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

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Lazer Fo Cused wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Lazer Fo Cused wrote:

3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways

That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots.

3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it

That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting.

LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book.

So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed.

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)
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 108	Posted - 2014.12.19 08:57:00 - [301] - Quote 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. Choo Choo
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16145	Posted - 2014.12.19 10:04:00 - [302] - 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.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 108	Posted - 2014.12.19 10:52:00 - [303] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Erm, my brain is tired so, proved what exactly? And could you please tell me if the STD blaster is more accurate than MLT? I don't have any skills in large blasters yet because I don't see the point going from mlt to std. Choo Choo
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 269	Posted - 2014.12.19 11:27:00 - [304] - Quote 1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout 2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4049	Posted - 2014.12.19 15:41:00 - [305] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 158	Posted - 2014.12.19 15:58:00 - [306] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout 2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job 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. As I've said before, Standard HAV 4/2 Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3 Marauder HAV 5/2 Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 16:11:00 - [307] - Quote Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is. I mean basically what happened with the "rework": Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued. Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit. Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate. Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless. Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness. And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily some of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 159	Posted - 2014.12.19 16:20:00 - [308] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is. I mean basically what happened with the "rework": Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued. Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit. Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate. Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless. Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness. And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily some of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up. I think if mlt tanks got a 2/1 layout with these changes than mlt tanks would actually suck like they're supposed to. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 16:25:00 - [309] - Quote Standard at 4/2 and Militia at 2/1? Probably too much of a difference then. MLT tanks should suck, but not be totally a point Pinata Regardless I don't think Militia vehicles is really a thing we need to be thinking about at this point. They'll be based off of the STD vehicles so lets get those worked out first. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:09:00 - [310] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways 5/3 is probably too much. [/quote] You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:15:00 - [311] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Falchion Shield: 3200 Armour: 1125 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour Vayu Shield: 980 Armour: 3625 Slot Lay Out: 4/2 Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour We already had the Enforcers with MLT fitting. If they're brought back the same as Uprising 1.0, they'll be useless. Seems like they'd be taken out by a Sica in 3 rounds, which should not happen. They were true paper tanks, completely useless, wrecked by the Madrugar and Gunnlogi, and competent pilots in the MLT tanks using those for the lols in taking out an Enforcer with one. And you put the same slot layout for an armor tank as the shield tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:23:00 - [312] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. Do Marauders really need 2 slots more than a Standard HAV? Even the old ones only had +1 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2588	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:25:00 - [313] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You admitted you don't use vehicles. 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. Do Marauders really need 2 slots more than a Standard HAV? Even the old ones only had +1 That's when infantry didn't have vehicles by the balls. They have vehicles in the palm of their hands now, and we're trying to take that away from them. Don't nerf them straight out the box. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:27:00 - [314] - Quote sigh Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2591	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:31:00 - [315] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: sigh Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that? Assume? They already perform poorly against infantry. I had some sap whose tank I bested, who then proceeded to take out an assault suit and get me to less than 900 armor in just 3 volleys. If AV is going to stay as is, then yeah, Marauders need all those slots so they don't get taken out by infantry so easily. As I've said, AV should be a deterrent. Because video game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:33:00 - [316] - Quote ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 160	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:34:00 - [317] - 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] Correction: I admittedi don't use Madrugars. Read into posts a bit, I never said anything about gunnies, or Pythons, which I use extensively. Have you read my sig? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2592	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:48:00 - [318] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:49:00 - [319] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 160	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:52:00 - [320] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3) Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 108	Posted - 2014.12.19 18:56:00 - [321] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. It is more reasonable. Just give us the cpu and pg to fit those slots unlike the madrugar armor plate fit. Oh and maybe a base 10% DR on the hull. And a small accuracy buff on large blasters, thise are stupidity inaccurate against decent opposition. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:02:00 - [322] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3) Spkr4theDead wrote: 5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. Maybe he just made a typo then. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 273	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:17:00 - [323] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 273	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:19:00 - [324] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout 2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job 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. As I've said before, Standard HAV 4/2 Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3 Marauder HAV 5/2 Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well. 1. 5/3 - If Caldari is 5/3 then Amarr will be 5/3 also due to polar opposites of tanking, shield/armor now that means Minmatar could be 4/4 like it is for assault suits and Gallente is the same 5/3 or even 5/4
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:20:00 - [325] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2595	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:35:00 - [326] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. With the bolded stipulation. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4050	Posted - 2014.12.19 19:41:00 - [327] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. With the bolded stipulation. Well what I was trying to get at is simply looking specifically at Standard HAVs vs Marauder HAVs. If Marauders needed 5/3 to survive against AV, Standards obviously would be totally screwed. That would be bad. We have to balance the HAVs against one another first before balancing them against outside elements...that's the point I was trying to make. Yes the balance against AV needs to be adjusted at well, but that's outside the current phase of this design. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1334	Posted - 2014.12.19 21:13:00 - [328] - 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. 15% less damage is unreasonable suggestion. Do we penalize sentinels with damage reduction because they have more HP and resistances over the normal heavy suits.. NO.. Then why marauders? Where is this logic coming from. You can't just simply take a weapon and reduce it's damage. For example- if you take a M16 from a soldiers hands and put it in the hand of a Terrorist, no matter what- that gun will still do the same amount of damage as it did in soldiers hands, it will travel same speed. ect. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1334	Posted - 2014.12.19 21:16:00 - [329] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting. LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book. So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed. Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2661	Posted - 2014.12.19 21:17:00 - [330] - Quote I'M BACK With that out of the way, I'd like to say three things: 1: Pokey has said mostly what I would have, therefore, my opinion is his. Same for the kitty. 2: The only thing I haven't seen mentioned, at least not much is balance between logistic vehicles. Simply put, if each has about equal strengths in what I call the logistic triangle (logistic actions that vehicles can do, which is ferrying infantry, repping things, and rearming things), then not all three will be used as much as the other, but rather which one is the most efficient at doing them all at once. Therefore, I say that there should be three logistic vehicles, and each should get bonuses for only 1 area of the triangle And since we already got models of them, LLV's can get repping (the special infantry rep, but instead of it being like a vehicle rep which was broken, a nanohive-like bubble around the LLV) and LDS's can get the transport (the CRU on it should be not the same as the regular one, but active, having a much faster spawn rate), and when MAV's come, a LMV should be introduced (and it should get a mobile Supply depot). 3: Along with some old modules (I want my heat sinks back dammit ), new ones, maybe even a new section of addons for vehilces needs to be added for deployables like vehicle nanohives. That is all. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-



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

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris