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)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6010	Posted - 2014.12.27 15:35:00 - [541] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Hahaha just read your last post and I also remember the tankers truce which also was a direct result of the av buff and tank nerf . I remember one game ware Jason person and my self wereoO the opposing teams and we just rolled past each other right in the middle of the field it was a laugh. And yet hilariously even with the AV buff and tank nerf for chrome there were only a small handful of AV gunners who could smash those tanks down. I had fun killing them but very few others enjoyed what vehicles at the time added to the battlefield. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 303	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:12:00 - [542] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Why dont you get off your ass and provide numbers and feedback that is useful rather than trying to shout everyone down? - I have done, but the numbers already existed in Chrome/Uprising builds Between you and spkr the contribution hs been the rough equivalent of plugging your ears and loudly yelling NONONONONO to try and drown people out. - Like your doing Secondly this attitude that only HAV drivers have any right to comment on HAV balance needs to die. - No Everyon from the oldest, bitterest vet to the rankest of new newbies has every right to weigh in on any aspect of the game. This elitist "you're not X therefore you want to ruin Y thus your opinion is invalid" BS is so childish that anyone spouting it should have their game privileges removed. - Nope, infantry shouldnt have a say in vehicle matters because 99% of infantry hate vehicles and want COD Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. - Very few pilots did that but it was fun and frankly was the only way pilots could take a stand against the OP AV buffs at the time So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. - Good times That was why I specced heavy, maxed a forge gun and made it my mission in DUST to make every tank burn. - Seems you want it easier aswell with some of your comments That is what you get when only pilots get to comment on vehicles. What happens when only AV players get to weigh in on AV and tank drivers get cut out? - We end up with OP AV and consistant buffs over the last 2years of this game being out You get tanks dead 514 easy mode. - You wanted it and asked for it and CCP delivered, now we trying to make tanks have some teeth and you are against it Understand laser fo cused you and people of your mindset are firmly in the minority. The rest of us refuse to return to the days where HAVs were more or less unstoppable and the lot of you get to pad you K/D without fear of loss. - Pilots are in the minority, Chrome and Uprising tanks were not unstoppable that was easy AV like swarms and AV nades, HAV vs HAV was fun and balanced, now thats its been dumbed down the pilots of old has gone You don't get your godmachines back. Period. - While you ask for paper thin HAVs which you dont use and god mode AV, gotcha You can help make HAVs fun and functional, or your opinions can be discarded. But thus far the primary contribution of "established HAV pilots" has been to insult the people trying to help, provided a "my way or the highway" attitude, made personal attacks and accusations against the other players and crapped all over rattati, up to and including calling him an idiot with no right to touch vehicles. - Being against bad ideas and paper thin tanks is now insults, nice last part your making it up now but at least he admitted he doesnt have a clue, you should take a leaf out of his book I don't think you nerds get it. He's the lead on DUST. If he decides HAVs are too problematic he CAN in fact remove them entirely. - That would please you and rest of the playerbase, you have already asked for it anyways many times, maybe they should remove them because infantry have never been happy with them even when they get constant nerfs Not exactly what I call an ideal solution. 1. Ideal solution - Chrome/Uprising 1a. Basic HAV - 4/2 slot layout 1b. Marauders - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values 1c. Enforcers - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values, buffed CPU/PG 1d. All old modules/skills and skill bonuses added back in 1e. Current AV values added in 1f. Hardeners across the board standard 30% 1g. L Blasters back to dot sight, they were perfectly fine in Uprising as AV and AI, if you want small turrets to do it like S railguns then dont complain when they work and saying they should be AV instead or if its for S blasters to do it then get rid of the dispersion and give them decent range so they are useful 1h. L missiles back to Chrome - L missiles should have splash, its a missile as long as a merc so its going to have an explosion radius, current infantry ignore splash 1i. L railgun - 600m range or at least 450m 1j. Pilot suits 1k. Capacitors - The true balance to any and all vehicles 1l. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles 1m. Tiercide or not - Vehicles are tiecided, modules are not, dropsuits are not, equipment/weapons/infantry modules are not, basically if its tiercided then the BASIC hulls which they are need to stand upto PROTO AV and be able to fit PROTO mods on all slots, if you disagree then we get ADV/PROTO hulls then 2. The past was better - No one asked for 1.7 but pilots had to make do with it, main 1.7 problems were easy swarms with 3k per volley and various bugs (invisible swarms, going around 4 corners, lock on when not on target, firing when not on target etc) and 3k per AV nade and rendering so we couldnt see infantry 50m in front of us - Fix that and it was gravy but no it all got changed so pilots adapted with what we were given until it eventually got nerfed to what we have now
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6011	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:33:00 - [543] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Stuff Huh. Never expected you to make a constructive post. Will address. 1. Ideal solution - Chrome/Uprising Agreed with Chrome for AV balance and Early Uprising for HAV vs. HAV. However I consider this unlikely as the old code from Chrome isn't archived. It's flat out gone. They don't have copies of it from what I understand. We'd need spreadsheets with all of the old chrome numbers at the very minimum to rebuild this crap and I dunno where we are going to find THAT. 1a. Basic HAV - 4/2 slot layout 1b. Marauders - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values 1c. Enforcers - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values, buffed CPU/PG The whole point of a sidegrade is so that they don't have to completely rebalance AV again using old chrome values for the HAVs and the current values for AV will make AV worthless (Maybe not with swarms) as far as the forge gun and PLC go. Also, the Enforcers utterly failed to live up to the "Glass cannon" thing, so if ANYTHING I'd drop them to 3/2 slots if the marauders get upticked. 1d. All old modules/skills and skill bonuses added back in Agreed. 1e. Current AV values added in No, this won't work. AV, despite what you all think has eaten multiple nerfs. Heavy Damage mods add HALF their old vvalues and as an example the IAFG has eaten a 20% RoF nerf since chrome, and taken a 150 damage per shot nerf as well as loss of range. Using current AV values will not balance AV/V. If we were to return to chrome Vehicles, we need to return to chrome AV. The only change I'd make to forge guns from chrome AV would be to put the Standard forge gun squarely between the Breach and Assault for Alpha damage. 1f. Hardeners across the board standard 30% agreed to a point. There's a few broken combos involving keeping hardeners up 100% of the time. 1g. L Blasters back to dot sight, they were perfectly fine in Uprising as AV and AI, if you want small turrets to do it like S railguns then dont complain when they work and saying they should be AV instead or if its for S blasters to do it then get rid of the dispersion and give them decent range so they are useful The nerfs to heavy turrets are one of the maybe three points of balance where I sharply disagree with Rattati on. Never mind that Splash damage from vehicle turrets was the reason splash resistance was added to sentinels. 1h. L missiles back to Chrome - L missiles should have splash, its a missile as long as a merc so its going to have an explosion radius, current infantry ignore splash splash was reduced to why bother? It affects infantry at like half a meter. 1i. L railgun - 600m range or at least 450m Redline camping shouldn't be a thing. It allowed people to farm kills too easily with no risk, as was addressed with the Sniper Rifle. Nevermind that range allowed HAVs to instapop any enemy vehicle drops no matter where on the field they are. Going to have to disagree with you here. 1j. Pilot suits I'd like these yesterday, thanks. 1k. Capacitors - The true balance to any and all vehicles Not happening any time soon. With an FPS the rule of the day should be KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. DUST already violates that six ways from sunday. Plus it's another micromanagement thing to balance out. Nevermind that without gear like vamps and neuts, Cap would cause more problems than it would solve. 1l. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles Yeah, I want these along with a gallente and amarr heavy weapon. 1m. Tiercide or not - Vehicles are tiecided, modules are not, dropsuits are not, equipment/weapons/infantry modules are not, basically if its tiercided then the BASIC hulls which they are need to stand upto PROTO AV and be able to fit PROTO mods on all slots, if you disagree then we get ADV/PROTO hulls then STD vehicles are balanced against proto AV right now. they HAVE to be since CCP decided they were going out on a tier removal for vehicles. MLT seem balanced vs. ADV AV. If we step the hulls UP we have to step the AV back up. It's that simple. As it stands the gunnlogi needs to be toned down and the maddy toned UP. 2. The past was better - No one asked for 1.7 but pilots had to make do with it, main 1.7 problems were easy swarms with 3k per volley and various bugs (invisible swarms, going around 4 corners, lock on when not on target, firing when not on target etc) and 3k per AV nade and rendering so we couldnt see infantry 50m in front of us - Fix that and it was gravy but no it all got changed so pilots adapted with what we were given until it eventually got nerfed to what we have now And blaming Rattati for that crap gets us nowhere because he had no part in those design decisions. Helping him unscrew them is a better use of time. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
MetalWolf-Cell ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 22	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:14:00 - [544] - Quote Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) Enforcers were okay, just very squishy....and should be. They were glass cannons with High DPS. Loved the Vayu because a lot of players underestimated it's potential to do a lot of damage if left unchecked. I Understand some tanker pilot's rage stemming from slowly becoming useless. I mean, what tanker doesn't like to be 2 or 3 shot by one guy who just happens to be bunny hopping on a roof with swarms. But at the same time, like SpKr, who is very radical and just wants tanks to be too powerful that AV is non existent. His argument that "Tanks should be the best AV" is understandable to a degree. A tank should be the best Anti Vehicle as it is designed to take out vehicles. However, Forges should be just as powerful as that is also what it is designed for. Having only tanks be the stop to tanks is bad designed and shouldn't even be thought of. AV also has it's purpose which is ANTI-VEHICLE. Someone with proto AV should have all the rights to annihilate your tank if given the right chance, he took the time to spec into that role. At the same time, someone skilled into tanks should not be a moving tin can. Some threads talking about AV vs HAV's makes me wonder how did it end up like this. Anyways, back in 1.6 Tanks were good. Sure you had invisible swarms from 400m and render issues but they were good. I liked that you had to rely on your team to keep you alive as they slaughter any AV that try to kill you. You were a powerful force that had to be kept alive. And Good tankers knew that and used it to their advantaged. They never expected to be invincible. I feel now that HAV's are just for "If you are doing bad, pad your K/D" They are just solo machines when they should be for supporting your team in situations Infantry needs some extra punching. I feel like tierciding them was the fault in tanks being that role now. Hopefully Rattati listens to Breakin and Dravon, they have promising ideas. DUST 514/LEGION
