies which are a combination of how I feel they should be, what tanks were like when they had roles (before the concept of MBT), and dramatic flair. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16059	Posted - 2014.12.18 00:16:00 - [42] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea. I personally don't (though I accept that you and Pokey Dravon do and noting that the above numbers are all just and opinion designed to be kicked around here). I see no value in it on a "protected gun system" which is arguably what a Tank Destroyer is in modern military terms (I guess). Design wise I am working off a more EVE like model of slot lay out and allocations...not to mention statistics in some places. One of those core ideals I am working under is that most modules that directly increase weapon damage or effectiveness are in the LOW SLOTS where they should always have been and at one time were. Under this ideal it makes more sense to have at least 4 on-rack (is that the correct term) modules which makes for better balance. Caldari in this case have access to High Slot Utility Modules necessary to function their vehicle's turret while not hugely compromising the little bit of racial tank they can and will need to fit while being able to fit damage modules in their low slots. Gallente gain the ability to stack damage affecting modules in their low slots but must not compromise the small racial tank the hull gets while being able to stack utility modules in their off rack slots. Ideally design wise each tank would have the capability to fit 2 or so slots for some eHP protection while the unfitted 2 highs and 2 lows not assigned to eHP can be filled with whatever weapons utility modules a player feels is most appropriate for their playstyle. In summary and after sooooooo much waffling on the idea behind the Enforcer is high damage out put and low tank. I feel this can be achieved in a very balanced manner. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16063	Posted - 2014.12.18 00:45:00 - [43] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard. I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16072	Posted - 2014.12.18 01:33:00 - [44] - Quote Now on to your post. I like the concept of Black Ops and Logi Vehicles and I suppose at this stage we have to accept that if we want them they will have to be either in LAV or HAV form. Personally I'd love to see bother in the MAV as specialisations. Stats seem fine to be especially considering we could be using Medium Turrets rather than applying negative modifiers to existing assets....something I am simply not a fan off unless its tastefully done. ISK Prices are far too low for any specialist vehicle IMO. MLT HAV should cost 97,500, Standard Hulls 200,000, and Enforcer/Marauders at least 757,000. This to discourage spam and at least have us place some damn value on our tanks. RE: Your Marauder bonuses as I mentioned at the start of the post that is subject to change. Depending on eHP calculations for the Sagaris and bonuses for the hull it will change. RE: You Enforcer Changes. I wholly believe that Enforcer's turret tracking should go in the opposite direction. The Larger the cannon your have on a tank the slower it traverses, this is especially true for things in New Eden as we already have examples of more powerful turrets traversing more slowly. E.g- Dual Light Pulse Lasers traverse more quickly than Small Focused Pulse Lasers, which traverse faster than Dual Medium Pulse Lasers, whic Traverse Faster than Mega Pulse Lasers, etc.... ..... and I feel this would and should be negated if you chose to through the fitting of weapons upgrade modules which should be core to the design of Enforcers. Pokey has the base suggestions for the Amarr and Minmatar HAV in his post. 800 Shields 4000 Armour for the Amarr 2600 Shields 1500 Armour for the Minmatar The could be broken down as Disciple: 800/4000 (Cruiser) Malison: 580/4150 (Marauder) Bendiction: 690/ 4325 (Enforcer) or some such allocation. Remember again I am assuming this model under the old shield regen stats..... armour tanks will always essentially be tanking in their armour and shield HAV will either be passively regen tanking or actively booster tanking. Not this bullshit passive 168rep/sec we have now. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16073	Posted - 2014.12.18 02:05:00 - [45] - Quote Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform. -Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point. - One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi. - Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat. Other than that I love it. Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP. Enforcers. Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking. It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha. I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power. I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16081	Posted - 2014.12.18 03:14:00 - [46] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform. -Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point. - One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi. - Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat. Other than that I love it. Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP. Enforcers. Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking. It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha. I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power. I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good. I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses. That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists. It may be that we cannot have bother....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16083	Posted - 2014.12.18 03:43:00 - [47] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform. -Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point. - One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi. - Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat. Other than that I love it. Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP. Enforcers. Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking. It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha. I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power. I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good. I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses. That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists. It may be that we cannot have both....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands. Some of the currently suggested ideas include. - Racial Benefits to their respective tanking modules Caldari - Shield resists Amarr- Armour resists Gallente - Armour repairs Minmatar- Shield boosters - Reduced cool downs on defensive modules - Increased duration on defensive modules - Passive Resistances - Static Base Shield or Armour increases Is it really in his hands? He's asked us on how to do it, so it's kinda in our hands. Also,new idea... What if marauders get fitting bonuses towards racial defensive mods, and either shield or armor regen on the racial skill books, then the marauder skill bonus could be defensive module duration and cool down. Thus, we can have the extra slot without giving bonuses that would be OP. Again, shield tanks would have to be looked at so they aren't too good but this doesn't seem like a bad idea too me. Btw, how was your sandwich? It was a very good sandwich. In terms of fitting modules...... I don't know...... seems appropriate.....but underwhelming if you know what I mean....and regen wise? Regen is a sore spot for me right now. Just for my sake so I can understand what you want propose to me a ........ Role Bonus ( the bonus that either each Marauder has or the bonus that the Marauder's skill affects on the Sagaris vs Surya) and the Hull Bonus (The bonus unique to the hull perhaps affected by the Caldari/Gallente HAV skill) *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16106	Posted - 2014.12.18 10:37:00 - [48] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard. I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades. I was thinking we could add in a built in module like LLAV's had and LOGI dropships had. Enforcer built in example modules with no cost to slots- (not Particularly powerful) -heat sink (10-20%) -turret rotation mod -ect. Marauder built in with no expense to slots- -Siege- Tank gets 15-20% passive shield/armor hardener for 30 secs, cool down 1 minute depending on whether it is Sagaris or Surya. -ect. I don't know, just think it's cool. teammates will be noted when siege module is activated. Like a distress signal. Why- because they will help the role without making them permanent and OP. You would agree and I would too if Marauders with 5/2 layout have passive 20% resistances but with built in modules they can for a limited time. This creates a whole new dynamic play style. Marauders would engage when siege modules are ready as back up. When not recharged, it might not be such a good idea to engage say an Enforcer tank. The modules would be their to give a little extra out of the performance of your tank. Now what worries me are multiple hardeners. A Sagaris driving around with 3 hardeners and two heavy complex shield extenders along with a siege module ready to go. I would limit hardeners to two, I would also make it so when siege module is active, all previously active modules be shut off. Seige module would have to be better than a hardener or something. And uh, who took a duke in this thread? Also, if the std blaster is not more accurate than a mlt blaster, it needs slightly less dispersion increase per shot, it's stupidly inaccurate. The sagris won't be able to kill crap, as missiles and rails are terrible for AI. First off lets work on what we have not to balance HAV aka modules we fit to our own tanks. That way we know at a fundamental level the modules at least work. Regarding the Large Blaster...... there is a lot of work that can be done on that. I wholly believe the large blaster could do with a per shot damage buff to the Scattered Blaster Variant levels mainly to improve the over all turret DPS which would still be very low. That or the blaster could be wholly redesigned. The thing about the old Marauder tanks that most people who AV now think they understand is that a maxxed out HAV pilot had usually 150.1 damage per shot with a 30% damage boost without modules. Couple that with Low Slot damage mods and you have a 200+ damage per shot weapon and well over 1400 DPS. Arguably that is where the blasters DPS should be vs the Rail gun..... but that's a whole different topic. A Siege Module if introduce would have to be its own module. Basically what they do is improve all resistances by a set amount, damage by a set amount, and rep rates by a set amount but have a strict and unalterable duration and cool down where the Marauder cannot move at all. In Dust something like this would be too OP and also crippling to a tank. If a Siege Module were in the game it would have to be something like an Improved Damage Control Unit. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16111	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:34:00 - [49] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16111	Posted - 2014.12.18 18:40:00 - [50] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16111	Posted - 2014.12.18 19:00:00 - [51] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all? Fair enough but do you think it should maintain the same HP/s if the delay was removed? And Spkr, I agree that an overall increase to resources may be in order (especially if the 4th slot is added) but I think we both agree that the Madrugar needs a bit more of a buff than the Gunnlogi at this time. NEVER. No vehicle deserves a passive 168 regen per second for not having to fit anything......especially if new tanks are going to have 4+ slots and old modules are coming back. For a tank they should be down below 100 (even when buffed by modules) so that damage applied to a Shield HAV last longer on the hull like it does for an armour tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16115	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:11:00 - [52] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep... It's not slow at all. It's essentially what makes Shield HAV OP as hell. They are able to rep at a prolific pace (3x the old statistics) for not having to fit a module meaning that any HAV pilot worth their salt can manage this overly powerful passive shield regeneration over the course of 20 seconds to have nullified almost all AV damage again them. The reason tanks back in the day were good and balanced and arguably more skill intensive was because damage applied to a tank then was longer lasting and required the use of modules or multiple modules to repair. No Tank, not shield, not armour deserves a meaningful regeneration without having to fit modules. If you look at a Shield HAV vs an Armour HAV currently in any circumstance a Shield HAV will win. Hands down it is superior...so your assertion it is unfair that a Shield HAV has a down side in CQC in brawling........like (shock horror) Caldari tech would is moot. Armour HAV, armour everything in New Eden has equivalent or more HP/eHP than shield variants. The reason for this is that armour itself does not regenerate, regeneration power being a huge factor of any conflict where TTK is measured in tens of seconds or minutes. Now for the longest time since 1.7 Shield HAV has dominated in roles they should not be as powerful in annexing the Armour HAV from tactical and competitive use. Armour Tanks, Gallente Tech, Gallente Tanks are designed to brawl up close and have the edge in CQC fights using powerful active reps to cover for their lack of any passive regeneration. Shield Tanks, Caldari Tech, Caldari Tanks are designed to kite out at longer ranges and have the edge in ranged combat through superior access to damage modules (LOW SLOT MODULES) and slow natural regen alongside powerful spikes of Shield Boosts. Now in the scenario you are discussion I am assuming you are talking about a passive tanked Gunnlogi, the kind that stacks Extenders and a Hardener..... THATS WHAT A PASSIVE TANK IS! You guys do understand what passive and active tanks are the hall mark traits of them are? Moreover the Blaster is the only HAV turret designed to take down shields. Your assertion that Shield HAV need a crutch or some advantage vs the ONLY large turret designed to take them down is moot. