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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 13639	Posted - 2014.12.15 09:22:00 - [1] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15903	Posted - 2014.12.15 09:38:00 - [2] - 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.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11698	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:05:00 - [3] - Quote Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced. Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15904	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:29:00 - [4] - 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.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 20205	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:41:00 - [5] - Quote I'm not sure a Vayu can effectively counter a Falchion if the Falchion can instapop it with 'quick aiming' (countering the Vayu's main defensive ability of circling to avoid being tracked), and long range means a number of benefits which mean that it would be unlikely to actually get engaged by a live Vayu. Also, I feel that the enforcers should not be particularly expensive. If they are, that'll likely lead to a lot of frustration given how weak they apparently are. Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15904	Posted - 2014.12.15 10:45:00 - [6] - 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.
Canaan Knute Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 156	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:13:00 - [7] - Quote How will these vehicles fare against AV?
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2274	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:14:00 - [8] - Quote I've been out of the vehicle game for a while, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt. First, we need to establish what each vehicle needs to do. Then we need to establish what it needs in order to do it. The problem with rock/paper/scissors is the implication that one should always win against the other. The Marauder shouldn't always win against the basic frame, simply have an advantage. Just like the Cr has an advantage over armor tanks, but it doesn't guarantee victory. As far as how the tree should look, I think it should be the same as ADS, where you have the ADS skill which then branches into racial ADS. So there would be a marauder skill giving a bonus to both, then racial marauders giving a bonus to that specific race. Same for enforcers. This means they would have 2 bonuses, one from the base skill and one from the racial skill. Marauders: these should be the heavy duty, stand and deliver type vehicles, both of them. The Surya should do it better than the Sagaris since armor is supposed to be stand and deliver, but The Sagaris should definitely be able to take the pain better than the Gunnlogi/Madrugar. To this end, I would say a appropriate resistance bonus to shield/armor would be the most ideal. Outside of bonuses, they would have more health than the basic frames. As a drawback, they should have reduced maneuverability (turning, acceleration, top speed) these things should hope to weather the storm instead of escaping it. Perhaps even give them a siege type module that buffs their defenses at the cost of maneuverability. That would give them something that sticks out from the basic frames instead of being the same tanks with some new colors and a bonus slapped on. Marauders: 4% resistance to shield/armor Caldari Marauder: 5% reduction to shield module CPU/PG Gallente Marauder: 5% reduction to Armor module CPU/PG Enforcers: These are basically glass cannons. They swoop in, deal damage, swoop out. To this end, we need to give them bonuses to damage. In lieu of direct damage bonuses, we could give them PG/CPU reductions to damage mods, making fitting them easier. The Falchion would be served well with a bonus to missile turrets. I would say something like more missiles per magazine or faster reload. Something that increases its ability to do damage without actually increasing damage dealt (save for damage mods) The Vayu would of course use blasters, but this is tricky to balance. The only real thing we could do to increase damage dealt without actually touching damage is reducing dispersion of blasters, meaning they can fight infantry easier. But then, they'll be easier to kill than the basic frames, so perhaps that balances it out. In lieu if dispersion, we can increase ROF, allowing blasters to actually reach lethal levels of DPS in vehicle battles. Outside of bonuses, they should be faster than basic frames, better turning, acceleration and top speed. Maneuverability should be key. As a drawback, give them a reduction to total health/regen. They should want to attack from the flank and destroy their opponent before they can react. A caught Enforcer is likely to be a dead Enforcer. Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Varoth Drac Titans of Phoenix 516	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:20:00 - [9] - Quote How about giving marauders a bonus to small turrets, to emphasise their role as more anti-infantry? I am assuming this role since destroyers seem to have the AV role, even though I know marauders will be AV as well.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 128	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:39:00 - [10] - Quote Are you also going to be addressing the disparity between armor and shield HAVs while your doing this? (Theory-crafting out some numbers using the Combat Battlecruisers for the MBTs, Attack Battlecruisers for the Enforcers, and Combat Battleships for the Marauders as a base...I'm also going to reference the heavy frame vs the Sentinal vs the Commando)... a quick question, is it possible for you to integrate a role bonus (Single, flat bonus) into a hull/skill instead of one that increases per level? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.

Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 471	Posted - 2014.12.15 11:56:00 - [11] - Quote not sure if I like the idea of the falch insta poping the vayu/surya. please don't give any of the caldarian tank's a rail bonus. we don't need bonused double complex modded railguns. or at least keep railgun bonus to minimal ammounts missiles at least punish the user for missing their targets with slow reloads and having to line/track targets. blasters.................does anything else need to be said. while your doing tank changes. PLEASE REDUCE THE LARGE BLASTER DISPERION. AV on roof tops is ridiculos. at least railguns and missiles have a chance of kicking them off of a roof top. the blaster how ever is basically defencless and cant counter such a tatic. dont give the blaster pin point accuracy but at least give us less dispersion or the longer the blaster is fired the more that dispersion is appernet. and dispersion makes it a horrible pain to kill bunny hoping av users. takeing or sitting to long to kill a LONE av user until buddies come to help him is a death sentence. as it is right now blaster fitted tanks are just harmless beasts that cherrys feed off for points. at the very least give the gallente tanks some sort of bonus to reduce dispersion. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox 472	Posted - 2014.12.15 12:00:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. I was happy paying 2.7mill isk for a single tank that could stand up to AV that was op back and befor chromsome and basically keep the enemy in check and having fear of seeing my surya with scattered ion cannon and 2 xt- cycle missiles ''marudering'' around. but no. AV wasn't happy with the fact they were OP and the only way to stand up to them was with insanley costly tanks. now look at the vehicles we have now...............my surya form chromo would melt them all. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5774	Posted - 2014.12.15 12:58:00 - [13] - Quote I fully support this initiative and will provide likely TTK feedback for on foot AV based on current. My first thought is that we need to be careful with the things. We're at the point where the gunnlogi can shrug off AV fire with impunity. Where are these tanks intended to fit in the AV/V debate/debacle as far as design goes? My concern is that based on current EHP of HAVs re-introduction may necessitate a rework of AV again. Especially since the forge gun really has only one effective variant, and the PLC is situational. Nevermind you have to be using a wiyrkomi breach for damage mods to change TTK for heavy weapons. I am excited to get potentially new and fun targets again but concerned with their effect upon infantry AV. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 231	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:03:00 - [14] - Quote +1 for the vehicle attention I hope the extra content means players are more willing to look down the other side of the barrel
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 3183	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:05:00 - [15] - Quote I wrote down my opinion on this with IWS, I'll paste the HAV parts here for you. Tanks: As it stands, tanks are a pure AV role. Which in all honesty, should not be the case. In PC, tanks are of little use and an ADS could easily do what they do in the way of AI. That being said, I believe that reintroducing enforcer and Marauder tanks would be a good way to balance this out. Enforcers My thought is this, enforcer tanks are the AI variants of tanks. They would have less EHP, a little more speed, and benefits to large turrets to help them assault infantry. Example: blasters would get lowered dispersion on the Vayu, allowing them to fight infantry more effectively, and make them viable on open maps. Missiles would get more splash so they can catch infantry on them. As it stands currently, tanks don't have much else to do but fight themselves, shoot ADS and become giant roadblocks. Introduction of an AI tank will add more of a robust vehicle world. Marauders My next thought is that marauders should be the AV tanks. They'd have more HP, maybe a little less speed, and benefits that would make them AV titans. Blasters would get something like increased ROF and lowered heat build up, helping them to tear into a shields hull for faster and longer. Missiles would get a damage buff and increased total magazine size. Rails would get reduced heat build up and better cooldown. That's just my two cents on the issue. Tanks need to have an AI version, along with an AV version. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13855	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:11:00 - [16] - Quote Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield? If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 13645	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:15:00 - [17] - Quote A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5776	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:49:00 - [18] - Quote Can you scale the tank models so they are smaller? I would make the enforcers 25% smaller than standard tanks, remove one or both secondary turrets and make them cheap. Smaller means harder to hit. I would also make their turret elevation limit higher. Marauders are harder. Given the current state of the gunnlogi and sica making them tougher seems... not good. Giving the marauder a buff to secondary turrets as.well as defenses might make the party tank a credible threat to infantry as well. But as far as it goes I believe thw best way to balance them is to change the main cannon firing mechanics a bit. More on that later if you are interested. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2682	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:59:00 - [19] - Quote Well I think this is the wrong direction personally. The heart of the vehicle rebalance should be the capacitor, and the introduction of webs and neuts. It is my opinion that you cannot have proper vehicle balance without this. If vehicles can't be trapped and crippled to be slowly beat down by other vehicles and/or AV (or rescued by teammates), then vehicles will always have to be pretty weak. Tactics for them limited, and the side grade over upgrade mentality will be required. I think that's shallow and, to be blunt, sh*tty gameplay. I'd like to capture the risk/reward mentality from EVE. I'd like to see someone roll out a 10+ million ISK tank that he'd spent a week grinding ambushes in a starter fit to pay for that was significantly better than what other players were fielding. I'd like him to feel like a god as he cuts down other vehicles, and then absolute terror when a scout manages to get tackle on him and his cap starts getting neuted out. He turns off his overdrive, to conserve cap, calling to his squadmates frantically for rescue on coms. His cap is getting dangerously low, when one of his squad mates flys a dropship to him and begins to triage. The AV retargets the dropship and it goes down quickly since it's cap was being used for reps and didn't have enough to afterburner out. The pilot bails at the last second and manages to kill the guy webbing the tank. Finally free, the tank tries to make his escape, but one last neut grenade goes off and he's capped out. His hardener/repper shut off and he is going to loose an asset he spent a week's worth of grinding in starter fits to get. That's the kind of gameplay that would be truly amazing. Risk/reward, joy, elation, terror, relief, rage, victory, defeat, this is the emotional connection that EVE is able to capture. I don't think any other FPS could come close to DUST if we had that kind of depth to vehicle gameplay with so much on the line. We can never get there without capacitors and the "tiericide" mentality. You need to have linear performance improvements for exponential ISK costs. Thats part of how you maintain the risk/reward balance. With the tiericide, paper/rock/scissors approach, tanks become not much differen from other kinds of suits with special abilities. It's the disposable approach and it's boring and shallow, just like every other FPS game that doesn't hold my attention for more than a week. This is our chance to do things better. Start with capacitors. Model the vehicle stats around frigs in EVE. I did some preliminary analysis with this, and I think it could be a viable approach to balance. Best PvE idea ever!
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3442	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:22:00 - [20] - Quote Instead of bring in 2 types to counter each other in a rock paper scissor game, i would prefer to turn one (between enforcers & marauder) in logi tank. Less firepower, more modules. Of course we need some modules back. Another thing i would like to say is to not put toghether slow movement, low HP and high damage, otherwise people will only camp. Situational awareness also known as passive scan.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 600	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:25:00 - [21] - Quote Some constructive Critiscm of the Tank fitting philopshy as per your spreadsheet. For the Falchion: - Slow Turn Speed - Low HP - Same slots - Fast Turret tracking -Slow Forward Speed This is pretty much the epitome of the Redline RailTank. Without the HP buffer to at least survive an infantry ambush, or the speed to get away through an ambush, these guys will only be safe within the redline, trying to snipe tanks and other infantry then roll backwards. Which double and triple modded tanks already do, yet the slow turret tracking speed helps to counter this somewhat. It ougt to more closley follow in the Vayu below. Maurader - Normal Turn Speed - Massive HP - Same slots - Slow turret tracking - Normal Forward speed This is a good philosophy for a hard hitting tank, makes it tough to engage head on but gives other faster tanks a fighting chance. Vayu - Fast turn Speed - Low HP - Same slots - Slow Turret Tracking - Fast Forward SpeedSide grade to MBT This is more what i envision a tank destroyer to be. Very fast, low hp but hit and run Maruader - Slow turn speed - Massive HP - Same slots - Normal Turret tracking - Normal Forward speed I envision this pretty much aas a beefier maddy. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Grimmiers 742	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:49:00 - [22] - Quote MAV! Rambling Warning: I wanted to talk about how hav's make every other vehicle not worth the effort in means of both av and ai. While tanks can have a rock paper scissors type gameplay the 3 vehicle frames as a whole appear more like a pebble, rock, boulder design. What I mean by that is the lav can use a turret designed for av against a dropship/tank, but doing so is in vain and is usually a death sentence. Dropships can fight each other, but it feels like your smashing two rocks together until one of the finally breaks. Lastly the Hav's which has the ability to take out the lavs and dropships fairly quickly. I think the only way to bring back the Hav and other vehicles types is to let them feel like more of a threat to each other. It's silly how we can be okay with jihad jeeps only because small turrets have always been an inaccurate joke that can barely destroy another lav. The light turrets being stuck on dropships are also not working well. Not only does your turret hit way off target, the missile turret can kill the gunner and the camera for the ads autoresets constantly and is looking through the ship. This makes it pretty hard to shoot anything in 3rd person and if you go into 1st person you have to make sure your dropship is parallel to the ground. It's also easier to kill infantry with a railgun compared to a blaster. The point I'm trying to make is that vehicles should be more flexible in what they can achieve. You can have lavs be transport, but it should be fun and viable for destroying other lavs and finishing off tanks/dropships. Tanks would have more defining roles besides killing other tanks and every other vehicle type in shot if the smaller frames were more survivable and actually posed a threat. With that in mind infantry av should be a much more strategic role where av and flux grenades can disable a tanks modules. Swarm launchers would do raw light damage, forge guns could slow down vehicles, and plasma cannons could lower repair rates with a "burn" damage. The current power of the swarm itself would be better off as an anti air medium turret that you could fit as a primary tank turret if you wanted.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13858	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:04:00 - [23] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
Vitharr Foebane Terminal Courtesy Proficiency V. 2099	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:12:00 - [24] - Quote Rattati I love the idea of returning removed content, however due to the lack of a real anti shield AV solution this will lead to rants and fights and petty forum wars between V/AV. Basically, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE US A HEAVY LASER SOON. Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando V, Logistics IV I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5777	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:13:00 - [25] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 13858	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:17:00 - [26] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC That could work. Have a damage threshold after which null cannons shut down to reinforce themselves. Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 136	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:19:00 - [27] - Quote Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please don't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 136	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:21:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC +1 great idea, maybe we could also give turrets on tanks higher elevation capability to combat dropships, although DS is kinda UP right now Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5779	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:22:00 - [29] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 696	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:27:00 - [30] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.