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)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2666	Posted - 2014.12.21 21:47:00 - [391] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16194	Posted - 2014.12.21 22:06:00 - [392] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5921	Posted - 2014.12.22 13:02:00 - [393] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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 would be the Panther...which was considered at the time inferior to the Sherman despite 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. Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles. Tank history nerd. But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well? It is a concern. However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1190	Posted - 2014.12.22 13:12:00 - [394] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. To be honest, I think large turrets should just be revamped in general. None of them operate reasonably like a large turret would: they should essentially be scaled down versions of EVE small turrets, because that is pretty much what they are. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5921	Posted - 2014.12.22 15:01:00 - [395] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. To be honest, I think large turrets should just be revamped in general. None of them operate reasonably like a large turret would: they should essentially be scaled down versions of EVE small turrets, because that is pretty much what they are. No they should behave like cannons. Not upscaled breach AR or bolt pistols. Having turrets that behave like machineguns isn't really beneficial to the balanxe of turrets being primarily AV. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4068	Posted - 2014.12.22 16:13:00 - [396] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles. Tank history nerd. But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well? It is a concern. However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. In terms of AV, since I think both HAVs and LAVs will be changing is to ask "How does AV perform against Dropships in the current iteration". If it is performing properly against Basic and Assault dropships, then don't change AV. If it is under or overperforming, then I would buff/nerf AV accordingly and then rebuild the HAVs and LAVs around those AV values. I unfortunately know very little about dropships and how they currently perform against AV so I can't comment much further on that. You raise good points that the Marauder would likely need to be the AP HAV. Perhaps it's role bonus should be +% Tracking Speed & Damage of Small Turrets, and then it's racial bonuses be specific to boosting that race's tanking style? As Mr. Adamance pointed out, it would need to have downsides to offset the advantage of bolstered defenses, and in particular mirror the sort of advantages the Enforcer has. Reduction to mobility and effectiveness of large turrets is probably the pillars that should be focused on. What sort of mobility downsides do you guys see being appropriate? Acceleration? Torque? Top Speed? Hull Rotation? What sort of Large Turret downsides do you see as appropriate? Damage? Tracking Speed? Reload Speed? Magazine Size? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2670	Posted - 2014.12.22 17:58:00 - [397] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles. Tank history nerd. But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well? It is a concern. However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again. It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry. With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. In terms of AV, since I think both HAVs and LAVs will be changing is to ask "How does AV perform against Dropships in the current iteration". If it is performing properly against Basic and Assault dropships, then don't change AV. If it is under or overperforming, then I would buff/nerf AV accordingly and then rebuild the HAVs and LAVs around those AV values. I unfortunately know very little about dropships and how they currently perform against AV so I can't comment much further on that. You raise good points that the Marauder would likely need to be the AP HAV. Perhaps it's role bonus should be +% Tracking Speed & Damage of Small Turrets, and then it's racial bonuses be specific to boosting that race's tanking style? As Mr. Adamance pointed out, it would need to have downsides to offset the advantage of bolstered defenses, and in particular mirror the sort of advantages the Enforcer has. Reduction to mobility and effectiveness of large turrets is probably the pillars that should be focused on. What sort of mobility downsides do you guys see being appropriate? Acceleration? Torque? Top Speed? Hull Rotation? What sort of Large Turret downsides do you see as appropriate? Damage? Tracking Speed? Reload Speed? Magazine Size? Acceleration and Top speed and hull rotation should be reduced. Large turret doesn't at that point need nerfing due to already handling worse than a regular HAV or a enforcer. Nerfing it would just be pointless, especially since it's not buffed against infantry (has to have support to even use those bonuses). The thing is made for defense clearly, not roaming, and if you nerf it's defense capabilities against say a HAV, then you're actively nerfing them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5925	Posted - 2014.12.22 18:58:00 - [398] - Quote 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. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:06:00 - [399] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5925	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:18:00 - [400] - Quote 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. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:30:00 - [401] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 279	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:41:00 - [402] - Quote 1. WOT cannot be compared in DUST 2. In WOT if the penetration value of the shell isnt enough to go through the armor thickness which maybe in increased by angling then damage will not be caused where as in DUST you shoot you score everytime 3. DUST has no light tanks or medium tanks 4. TD in WOT have great frontal armor which is generally angled causing shells to bounce, i cant see it in DUST that they have more resistance at the front of the HAV and weaker at the sides and the back
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16216	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:45:00 - [403] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4069	Posted - 2014.12.22 19:56:00 - [404] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 127	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:02:00 - [405] - Quote Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Choo Choo
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:09:00 - [406] - 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.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 127	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:11:00 - [407] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay Thanks, and wow 20% more damage? The hell... Choo Choo
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:14:00 - [408] - 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 - [409] - 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.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2607	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:40:00 - [410] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay Back when tanks were real tanks. These days need to come back. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4072	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:50:00 - [411] - Quote 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. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16217	Posted - 2014.12.22 20:56:00 - [412] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4073	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:35:00 - [413] - Quote 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 little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 639	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:30:00 - [414] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with. Assumptions: All Skills to 5 Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules Must fit Large Turret Optional to fit Small Turrets Arbitrary Example: Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - None Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Advanced Utility Main Turret - Advanced Turret Small Turrets - Basic Turrets Main Rack - Proto Defense Off Rack - Proto Fitting Main Turret - Proto Turret Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16219	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:59:00 - [415] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4075	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:13:00 - [416] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16221	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:31:00 - [417] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4077	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:35:00 - [418] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16222	Posted - 2014.12.23 00:21:00 - [419] - 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.
Ld Collins Titans of Phoenix 179	Posted - 2014.12.23 04:42:00 - [420] - 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. I say implement everything here except insta pop Vayus and give all tanks small turrets.Im curious to see what happens but I feel the rock paper scissors does not work because of the limited amount of vehicle engagements and the x factor of av.



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.