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16115	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:37:00 - [53] - Quote http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/62328-Inferno-1-2-Brawling-tormentor.html Here is an example of the Corp Tormentor. It is a passive tank with 4,750 + HP base and 6,250 eHP with the Damage Control Active. These values are with my current skills and as the comments point out this fit can have almost 7,500 eHP. This is an example of a passive tank. Traits -High Static Armour/Shield Values -Strong Resistances -Little to no Repair or Regeneration capabilities. -Higher Total eHP's http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/67948-Tormentor-Scorch-Scram-Range-Kite.html This is an example of the same ship but Active Tanked. It has significantly less eHP before the activation of its repair unit which bumps up eHP to totals of armour 6,000-6,500. Traits -Low Static Shield and Armour Values -Moderate Resistances as with less HP convey less benefits -Powerful Repair and Regeneration Modules -Lower Total eHP's but better capacity to manage crises. No tank should have both -High eHP caps -Strong Resistances -Strong Passive Regeneration -The ability to fit Strong Active Regeneration as well That's taking the best of both worlds and spitting on balance. Again these are examples of where our vehicle modules came from. If a meaningful balance can be achieved using these modules on hulls with similar HP and module values as us then it can be done here. But 168 rep values is almost as powerful as a Shield Boosters pulse. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16116	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:39:00 - [54] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples. Tank Destroyers Russian ISU -122 German Jagdpather Heavy Infantry Tank German PzKpfw VI Ausf H American Sherman M4A2 Brittish Mk IV Churchill Russian Kv-85 Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say) Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell American M10 Wolverine German PzKpfw III Russian T-34 However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc. I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion) Gunlogi Shield: 3000 Armour: 1200 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now) Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Sagaris Shield: 3120 Armour: 1000 Slot Lay Out: 5/2 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 Madrugar Shield: 1125 Armour: 3400 Slot Lay Out: 2/4 Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Surya Shields: 1000 Armour: 3560 Slot Lay Out: 2/5 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. Less Base EHP.... almost like oh I don't know.....they used to. Also considering they have 1 extra module slot than the other variations their eHP is able to be much higher. Gunnlogi (Old Hull) - Shields 3250 Armour 1250 Sagaris (Old Hull) - Shields 3120 Armour 1000 Checks and balances mate. That 200 HP the marauder looses over another hull is almost immediately made up for 2-3x over by that other module slot. Also for the enforcers since they would not be able to fit as many eHP modules due to their low PG and CPU allotment would have a fair base hull value to make them competitive. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16116	Posted - 2014.12.18 20:47:00 - [55] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples. Tank Destroyers Russian ISU -122 German Jagdpather Heavy Infantry Tank German PzKpfw VI Ausf H American Sherman M4A2 Brittish Mk IV Churchill Russian Kv-85 Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say) Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell American M10 Wolverine German PzKpfw III Russian T-34 However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc. I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion) Gunlogi Shield: 3000 Armour: 1200 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now) Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Sagaris Shield: 3120 Armour: 1000 Slot Lay Out: 5/2 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 Madrugar Shield: 1125 Armour: 3400 Slot Lay Out: 2/4 Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Surya Shields: 1000 Armour: 3560 Slot Lay Out: 2/5 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield. The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats That's it! Yup spot on. The power of the HAV should never lie in its hull. Not the overly powerful Shield reps or the bonuses. It is about the fitting of your vehicle. As I mentioned in that design/suggestion/proposal Cruiser HAV - Standard allotments of PG and CPU with moderate slot lay outs of customisability to role and or need. Design Ideal - Light or Medium Cruiser Tanks of WW2 Marauder HAV- Higher CPU and PG allotments with slightly large slot lay outs for increased eHP (but slighty lesser hull values to balance out the effectiveness of that extra module slot.) Design Ideal: Heavy Infantry Tanks of WW2 Enforcer HAV - Lowest PG and CPU allotment to slightly more PG and CPU to allow eHP modules a little bit more effectiveness on the hull while trying to encourage weapons enhancement modules. Design Ideal: Modern "Protected Gun System" or Tank Destroyers of WW2 *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16116	Posted - 2014.12.18 21:05:00 - [56] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples. Tank Destroyers Russian ISU -122 German Jagdpather Heavy Infantry Tank German PzKpfw VI Ausf H American Sherman M4A2 Brittish Mk IV Churchill Russian Kv-85 Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say) Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell American M10 Wolverine German PzKpfw III Russian T-34 However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc. I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion) Gunlogi Shield: 3000 Armour: 1200 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now) Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Sagaris Shield: 3120 Armour: 1000 Slot Lay Out: 5/2 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 Madrugar Shield: 1125 Armour: 3400 Slot Lay Out: 2/4 Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks. Surya Shields: 1000 Armour: 3560 Slot Lay Out: 2/5 Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering. 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 I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield. The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats Nahh bro, it doesn't make sense. It's like giving the heavy suit less base HP than the Assault but with more assault. It wouldn't feel like a heavy. Anyway, I only added about 400 base HP which is only about 300 more than the base tank. Think of it like this. An Amarr Medium Frame has 190 Shields and 245 Armour and 4 low slots An Amarr Assault has has 160 Shields and 225 Armour and 5 low slots a well as suit bonuses. If put the same fitting in both suits the Assault still has one slot left over to boost its eHP. It will theoretically always be equivalent to or better than the standard variant. However it's additional benefits are kept in check with reasonable respect for balance vs the standard suit so that while the Assault is more powerful it is manageable for the standard suit. In terms of vehicles. Passive Tanked Madrugar Damage Control Heat Sink 180mm Polycrystalline Plating (+2750 Armour) 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane (+16.75% Armour resistances (20.1% at Armour Adaption V)) 1x Complex Light Repper Static HP- 1125 Shields 6150 Armour eHP- 1226.25 Shields 9058 Armour Passive Tanked so very little armour rep. Passive Tanked Surya Damage Control Heat Sink 180mm Polycrystalline Plating (+2750 Armour) 3x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane (+16.75% Armour resistances (20.1% at Armour Adaption V)) 1x Complex Light Repper Static HP- 1000 Shields 6310 Armour eHP- 1090 Shields 10782 Armour Passive Tanked so very little armour rep. Differences are 1724.4 Armour eHP more than enough to qualify as better than the Maddy. Now I went conservatively and applied the Damage Control to the base hull values only rather than the total plus plate..... that only serves to widen the gap between the Surya and Madrugar with the Surya simply being better. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16117	Posted - 2014.12.18 21:24:00 - [57] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: well, I guess it makes sense then. I'm for it. If this will bring back chromosome like tanking, I'm all for it. Or at least chromosome memories. I want what you want from HAV. I want them powerful and viable to use but at the same time requiring skill to use effectively. But HAV need to have checks and balances. If we are too powerful people complain, when they complain CCP takes action and tanks are back to being crap. Now I think the player base can tolerate HAV with 10,000 eHP if they lack regen power and mobility. I think they can tolerate HAV having the most powerful AV weapons if the hulls we use them on are low on the eHP scale, and I think that they can tolerate the current tanks we have now with some changes that benefit tanks as a whole but slightly reduce eHP of Shield HAV and increase armour HAV. When I make suggestions I tend to use the old HAV stats from Chromosome and Uprising alonside EVE precedents/ modules from the Destroyer and Frigate sized ships (which are great as they have really similar HP values, same module slots, same gun numbers, etc). The Hall marks of that time were -an Immersive and Expansive SP tree for tank and vehicle users separated in racial skills -ISK intensive role -SP intensive role -Fitting intensive role (Fittings were crucial to tank use) -Armour HAV were slow, stand and deliver, high HP tanks with powerful active reps -Shield HAv were slightly faster, kting, tanks with slow but constant passive regeneration that could be modified in tandem with high HP or used powerful reps in conjunction with passive regen. I'd like to see this again as I feel almost every HAV pilot I've talked to feels the game was more enjoyable for them back then. LAVers the same, and Dropship pilots often the same. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16122	Posted - 2014.12.18 22:25:00 - [58] - Quote breathes in....... breathes out *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16124	Posted - 2014.12.18 23:24:00 - [59] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two minutes. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16124	Posted - 2014.12.18 23:33:00 - [60] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16131	Posted - 2014.12.19 02:01:00 - [61] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers. Again the above suggestion of between 100 seconds and 150 seconds is only when a tank is solely relying on passive shield recharge. It is significantly lower if you are being Logi'd (remote shield transporter) or using a Booster yourself. oh I meant I was leaning towards the 100-120ish range instead of including all the way up to 150...(although I do acknowledge that 150 may be more reasonable) The more total EHP you stack the longer it will take you to regenerate it all. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16140	Posted - 2014.12.19 08:17:00 - [62] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5? And what would thier base hp be? They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16145	Posted - 2014.12.19 10:04:00 - [63] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5? And what would thier base hp be? They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate. Yeah I think I proved that to some guys today. Accidentally rolled into a Raillogi and a Railgar.....and successfully did a figure 8 around them on a cliff side to kill the Maddy and escape. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16170	Posted - 2014.12.20 00:20:00 - [64] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. [/quote] They are too much mate. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16170	Posted - 2014.12.20 00:22:00 - [65] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... yawn (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =( Teach me how to create a google doc and I'll have a list of modules, stats, etc that were in the game, skills, etc all the goodies up within the day. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16171	Posted - 2014.12.20 03:29:00 - [66] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more. Personally I can only see it as a bettering of what we have.....which is mildly because the idea was mine..... but also because currently the large blaster is inappropriate as a tank turret. Firstly it isn't one. Secondly it does not fulfil the primarily role of the main gun of a tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16175	Posted - 2014.12.20 22:29:00 - [67] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto). And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16175	Posted - 2014.12.21 04:03:00 - [68] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments. (such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16176	Posted - 2014.12.21 04:54:00 - [69] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. Weapons mods/ Damage modules are low slot modules though not high slot modules. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16177	Posted - 2014.12.21 05:08:00 - [70] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16181	Posted - 2014.12.21 09:39:00 - [71] - Quote Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks". They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences. However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men. That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units. But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16193	Posted - 2014.12.21 21:14:00 - [72] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks". They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences. However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men. That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units. But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16193	Posted - 2014.12.21 21:36:00 - [73] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks". They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences. However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men. That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units. But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain. You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said. Later iterations of the Sherman could deal with them adequately especially those that mounted the 105mm Howitzer, most with lesser armaments like the 76mm gun were fodder for the tiger as a result of the innovations in armour plating Henschel and Porsche made during the conflicts. The only downside to early Sherman tanks was the misconception based of misinterpreted reports by Brittish Gunnery teams that a small calibre 6 Pdr gun could knock out a Tiger.....which it could.....at short range against the thinly armoured 62mm plates, as such the original Sherman's were built with the 75mm gun and assumed to be superior to the Tiger. The result was that many of the lighter German tanks that were also fitting 7.5cm KwK 40 cannons like the Panzer IV, StuG III, and Marder III could engage and destroy Sherman's from a distance. The first Sherman's equipped with 76mm guns were fielded in early 1944..... at the time very late in the war. Also if I remember correctly an 88mm Gun (the standard Tiger armament) was almost always powerful enough to penetrate Sherman armour at range which meant hit from those guns were devastating to the crewmen inside. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16194	Posted - 2014.12.21 22:06:00 - [74] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: All true, but those requirements were: You had to find and hit the sherman You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one. Power to weight ratio on the Sherman's was very good. But by comparison the Sherman was a lighter tank almost 15 tonnes the Tiger's junior. Much better comparison due to its similarly sized main gun and armour plating. Unlike the 44,000 Shermans that were produce only something like 1300 Tigers were ever made. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16216	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:45:00 - [75] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles. If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus. Done. Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs. AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks. in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better. Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink. That really depends entirely on how deeply into the Glass Cannon mentality it goes. I don't think they should be weak to AV, rather they shouldn't be able to hang around as long compared to a Marauder, making it difficult to deal with AV directly. I don't particularly believe in a suit or vehicle being designed as throwaway, nor do I like the super expensive HAV model we had before. I think Specialty vehicles should cost more of course, but none of the crazy price hikes like we used to have. Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field. I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:09:00 - [76] - Quote 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 *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:14:00 - [77] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field. I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because. I think we both agree that they need to be more expensive. Standards should be a lesser expensive model. I think where we disagree is to what degree. I guess for me is that people seem to assume "I spent 3 times as much on this, so I should be 3 times harder to kill" That assumption is that the relationship is linear and I suppose my personal viewpoint is that I dont want people trying to use the ISK cost as an argument to buff the vehicles into an overpowered state. But regardless I'm not very interested in debating over the singular detail that is ISK cost. I would rather like to move into an actual document with some groundwork numbers to work off of since this entire thread is kind of turning into a circular argument and I'd rather just push forward. Have you had a chance to put together that list of modules you mentioned before? I know things are busy with the holidays and whatnot. I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say. I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks. I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:19:00 - [78] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 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 Thanks, and wow 20% more damage? The hell... Marauders with blasters used to be able to dish-out up to 180-200 damage per shot which put their DPS where it should be well within the 1400-1500 zone. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:56:00 - [79] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say. I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks. I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc. Forgive me if you got the impression that I was referring to you with the x3 comment. I know you actually want a balanced approach and are very rational about it, so I wasn't referring to you. And yes ISK can be used as a balancing mechanic, to an extent. Honestly if the old prices come back I wont lose my ** over it, but I will grumble. I think the difference in price between Standard and Specialty was too great, but again it's not a huge factor for me. Honestly I would have no issue with the JLAV if it actually cost something considerable to pull it off, but as it stands now its akin to ramming a Battleship with a Rookie ship in EVE*, both blowing up, and calling that "a valid tactic". Until they actually make it cost a considerable amount, its a BS tactic. Now people running up on foot and manually planting remotes on me? That's kinda like being knifed in the back, but you're in a vehicle instead. That much is totally legit. Yup. Pretty much. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16219	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:59:00 - [80] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: 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. Cap on Hardeners should really be determined by fitting requirements and not something like an arbitrary hard cap. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16221	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:31:00 - [81] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost. Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can). I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback. I think its more that desire to see parity between infantry and tanks. Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... No tanker will pick strong small turrets/ utilities when Proto eHP mods and a strong turret can be mounted in their place. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16222	Posted - 2014.12.23 00:21:00 - [82] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... That was my general point. So where would you place your lot? Main Rack: Proto Off Rack: Proto Main Turret: Proto Small Turret: None/Basic? On any tank I've ever piloted I've given priority to durability and then to fire power....... given how the Gunnlogi currently works I fit mine following this archetype. Main Rack : Proto ( I may make concessions for items like the Shield Hardener and Damage Module as all that is affected is cool down timers) Off Rack : Proto Fitting (most likely since there are no utility modules I need or want in lows) Main Turret: Always Proto (even on Sica) Small Turrets: Usually Basic (but on my fits designed to a crew I always use proto) TL;DR - I cannot think of a reason on the Gunnlogi as it is now to every need anything more than a Proto Tier Tank and a Main Gun which I can always fit. Proto fitting is usually if I want higher tier small turrets alongside a Blaster or wish to stack an armour plate. PRO tank modules allows me to actually stay on the field for a moderate amount of time and react to anti tanks rounds, while the gun allows me to compete with and dominate lesser tanks and infantry. On my old Madrugar from Uprising I hatd two fits one Heavy Tank and one Light Scout Tank Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Prototype 180mm Plates Prototype Hardeners Inefficient Heavy Repper (cuz I wuz skrub den) Prototype Heat Sink Prototype Damage Control LSHAV Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Proto120mm Plates Pro Passive Armour Resistance Pro High Through-Put Damage Module Mid Tier Repper Mid Tier Scanner Proto Heat Sink The former HAV was the 6375 Main Battke Maddy you saw everywhere but not full optimised while the former was a high DPS, low EHP, fast little hellion ala the enforcer but cheaper. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16236	Posted - 2014.12.23 12:51:00 - [83] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: Whaaat, these things are going to rip up ads pilots, especially those crazy long range "redline" ones. Can we have an ads variant with a lot more hp -.- and one with less but another gun? Like Logi DS? Regardless this is not the thread for that discussion. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16265	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:23:00 - [84] - Quote Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16265	Posted - 2014.12.25 01:27:00 - [85] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lost faith in this initiative. Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere. I do. Just search Robb "Adamance" or viralensign *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16266	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:51:00 - [86] - 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. The "best pilots" were all very good. But they were also only "so good" because few could challenge them on their level. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16289	Posted - 2014.12.27 03:23:00 - [87] - Quote 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)) *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16313	Posted - 2014.12.28 07:33:00 - [88] - Quote MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16326	Posted - 2014.12.28 22:29:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk. The pilot has to pay for the HAV. The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes. The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap. Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO. There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies. You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded. The only thing I have against mandating crews is that vehicle balance on tank equivalents in achieved in many other games without the need for crews. I know I talk a lot about the realism of tanks and such......but is would simply be no longer viable for me to play or enjoy the role of a tank if multiple people are required to even operate one. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16330	Posted - 2014.12.29 02:28:00 - [90] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable. That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time. Kind of like side arms. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16330	Posted - 2014.12.29 03:33:00 - [91] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable. That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time. Kind of like side arms. Sorta I guess, I pictured it more like swapping seat, though IDK why you couldn't just be third person over the main turret the whole time while cycling through each turret. I already do swap seats to do this. But honestly I don't see why I should have to. Choosing not to use the Large Turret is penalty enough. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16344	Posted - 2014.12.30 07:02:00 - [92] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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? Yeah, loads /sarcasm TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments).... I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now). Do it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16351	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:06:00 - [93] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD Needz moar Dakka, but oderwize Rait Propah You gitz iz bein' stupid! We need moar flashzez! Moar shoota's, and moar dakka! We need STOMPAz! - Deth Kannon - Supa Rokkit - 5 Big Shoota's - Crusha Ball - an a Red Paint Job cuz the Red unz go fasta! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16357	Posted - 2014.12.31 11:40:00 - [94] - Quote Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16366	Posted - 2015.01.01 00:48:00 - [95] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? Personally I'm always of the opinion that tanks forward armour could benefit from some kind of resistance buff to encourage tanks to always be facing their targets and using cover to minimise angles of fire against them. It's interesting with Lazer....he's saying all of these things as if I have not covered them long before him in this thread...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16375	Posted - 2015.01.01 19:13:00 - [96] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? 1. Armor needs thickness and angling while all ammo needs penetration values and how does that work with shields and EVE in general? 3. Its the only way to do it in new eden so flanking is required but the problem is that damage is still caused where as TD in WW2 were able to bounce shots for no damage Gotcha Let's Abstract that and assume that the weapons in New Eden are always able to make some ammount of damage stick (through warping armor plates, or drawing energy from the shields)...and using the WW2 model, abstract a given tank's armor plating (or resistance to penetration) as a combination of HP and Resistances (or if shield recharge delay is kept...hoping not..a better recharge threshold)...work with the WW2 examples as a baseline, but then see how you would make the functional within the rules of the game. (Maybe add in armor angling to add/remove resistances or damage when firing at certain parts of a tank from certain angles). A Tiger in dust doesn't have to be immune from lighter weapons fire, just practically immune (My Mission running BS in eve isn't immune from fire from rat cruisers, but I sure as hell don't worry about them very much...unless there are a ton of them) But the Tiger was immune to small arms fire. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16386	Posted - 2015.01.02 07:51:00 - [97] - Quote I've had another thought. Perhaps it's easier to balance tanks around this ideal Tanks have less generalised slots and more specialise slot lay outs. Large Turret Slots (Slow RoF high damage cannon) Secondary Small Turret Slots (High RoF Anti Infantry guns) Armour/Shielding Slot (Designed to accommodate the tier of armour from Light to Heavy determining the vehicle primary HP and and mobility attributes) Defensive Slot 1 (designed to accommodate defensive modules that affect Shields or armour functionality from passive resistance to regenerative functions) Utility Slot 1 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes) Utility Slot 2 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes) From here vehicles and the angles of armour they are engaged at have standard resistance values depending firstly of the logical location the armour/shields would be thickest and then by racial attributes perhaps. Frontal Armour - Basic 25% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier Side Armour - Basic 10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier Rear Armour - 0% - "-"10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier (not rear armour also have the weak point on it so additional damage vs this face is likely) Turret - 0% Resistance to damage. A Tank theoretically could look like this. Large Turret Slot: 80GJ Charged Electron Cannon Small Turret Slot: 20GJ Compressed Light Railgun Armour Slot: 120mm Armour Plating Offensive Slot: Plasma Focusing Array (adjusts Turret functionality) Defensive Slot: Active Nanite Injection System (passive regenerative feature ...blegh) Utility Slot 1: Damage Control Unit Utility Slot 2: Nitrous Injector Frontal Armour Damage Profile: 65% Damage Side Armour Damage Profile: 85% Damage Rear Armour Damage Profile: 115% Damage Turret Armour Profile: 100% The Turret Slots determine what basic functionality you want your tank to have. DPS vs Alpha. Armour Slot Conveys in this case a fair static armour boost and moderate mobility penalties. Pilot wants this tank to move reasonable quickly. Defensive Slot: Pilot wants this tank to passively repair itself during combat or actively at a slower rate outside of combat. Utility Slot 1: Pilot wants to have small resistance boosts for short periods of time to manage damage taken vs regenerated. Utility Slot 2: Pilot wants this tank to be able to accelerate quickly for a short time at a moments notice. If this ever was considered then..... Rig Slots: An Additional Slot that general enhances or focuses on boosting one single small aspect of your hull while coming with a slight penalty as well. E.G- Nanite Repair Systems Overclocker - Boosts the % of armour repaired by the Active Nanite Injection System by 10% however increases the cool down time of the unit by 5% or increases the PG of the unit by 10% etc. Armour Damage Profiles = Gallente - The Gallente are specialists of the scoot and shoot style of armoured warfare. A Gallentean Vehicle will rapidly approach and enemy column presenting its thicker forward armour at an angle firing a volley before reloading on the move. Thus Gallentea vehicles can rapidly agress and de-agress enemies with ease. However Gallentean tanks are usually constructed with lighter alloys to preserve mobility and this have weakened internal structures on the turret and rear sections of the hull. +10% resistance to Forward Armour Damage Profile +5% resistance to Side Armour Damage Profile -15% resistance to Rear Armour Damage Profile +0% resistance to Turret Armour Damage Profile So ideally when a Gallentean Tanker is on the field they are trying to be mobile, preserve their ability to manoeuvre for aggressive and passive actions and close in on their targets for maximum DPS while presenting either their forward or side armours. Meh just an off the cuff idea I've been mulling over. I got bored really and thought of ways to adjust the dynamic of tanks. Specialisations could function like this Marauder - +1 Defensive Module Slot - 25% Mobility Values and -15% Cool down to Utility Modules Fitted Enforcer - +1 Offensive Systems Module Slot -15% Defensive Values - 20% Turret Tracking Speed Black Ops - +2 Utility Systems Module Slots -10% to Offensive Systems Slot cooldown -10% to Defensive Systems Slot Cooldown. Or some other ***. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16392	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:39:00 - [98] - 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. Not necessarily Ground Forces but like almost every other successful game that came out in the last ten years. Very rarely in online play have tanks been balanced around the idea of rapid firing guns. AKA for the all the long standing dumbshits who are continuing to not use their brains...... TANKS DONT FIRE .50 Calibre guns as their primary turrets they have those 120mm Guns for a ******* reason. If you are driving a vehicle that does has such a calibre of gun you are not driving a tank. None of us every have. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16397	Posted - 2015.01.03 09:28:00 - [99] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. Yeah so as long as you can recover from the disabled status the mechanic would be great. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:25:00 - [100] - 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? WT might as well be the closest thing to a tank simulator out this generation of gaming. Trumps that arcade World of Tanks crap.. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 - [101] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module. Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that. I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity. It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs. Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 22:12:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. More to the point I will not ignore HAVs because HAV drivers NEVER ignore infantry, instead opportunistically slaughtering infantry for free kills wherever possible. The people who bang the loudest on the "I only want to fight other tanks" have historically been the ones I see with a maxed out HAV harvesting Infantry kills like a God-possessed Combine Harvester until I engage them. We exist on the same battlefield. You are on the opposing team. You are a target for extermination. Just like your blue dots on foot. Actually you can tell me this. I only sporadically log into Dust these days. If farming the hell out of infantry like Duna isn't what I should be doing.....what is? I am lost. ((No sarcasm......I need something to do in Dust or I'm going to drop it)) *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16404	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:21:00 - [103] - Quote 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. 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. Infantry exploited the 50m rendering range and high building tops to ruin the days of tankers until Uprising 1.5. Tankers exploited the **** out of OP tank ins 1.7. 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16409	Posted - 2015.01.04 06:52:00 - [104] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16410	Posted - 2015.01.04 08:24:00 - [105] - 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 Nah you are reading too much into it. I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play. However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16410	Posted - 2015.01.04 08:54:00 - [106] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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 Nah you are reading too much into it. I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play. However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust. Nothing wrong with it if they tuned the railgun's damage (bear in mind that space-side railguns are more DPS weapons than Alpha-strike weapons, in dust they're doing both...I really want to see what Mattari Arty does) IMO you could adjust the damage numbers from Small Guns (their Damage Multipliers and Ammo Damage) to be Tank damage, and use Space-Side Small Turret ROF for Dust HAV Guns I also suggested that to force all 4 racial turrets and tanks into the game they could. - Reskin the Maddy to be Gold and adjust it to 800 Shields 4000 Armour, Adjust the Maddy to 1125 Shields and 3400 armour. -Reskin the Gunnlogi to Rust Red and give it the current Gunnlogi Stats, and adjust the current Gunnlogi to 3000 Shields and 1200 armour Establish that each turret mantlet is assigned to the vehicle and all the changes when fitting a new turret is the barrel. - Enlarge the Combat Rifle Barrel and give it the Current Large Blaster functions vs Armour - Enlarge the Laser Rifle and make that the Amarr Barrel - Rails and Missiles = Small tweaks - Large Blasters become the 25mm gun or the CZ75 of Dust 514. Now all turrets are in the game. Prissy *** ass tankers can keep their ".50 Cal Maching Gun" and pretend they are good. Blasters become proper DPS weapons and function like they should, Rails get less DPS, Missiles/ Rockets less alpha (love to see their damahe halved and ammo cap doubled) and all four ***** tanks are in the game. Not that I'd stick around to use the Amarr tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16410	Posted - 2015.01.04 09:09:00 - [107] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?) Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs? Yeah you would but at this point I don't care any more. And meh..... IMO needs to be longer 60 seconds is **** all time to repair a Heavy Tank like the Marauder or even a light tank like the standard variants. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16410	Posted - 2015.01.04 09:24:00 - [108] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?) Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs? Yeah you would but at this point I don't care any more. And meh..... IMO needs to be longer 60 seconds is **** all time to repair a Heavy Tank like the Marauder or even a light tank like the standard variants. I've got a spreadsheet with some numbers I've been working on (updated since I last posted the link) I'm adding in the other Racial HAV Base Hulls now. If you don't mind taking a look? (I can send it to you over skype if you'd like, I currently have the HAV Recharge time set to 60 seconds, but it can be easily changed) Sure thing. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16415	Posted - 2015.01.04 22:00:00 - [109] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 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'm not debating that it used to be faster, I'm saying that the RoF doesn't feel right for a main cannon (it feels too fast, even for a Caldari Railgun) Pfff fires up to five rounds from a nine round chambering every 1.8 Seconds.... that's rapid fire if you ask me. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16454	Posted - 2015.01.07 03:39:00 - [110] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I don't play it, so how would I know? So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again? You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game. Goddamn he'd hate it. OHKO penetrations. crew kills, Artillery Spam..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16456	Posted - 2015.01.07 11:20:00 - [111] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance. That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ***). That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16458	Posted - 2015.01.07 19:40:00 - [112] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance. That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ***). That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire. This game sounds cool, I am downloading it now.... If on PS4 don't get into the American Tanks yet. They only have the M4 Medium Tank out and its damn easy to bust if you aims for the gun mantlet or the low driver area with Armour Piercing Ammo as you'll detonate the ammo stored there. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16462	Posted - 2015.01.08 04:11:00 - [113] - Quote Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank. You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods. Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger. Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank. The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank. And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES! That's not necessarily something I agree with. I don't see why players shouldn't if they wish be able to make the most of their hulls. turrets, and skills. Ideally I'd love to see players encouraged to use two kinds of tanks. Their top tier tanks and their Eco Tanks for when ISK is tight. Additionally I'd like to see all turrets becomes something appropriate for something that is supposed to be mounted on an MBT. Missiles as they are now and Blasters do not do this. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16496	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:36:00 - [114] - 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 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16496	Posted - 2015.01.11 21:06:00 - [115] - Quote 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16497	Posted - 2015.01.11 22:44:00 - [116] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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? Ah Small Missiles I now understand. 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16506	Posted - 2015.01.12 04:55:00 - [117] - Quote 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16506	Posted - 2015.01.12 04:58:00 - [118] - 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. 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 my mannerisms as purely 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16508	Posted - 2015.01.12 07:08:00 - [119] - 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 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? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16527	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:54:00 - [120] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:15:00 - [121] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. No way. Just have the main body of the weapon as a simple mount to the weapon upon which the gunner affixes a small chamber used to generate the energy for the electro-laser. Now that's an elegant form of Anti Vehicle weaponry. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:24:00 - [122] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance Does the Scrambler Lance look like this? I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea I even have a bunch of lore to back up what it is and every purchase comes with a small post combat drone designed to collect and dispose of the wasted energy chambers as after use they continue to leak harmful radiation. C'mon Senpai! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:32:00 - [123] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay in module theorycrafting Sounds cool. We used to roll in 3 man rapid movement tank squads in Amarr FW. One six man team could hold all of the exterior objectives on any Large Socket Map and annihilate any vehicle on field by having superior DPS. Also I don't want to sound like an ass but could a suggestion be put forwards about making tanks, especially marauders, bigger. Tanks in Dust feel very small to me.....but that could just be the 3rd person veiw. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:35:00 - [124] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:40:00 - [125] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have? Again sounds great but I think most players would have to go out of their way to fit something like this if more eHP mods were available to them. I still have yet to work out using your proposal if 1x 180 Poly Plates 1x Pro Passive Armour Plate 1-2x Carapace or 1-2 Heavy Armour Reppers are a possible fitting. I know I'd use them but would other people? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16539	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:11:00 - [126] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16546	Posted - 2015.01.13 03:32:00 - [127] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view. I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. Buff armor tanks. Don't nerf my Gunny!!! If we can address a couple of weapons imbalanced then certainly. But if you want a skill tree like the old one for Chromosome or Uprising did you'll have to accept changes and alterations to the Gunnlogi. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16552	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:52:00 - [128] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference making them SLOWER is my relevant thought. The only reason I suggest bigger is for scale. A fair number of examples are present throughout the gaming industry.... however I'll just draw from history. The Tiger H1 was huge compared to smaller less well armed and armoured tanks. Personally one day I'd love to see specialised Marauder Hulls. Bigger, less conventional looking, etc. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg That Cannon is a Large Turret and a half! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:58:00 - [129] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. They do look high to me. 25% reduced incoming damage is pretty significant vs say 10-15%. Hey Breaking one thing I thought about relating to Active Hardners that could spark some interesting discussion is the idea of short duration prolific protection from them for high fitting costs. So ideally you would fit one hardener in addition to your passive plating for short bursts of powerful protection which cycle over the course of 30 or so seconds. In the instance of shorter duration modules perhaps the Marauder could extend the effects of these powerful resistances out for an additional second or two. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:08:00 - [130] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: honestly? COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming: cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:35:00 - [131] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: honestly? COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming: cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. and not a bad one I only bring it up for discussion after thinking of Hardeners is Dust as Active Counter Measures. Something you pulse tactically to ensure you HAV withstands damage or escapes harm, not something you rely on to define your total eHP for meaningful lengths of time. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16554	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:59:00 - [132] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: What if you had 3 flavors? Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16556	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:43:00 - [133] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: What if you had 3 flavors? Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations. Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16558	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:05:00 - [134] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: What if you had 3 flavors? Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations. Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time. I'd seriously rather not. That's going back to the waves of opportunity ***, and we saw how that went. Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now. Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value. "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16561	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:20:00 - [135] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now. Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value. Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits. Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing. That's fair but I am looking at the old modules and if I am not mistaken they were 60 second active duration with 15 seconds down time. That's not micromanaging that's being constantly powerful. I might as well be have been using passive modules back on since I only had to toggle a button once a minute. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16578	Posted - 2015.01.14 21:18:00 - [136] - 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? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes I always quite liked the idea of small missile pods I could activate during the rechambering time of my HAV's main gun..... if you look at the old fan art of the Caldari Marauder you'll see what I mean. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16580	Posted - 2015.01.14 22:52:00 - [137] - Quote By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16585	Posted - 2015.01.15 00:50:00 - [138] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day.... I've found some very interesting non-standard tank designs that could be cool looking to base anything new off of. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16590	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:32:00 - [139] - Quote Hey Thaddeus if I threw you some main battle cannon stats could you bash some sense into them? I'm trying to keep the turrets themselves unique, with as few disparities between them as possible. I have the Charged Electron Blaster - A tri-barrel electron accelerator that fires three projectiles at one in a small cluster. 150mm Carbide Railgun - A single shot high muzzle velocity railgun with the most devastating AoE. Dual Focused Pulse Laser - A pulsing laser turret with no AoE but also no ammunition values or projectile falloff. 200mm Artillery Cannon - A devastating anti tank cannon with the highest AoE splash zone and alpha but slow reload and a lower muzzle velocity. They need a bit of checking as their DPS values don't totally line up with how I want them however each turret has character which I think will be fantastic for the role. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16599	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:53:00 - [140] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:12:00 - [141] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... 1. History disagrees with you - It was formidable for its time See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:44:00 - [142] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. Are you actually and idiot Spkr....of course an 88mm Round it ******* bigger than a 75mm Round, it has greater penetrative values, higher muzzle velocity etc. However that of course came with significant considerations. Horizontal Traversal, Longer Barrel, Barrel more prone to suffering damage, heavy weight meant access to bridges was limited and fording rivers was a necessity, increased armour thickness meant larger and more powerful engines to barely match the speed of British and American Cruising Tanks, and more. However your infliction assume that larger shell = better. That depends. The effective armour values on the Tiger 1 varied from between 102mm on the glaces plate to 25mm at the thinnest points. The 75mm gun withM72 AP shells had penetration values of up to 72mm vs Face Hardened Armour and 88mm vs Rolled Homogenous Armour. However you are comparing a German Heavy Tank with a very diffent design philosophy for the time with an American Medium Tank. It might be better if you compared the KV-2 or the ISU-122 to the Tiger 1 with its 152mm Howizter..... now Spkr I don't have to do the math here for you which is bigger? 122mm 152mm 88mm *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:46:00 - [143] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. 1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16601	Posted - 2015.01.15 22:23:00 - [144] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Dammit True, back on topic. My bad..... I like tanks...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:36:00 - [145] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16616	Posted - 2015.01.16 02:37:00 - [146] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16616	Posted - 2015.01.16 02:58:00 - [147] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16616	Posted - 2015.01.16 03:09:00 - [148] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with) Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired - Directly into an onboard camera - Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it) -Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs) *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16622	Posted - 2015.01.16 03:29:00 - [149] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with) Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired - Directly into an onboard camera - Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it) -Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs) "Wire Guided" is probably the easiest to balance... Directly into an Onboard Camera would be the one I want the most, but would be very powerful by virtue of being able to ignore LoS in a skilled hand Final question do the fire delay values represent the time between the detonation of the rocket once it finds its target/explodes or the launch of the first rocket. If the first rocket will it automatically follow the old trajectory along the wire or establish its own wire? in Which case does the first missile explode or continue to follow your guidance until it explodes? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16639	Posted - 2015.01.16 23:13:00 - [150] - Quote What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16642	Posted - 2015.01.17 00:29:00 - [151] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles? So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come. I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for. As long as the slug throwing sized guns have decreased efficiency/ lower alpha/dps than their Larger equivalents that should be fine. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16649	Posted - 2015.01.18 02:36:00 - [152] - Quote I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck..... Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating). *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16649	Posted - 2015.01.18 04:09:00 - [153] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck..... Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating). Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage). I'm not saying it doesn't and holistically I like the suggestions Thaddeus, Breaking, and Pokey Dravon have suggested however I disagree with Thaddeus's "Shotgun" Blaster idea. Not because I think it is bad but simply not quite "right". A Shotgun in a fundamental manner would not be good at dealing with penetration of things (do correctly me if I am wrong) due to its design being to project a grouping of fragments/pellets at a target also because the calibre of the pellets is small and not designed for long distance projection and thus would suffer against solid surfaces. If I am also not mistaken Shotgun can fire Slug Rounds which are designed to penetrate targets. Now again we have never truly had the fundamentals of Vehicle Shield and Armour operation in Dust 514 properly confirmed but I don't believe a "Shotgun Turret" would function efficiently. Though arguably my own suggestion is rather similar to Thaddeus' own in the sense that the Blaster I envision is a tri-barrelled electron accelerator that fires three almost simultaneous hybrid charges containing specific atoms suspended in a plasma state. This ideally would function in the same manner as a tandem warhead. The Three rounds fire directly and with minimal dispersion in a triangle sharped grouping. In terms of gameplay these rounds would almost land simultaneously each with its own small splash damage zone, the three in total comprising the equivalent of a full Railgun Volley, albeit with a slightly shorter reload to ensure DPS supremacy but not a huge supremacy. The design of which sees the three hybrid charged detonate in close proximity to one another one after the other hopefully achieving increased penetrative power. Fundamentally you could argue this is a shotgun weapon..... which.... it kind of is. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg If you have ever seen this picture..... you'll see what I mean. Honestly and I'll put it out there. I'd like to see every large turret in Dust 514 become a Main Battle Cannon. And I believe this can be achieved while keeping in mind the identity of the weapon, its functionality, and its characteristics according to CCP's designed in EVE online. Not an hour ago I was in a match chasing a scout down a hill with an Ion Canon and put rounds into him at about 40m. I was honestly thinking to myself how much more badass this would have been if my turret had been a railgun or an Electron Cannon.....as such the experience was cheapened by how easy the Blast ripped this poor guy apart. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16649	Posted - 2015.01.18 05:38:00 - [154] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them. And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works. As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because 1: They are ***** space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense 2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts. 3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations. 4: Specifically for the AC, why in the ** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss). 5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all. As I've said I don't deny Thaddeus suggestion I a Good one. It is. I've just been talking about it with him and I can argue both ways about it for and against. I simply think mine is better. I've a means to balance all turrets to roughly similar DPS values, differing alpha's, forms of fire, etc all that good stuff while keeping the fundamental identity of the weapons themselves while keeping them roughly to a single shot long reload (arguably realistic) model. Now sure when it comes to rounds there are canister rounds that fire shells that fragment on impact and assuming Thaddeus rounds work like that (which I know they don't since he told me he wants them in a magazine something I am somewhat opposed to) that would be fine since it ensures relatively accurate delivery of the fragments. However I simply think that the Gallente could achieve a better anti tank gun (and hell I think in my suggestions Thaddeus actually altered the Void rounds so they fired in his shotgun manner) by firing three subsequent hybrid charges with a closer grouping for better accuracy even if their shot has a noticeably falloff. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16650	Posted - 2015.01.18 06:37:00 - [155] - Quote Though I hate using bullet pointed numbers I kinda have to reply. 1.) I do not think the Shotgun turret as Thaddeus has outlined it to my understand is necessarily reflecting modern day technologies or particularly realistic. I say this due to the method of the delivery of the fragments. To my understanding he intends for the rounds to fly free from the muzzle of the main gun. I would argue this is probably an inefficient means of delivering the rounds as energy would burn off during the delivery wouldn't it? If he suggested the shot gun was fired initially from a canister and then fragmented at range to reduce the spread and energy burn off then I think I could perhaps better accept it. Also yeah there are Cannister rounds that fire those fragmentation balls you were talking about but again would suggest they'd be ineffective against tank armours for the most part and simply better for the depiction perhaps of an anti personell round of a smaller calibre cannon. Especially when drawing from modern examples and honestly "logical process" (I understand this is subjective) I would think the technologies that go into tank production in New Eden would account for smaller calibre charges from the main weapons of the four empires and disperse the forces at work across a wider area. I certainly think the Shotgun shell could work as a variant ....like I Thaddeus may well have intended when he put that into the original excel sheet but would function as a less effective cannon type in terms of direct/accurate damage application. 2.) I would think its the opposite in some respects. It's much easier to penetrate armour up close than it is at longer ranges. I would suggest that Tanks in Dust really shouldn't be the kinds of vehicles that continue to roll about on top of one another as they do right now. Honestly I see the slower rates of fire and more accurate rounds as a positive thing for vehicles. Ideally it makes tanks main guns feel, sounds, and function in a more powerful fashion. Ideally it would open up a place in the game for speed tanking and use of terrain features as proper forms of cover so that tanks don't just go off gallivanting around madly rushing everything they feel like killing. Ideally it reduces our impact on infantry combat in a significant manner. We can still kill them with accurate shots and splash damage but not as often or as prolifically as we can now. 3.) In Dust that is arguably true. Currently all that matters is DPS and how long you can sustain it. Usually all modules do is slow down the DPS values of the other tank and the winner is usually who engages first and has their modules active soonest and bring to bear their gun. Honestly I don't like that. I don't really feel like it accounts for player skill. You don't usually get time to manoeuvre greatly and the activation of modules now is passive and reactive at best rather that something you actively choose to use at a specific time of the combat scenario. I think with the adjustments and fundamental change to tanks main guns bringing them all into a specific function of specific attributes that alters their function in some manner would do wonders to balance tanks and draw away from this ideals that the greater DPS will win the combat. E,g- In the suggestion Blasters have the fastest reload time and one of the lowest alpha's. But ideally would fire with AoE splash and a moderate falloff on the projectile. The Railgun fires a moderately high alpha shell with the least noticeable fall off over distance, smaller more compact AoE, and a longer reload time. The Laser Fires two beams/projectiles with 0 fall off, has no ammo, is slightly less alpha-y than the Railgun, but also has 0 splash. Artillery has the largest AoE and alpha values but the longest reload time, lowest splash damage, and has a more noticeable fall off somewhere between the Blaster and the Railgun. 4.) That's the fundamental reason I did not include it. I believe it is better suited as a Small and Medium Turret Type since it allows for the smaller vehicle hulls to have access to rapid firing splash/anti infantry damage options. 5.) Variation is the name of the game still. You still have your modules, you still have your hulls, the only things this changes is the fundamental role of HAV from "Kill Anything" to "Primarily Kill Vehicles". I feel if players wish to spend their time using rapid fire weapons with splash damage they should be able to do it and to do that they can use light turrets on tanks, light turrets on LAV, Medium/ Light Turrets of Dropships, Assault Dropships, Fighters, MAV, etc. All of which might perhaps be designed specifically for those roles. As for the Turret Types for each race. That's something to consider. As you know I love the lore, I also love EVE-Dust consistency...... but the more and more I think about HAV and vehicles the more I consider that it's worth bending lore around them for the sake of functionality. As for the Amarr arguably you could say I've only given them one kind of Large Turret.... a Dual Focused Beam Laser or a Dual Focused Pulse Laser. I honestly don't see a need for two types for the Amarr if they function somewhat similarly in the end. However since all Races including the Gallente use Missiles/ have ships with missile bonuses (stealth bomber torp bonuses) you could consider any Large Missile Turret an example of a secondary Large Turret. Moreover the Caldari and Gallente would then technically have 3 Large Turrets, Blasters, Railguns, and Missiles. In time depending on how things progress an Amarrian Arc Cannon could be introduced and a Minmatar Mortar could be introduced. Eventually you could do something like a Twin Barreled Auto Cannon that could fire two 125mm rounds at the same time and have a much faster reload time or something more tasteful. Who knows? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16651	Posted - 2015.01.18 07:00:00 - [156] - Quote I'll just say two more things before the conversation reverts back to what CCP Rattati actually asked for, The First is that I do understand that Dust is not a conventionally military shooter game and therefore does not have to follow what I/we might consider to be conventional shooter game designs however what I find interesting about vehicle and tank use in other games that I do not in Dust is that they are grounded in the conventional even if the premise of the tank is not e.g the T85 Levkov from Battlefield 4 or the Magrider from Planetside 2, even the Starwars Battlefront 2 Hover Tanks which allowed you to fire anti infantry blasters but had slow firing rocket pods as your main damage dealer. It's something that can be recognised by players universally and it means that its a solid platform for CCP to later say "Hey you guys know what?" Also I see it as a move closer to EVE. In EVE as you know your turret modules are always cycling. Firing. Then Cycling again. Much like my proposed ideas. Also I see it as a chance to remove damage modules entirely form the game and let CCP base their base values which can be modified with things like Reload Speed Modules which do what Gyrostabilisers, Heat Sinks, Accelerators etc do in EVE. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16651	Posted - 2015.01.18 07:51:00 - [157] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Stuff about turrets If there was a more efficient way of doing this, tell me and we can do it. 1: Yes, and that's why they would have such a short range. I would agree with you if they were further away, but they are not. Remember, in his idea, the blaster is essentially firing multiple rounds at once, instead of just one in a rapid firing manner. Technically, they should have the same range as now, assuming they are the same charge, and the same or similar energy is given to each shot (which seems to be the case, seeing as the damage per shot is similar still). Anyways, no, not canister shells (those are AP rounds, not AT), cluster shells. It's a shell sent at a target that sends smaller rounds into it mid flight, kinda like this, more or less (most likely less, unless there's nuclear warheads involved). They are in fact workable as far as killing tanks goes, and I was told there's shells like that for tanks, and that's newer tanks. Sure, a traditional AP round will pen more (and that's why a rail clearly has more direct damage than this), but this would be much easier to aim and hit with, especially when on the move and in closer ranges (assuming there's no guidance computers involved). This is still a lore argument by the way, but it is interesting. 2: There's two parts to this: A- Lots of people, not just myself, has grown to like the close range action that blasters, or anything of similar traits gives. If you want to play long range, hang back, grab a missile (and a actual missile, not these ******* rockets), rail, beam laser, or arty and let us do what we do. B- tanks naturally get close to each other. It's bound to happen. Even with the ridiculous ranges that WWII tanks had (at least later in the war), they STILL got into close ranges with each other (a friend of my gramps shot the gun or a Sherman, and he told me how often he would get in close to the Germans, which apparently happened a lot). So far, I haven't seen any different in any game generally, and Dust is no exception. C- This would mean that, again, Blasters, AC's, Pulse Lasers, Rockets, and anything else that COULD happen won't, because everything has to be a long range cannon. Even if they did, they would be useless, because everything long range would just snipe them down. On top of that, only the best long range turret (since they are all similar in nature, slow ROF cannons) would be used, creating a situation that we have now. Speed tanking would exist MORE with good close range turrets. It makes zero sense with a long range turret however. Why would you even possibly need speed when you're not going anywhere very fast due to sniping things? Also, terrain is already used to advantage people, and was used even more when smart people played. Shotgun turret with a lower ROF and a way smaller mag and reserve mag, and you go around killing infantry, even higher heat, and you go around killing infantry. Cool, your choice. 3: Changing the guns so it's everyone sniping at everyone would change jack. We trying to balance the hulls and raise the TTK back to old Uprising levels is in fact making that player skill return. As for your desc's of each turret, the way they work aside, that's generally what people is pushing for minus the splash (it varies). Otherwise, that is a VERY limited list of turrets to choose from, and a even more when you look at it from the above perspectives, so I'd rather not. 4: And that sill is valid. Looking at Thaddeus's AC, it looks like something to kill a HAV or a turret with, not infantry. the Barrage AC's would be the worst thing to kill infantry with, seeing as missing shots is probably easy enough to do, and you only get a grand total of three bursts before you've seized up. That is just unwieldy as hell for fighting infantry, but on a bigger target that you won't miss, that 1k DPS looks real nice. Also, your point is to remove variation? 5: No, it is not. People build fits for situations they plan on getting into. They also play how the fit is built for (skilled people anyways). a MAJOR part of that is the turret. If everything turret is very similar, people would build their fits around very similar things, making only a couple fits per hull (hell, some hulls might even be useless compared to others, and entire ideas for hulls would be even cut out, and not just for HAV's; LLV's are best on amobile HAV, and worst on a hiding, camping HAV). This would have the opposite effect of variation, aka what we have now. I think there is positive variation and negative variation. Positive is the kind that you can talk about with your fellow pilots for days....negative is where there is so much is muddles the water and makes balancing a role difficult. I love CQC combat but you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16656	Posted - 2015.01.18 20:10:00 - [158] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks. It basically comes down to these two things, in which Yes, you kinda do have to have fast firing weapons in CQC, as every second you're not putting rounds into the target is rounds wasted in CQC. It doesn't matter as much at range because you have to aim more, which gives more time to think. That's why good CQ weapons are most likely high DPS low alpha weapons, or a pseudo alpha like a shotgun. I never said it wouldn't lead to balance, I said it would lead to constantly changing meta due to FOTM's. With this, everything preforms differently, and would preform better or wose depending on the situation you're in. It leads to pilots egging the opponents into the ideal situation, so it becomes a situation of who can get better positioning, who can break that to their advantage, or who can maintain it, while properly using their modules. It just works better for variations within variations, instead of everything being the same, which I'm frankly sick of in any game. Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns? Simply put lack of penetrability vs a tank that repairs itself. Apparently according to Thaddeus graphene based technology is a very viable form of technology in New Eden alongside super dense alloys and what we'd consider FHA and RHA. Couple that with Nanite based technologies which repair damaged segements of armour while under-fire..... it honestly doesn't begin to make sense to use Assault weapons on a tank. I don't think it much matters about wasted seconds in CQC. You shouldn't ever want to get up close in a tank knowing full well you penetrate armour more easily and can be destroyed more easily not only this but as long as assault weapons exist tanking will never require any effort from its players who can just turn assault weapons high rates of fire against infantrymen, sustain that fire, and continue to abuse an insanely powerful hull. It requires more discipline from a player to make their shots could in close range with single shot weapons that it does to blaze away with a Plasma machinegun. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16656	Posted - 2015.01.18 20:18:00 - [159] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. They freaking well do. Took an 88mm to side armour on my (76) Sherman M4 scared the balls out of me so I started an angled reverse down the hill....... right into a KV-1................ *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16659	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:03:00 - [160] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Can't sorry. Squee me! I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does....... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16659	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:12:00 - [161] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes. They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Can't sorry. Squee me! I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does....... Since I'm pretty much done with core things... You really should open the racial parity tab I'm just doing things for FUN now. Why does the Amarr HAV at a standard level has less armour than the gallentean counter part? I mean you were some close to the stats I was going to suggest to you of 800 Shields and 3200 armour *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16661	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:29:00 - [162] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: fixed. Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16662	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:38:00 - [163] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: fixed. Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively. because I'm hashing out average baseline differences between armor values and shield values. I had to use the Surya as the baseline. then I'm finding the HP baseline for the Gungnir. then I'm changing the hull shield/armor/cpu/PG of the minmatar vehicles based on the percentages of change between the types of amarr hulls so the progression is even. I'm currently rounding off and am going to clean up the values so they aren't oddball numbers when I finish. rounding up or down as needed. I'm not done yet I just took the 580 difference between the Madrugar and the Surya. Added them to the based 3200 I suggested and it worked out nicely. My projected Amarr HAV sits at a little over 11K eHP with one Hardener Active due to the passive 25% resistances I'd have. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16662	Posted - 2015.01.18 22:14:00 - [164] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I kinda figured the Amarr for the types to consider the marauders to be main battle tanks, and what everyone ELSE thought as MBTs to be "scout tanks" and then get butthurt when CONCORD reclassifies the Seraphim a "Marauder." Penitent tanks might LITERALLY be a punishment detail. And Militia tanks are for weekend warrior reservists who couldn't be trusted with anything much more powerful than a tricycle. Just seems to be an amarr thing, Go big or GO HOME. with lasers. That actually make sense. Lore wise it would honestly make a great deal of sense that the reason the Amarr had not deployed their own tanks was because they found the designs of the other racial groups to be befitting their racial designs to be unacceptable and spared no expense the development of the Seraphim Tank. However as the project wore on the realities of mass producing and outfitting main battle tanks with reinforced graphine lined RHA plating became more apparent. Not only was the process significantly more expensive, something that over a matter of months saw a drop off in investor confidence leaving Imperial Armaments to the shoulder the financial burden of development, and also required significantly more powerful drive systems which saw production outsourced to Khanid Innovations. In YC 117 after the initial designs were accepted into the Imperial Guard's active rotation opening skirmishes against the Lighter and more flexible Minmatar HAV caused the Imperial Guard to rethink it's armoured doctrines as a result of higher than projected HAV losses. It wasn't until a CONCORD symposium regarding the recently military technologies during which time the CONCORD representative mistakenly referred to the Seraphim as the commonly accepted term, Marauder, that the Amarr accepted the Seraphim as a Heavy Tank and reallocated its Research and Development assets to produce the Penitent and the lighter variations of HAV. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16663	Posted - 2015.01.18 23:04:00 - [165] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Its the exorcist. I misspoke. The seraph is the ADS Naming wise I think we can do a little better than the generic "religious themes". I'd really like to see and identity developed for the Amarr to conveys their ideals/ battle philosophy rather than having the religious nature thrown in your face again. I always saw the Amarrian tank using the name Leviathan......but since thats the name of a Capital Ship in EVE....we can't. Also I was thinking that if the Amarr ever got their tank they should have the largest hull in terms of size. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16667	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:40:00 - [166] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16673	Posted - 2015.01.19 03:48:00 - [167] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated My Numbers 1) Added in more skills, and how bonuses affect things 2) Added in almost all the old modules, and adjusted their stats to play with current values 2a) I'm assuming that Shield Boosters should be fixed by removing shield delay 3) Added in Vehicle Scale Detection 4) Proposed Adding EWAR and Detection Mods (Some of which are based on ideas from Lazer and Spker) 4) Updated Turrets, still working on them, Added in EMP Cannons to artillery (Flux Driver needs to happen) 4a) Changed Missile Launcher from being a Burst god to being a solid burst fire turret, with 4 different variants for choosing damage type. 4b) Changed Missile Launcher name to MLRS 4c) Added stats for Guided Missile Launchers. 5) Modified fitting and base stats of HAVs 5a) Started Rounding and normalizing values for HAV stats 6) Started working on LAV pages, same principles as the HAVs (Reduce Base Stats, increase fitting and slots, generate racial stats based on relative values of dropsuits). 7) Started working on Small Turrets, stats are based on relative DPS of Infantry Rifles (But still very early on). Things I'm working on next: Finishing Generating LAVs, Generating Dropships, Small Turrets, "Solid Slug" Blaster (could use ideas for names), then generating Infantry AV stats (following a lot of Breakin's stuff, but adjusting for my numbers) etc etc I'm sticking with keeping "Assault Turrets" for sake of completeness, I don't believe they'll be too powerful against infantry given adequate dispersion and heat control. (Considering lowering "assault turret" DPS or upping heat even more...because LOLScorch) Hoho 14k eHP for 10.5 seconds ..... nice! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16676	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:39:00 - [168] - Quote 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. Hmmmm is there a fire rate delay between shots? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16676	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:44:00 - [169] - 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 Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid. Quiet peasants! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16677	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 - [170] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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? Nope which is why I take everything you say with two grains of salt. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16677	Posted - 2015.01.19 19:53:00 - [171] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in. Meh at least Pokey seems to comprehend balance...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16677	Posted - 2015.01.19 20:06:00 - [172] - Quote 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? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16692	Posted - 2015.01.20 00:45:00 - [173] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16699	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:35:00 - [174] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16701	Posted - 2015.01.20 02:52:00 - [175] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do. As I've said it seems counter intuitive to fire plasma directly. Inefficient, dangerous, and illogical. However if you fired charges that delivered the plasma to the target before detonating or that covered a fair amount of the distance before detonating you'd not only get more range but greater destructive power. As such firing a machine gun of plasma rounds doesn't work well. But firing a Canister Shot of Suspended Plasma Particles would net you better range, accuracy, and energy release on impact. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 04:21:00 - [176] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: If only the forums had a face palm emoticon. Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right? They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed. That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient. Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller. As I said that seems inefficient to me. Rather than heat it up simply store the required number of charges (the containers that house the suspended particles in plasma state) and accelerate the changes so that they are what is fired and so that when they break apart on impact the energy in those charges is fully released. Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 05:38:00 - [177] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts. That is arguing based on size of the charge itself, or rather if the charge splits up into many pieces or stays into one (depending on looking at machine gun, cannon, or shotgun) And in close range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none. At least you're realizing that this is how it generally works, because the charges are stored on board the HAV, and then heated to a plasma state rapidly, and then launched. Assault Turret delivery method just works better in the end of it, because it gives you much more room to breathe in. But requires **** all aim, skill, or thought. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16705	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:04:00 - [178] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe. I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16717	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:44:00 - [179] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16718	Posted - 2015.01.21 01:39:00 - [180] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. . just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles. My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16719	Posted - 2015.01.21 02:19:00 - [181] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16721	Posted - 2015.01.21 03:04:00 - [182] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally. Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. If it's still **** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions. Do you not know what min maxing is? It's not that a turret is ** at range merely less effective that the other based purely on the arbitrary racial predispositions. Yes the Gallente typically do up close and personal work with rapid firing high damage blasters. Thus their turret cycles faster than others, achieve a respectable damage, but might have a greater projectile drop than specially designed rounds of other races, however with compensation the rounds can still remain accurate. Yes the Caldari typically like to keep themselves at a range with slower firing high alpha Railguns. Thus their turrets cycle a bit more slowly, their rounds do not fall off a much as other weapons, and have high alpha damage, But their barrels are bulk and traverse more slowly. Etc Because when you consider the fundamental premise of a tank and a tank turret both of which specifically state in the definition of the concept the nature of the primary gun as large calibre you cannot effectively achieve the intended role for a tank using a ***** machine gun. There is a reason historically tanks have not been fitted with short range rapid firing turrets. This is because they cannot penetrate the armours of the vehicles they are targeting unless they have significant force, power, etc behind them. Even accounting that the projectile being fired is a small amount of plasma we are talking super dense materials, specialised armour designs,technologies which harden the armour and shielding, graphine based technologies in incredibly advanced manners etc. There is quite literally no justification in using a smaller calibre rapid firing turret when a larger calibre comparatively slower firing weapons achieves a better result. Now I'm not saying that all turrets are going to be exactly the same, that would be pointless, however the core functionality of a tank turret is power, accuracy, and rate of fire. You can achieve all three of these via the conventional tank turret with an Auto Loader producing a cannon with 15-17 RPM. There is a specific reason these are mounted on top of heavily armoured main battle tanks and not in their place 25mm Auto-cannons. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16722	Posted - 2015.01.21 04:02:00 - [183] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Hi everyone, can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps. Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. Fit 1 Gunnlogi 2x Hardeners 1x Complex Extender 1x PG Extender 1x 120mm Advance Plates Prototype Turret Fit 2 Gunnlogi 2x Complex Extenders 1x Hardeners 1x PG Extender 1x 120mm Advanced Plates Prototype Turret *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16724	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:12:00 - [184] - Quote Never drove in Chrome. I spend all my time in armour tanked Assault Suits learning to be Amarr before Uprising. The only Enforcer Build that I was planning to skill into was one another player built before a couple of tankers talked down the Enforcers so hard I didn't end up skilling into it. Active Heat Sink II F45 Damage Contro0l Vehicle Scanner I 120mm Armour Plate 1x Carapace Armour Hardener 1x Voltaic Armour Hardener 2x Heavy IGL Polarized Armour Repairer / Large Inefficient Heavy Armour Repairer Scattered Ion Cannon Shields- 1000 Armour- 6016 *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16725	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:05:00 - [185] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Update: Changed Nanofiber plates to polycrystalline plates, renamed the third tier of plates Rolled Tungsten. Re-adding nanofiber plates as the ferroscale analogs as soon as my brain is up to kit-bashing them. Unless anyone can think of a reason not to I'm going to use the percentage differences between dropsuit plates and dropsuit ferroscales. Nanofiber plate movement penalty intended to be 50% of standard plates. Will hammer the numbers when I get home from work tomorrow morning. Super Dense Rolled Tungsten Armour (SDRTA) the new RHA vs Armour Piercing Super Dense Iridium Discarding Sabots (APSDIDS)....... me likey. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16725	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:17:00 - [186] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since). Just my amateur feedback: Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi. Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank. Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse? I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay. The underlined is already done. With comparatively slow tracking Railguns and Missile you can effectually increase your turret tracking by turning as well ensuring your opponents never gets to your rear armour. The bolded is rather true. In Dust we're basically cannibalising what likely comes right out of EVE and trying to apply that to Dust. However when it comes to tanks (and I don't mean to draw from history again) the weight of the tank likely determines the kind of engine and drive system it has. An M4 Sherman would move at top speed between 40-48 kmph while a 20 tonne heavier tiger could also move in open country at 45 kmph. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16726	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:33:00 - [187] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing: 1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily). If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16727	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:39:00 - [188] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing: 1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily). If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool! I also updated that post with additional info adamance, re-read. That's cool. Either way I'll likely be waiting to see what Rattati does with plans to semi permanently move on to other games. Again I keep saying to people and I don't understand why they don't grasp the concept.... you can still have single shot main battle turrets and massacre infantry..... it just requires you aim a little bit more. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16727	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:44:00 - [189] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Hi everyone, can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps. Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. The ones that True linked are the Meta Fits (minor alterations exist depending on the specific user and weather or not they want small guns)...I'd hardly call them unbeatable, but they are the current meta all other slots are pilot preference (although armor plate and pg upgrade are the preference for solo users) Either: Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Extenders 1x Hardener or Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Hardener 1x Extender I'd also like to that that usually a rail is added to that fit Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank". All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16727	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:01:00 - [190] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those. When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods. Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options. Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting? I'm pretty sure people get that. As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point. They had 15 second cool downs didn't they.....? I wouldn't call that long ass..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16745	Posted - 2015.01.22 03:45:00 - [191] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati at least should appreciate the names I put on the minmatar dropships, if he makes the connection to what they are. I do and they are awesome I'm trying to find out some similar stuff for the Amarr but my original searches using breaking Judaic angels theme led me into Assyrian and Babylonian creationism myths. Anshar/Anshur - was the name for a tank I came up with. It's means literally "sky pivot" but is composed of the words An- Heaven and Shar/Shur- Horizon or End Kishar/Kishur is the opposite and means Earth Pivot composed of Earth and Horizon or End. In Amarr it could mean something similar such as Earth Horizon, "temporal end", gate to heaven. Etc I find the Amarr hard to name for since their cultural basis isn't immediately obvious. Karkadan and Kargadan, or KhaRga represents a mythological carnivorous creatures that was like the apotheosis to the unicorn, and often depicted as a Rhinoceros. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

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.