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:30:00 - [545] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions: The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades, designed to fulfill the specific rolls (At least the kind of sidegrades we're looking for here) Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. Link What do ya'll think? Are you basing that on the current CPU and PG skills remaining the same, ie useless? 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. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:33:00 - [546] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: If you've never been a pilot, why are you here? Until you learn to read, shut up. I had an advanced understanding of English. You're not a pilot, I don't want to hear your opinion on how bad vehicles should be and how great AV should be. 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. 2629	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:35:00 - [547] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: because you never tanked through the old days Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey)) So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:35:00 - [548] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions: The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades, designed to fulfill the specific rolls (At least the kind of sidegrades we're looking for here) Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. Link What do ya'll think? Are you basing that on the current CPU and PG skills remaining the same, ie useless? I'm accounting for the Gunnlogi getting an overall fitting buff of 15% with a skill bonus applied (either from core or command), decreasing base levels by 10% on the gunnlogi, then having a 5% per level fitting bonus. The Maddy then takes the base fitting stats from the gunnlogi, multiplies the pgu by 1.25 then the cup by .75. (This was just a start) Edit: this also assumes +1 primary slot Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2630	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:50:00 - [549] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. Brought about by infantry, whose incessant whining made us decide to do that. You reap what you sow. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:52:00 - [550] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: because you never tanked through the old days Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey)) So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored? Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2630	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:57:00 - [551] - Quote MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it 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. 2633	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:08:00 - [552] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion. I guess you're forgetting about the thread I made. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 307	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:13:00 - [553] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Stuff [/i] 1a. Sentinal, Scout, Assault, Logi are not sidegrades - If Enforcer goes to 3/2 for 'glass cannon' then stick with basic HAV and dont bother wasting the SP or ISK 1e. Im not going to let in 400m broken swarms doing 3k dmg per volley while staying invisible and going around 4 corners which they still do, same with AV nades doing 3k never missing per hit, FG are fine they need tweeking 1f. You can never get 100% resistance due to stacking penalties 1i. The problem is with the redline, move that back 500m and no matter what every has to come out to play and be at risk to flanking 1k. If this moves to PC expect it, micromanagement HAVs used to have anyways, this adds another layer in which you are able to get the best out of your vehicle aswell as adding new mods/skills = variety 1m. The gunlogi is fine overall but the maddy needs to be buffed to the gunlogi std, as it is i can solo any HAV with 4 IAFG shots while they are unable to defend themselves against me, thats not balanced to me 2. Where did i blame Rattati? these are facts like it or not, we nearly had balance
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:25:00 - [554] - Quote I suppose I should have also told you it's raining right now where I am with all the extra info I put in my last response Spkr... but to answer your earlier question, I'm counting on a 25% total fitting bonus coming from somewhere Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:26:00 - [555] - Quote Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't). I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them. Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible. But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed. But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem. And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet. But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable. If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure. and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks. Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread. Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.27 18:55:00 - [556] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't). I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them. Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible. But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed. But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem. And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet. But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable. If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure. and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks. Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread. Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot. I think using the heavy frames (with minor adjustments) as a basis for is at least a little better than for the other suit sizes (as the heavy frames do have expanded fitting relative to the sentinels and commandos, which is a good way to go for a generalist thing imo...just may need to be amplified). 180mm plates and my proposed fitting numbers changes should do a lot to assist the Maddy (although I need help trying to generate fitting numbers for the bigger plates), and I like that shield hardeners provide more resistance; however, unless they get changed to have a shorter active duration (and the do need to fix the hardener display glitches) or be changed to mirror the Armor Hardeners. On the subject of the Hardener glitches, it works both ways...sometimes they show on when they're off (or rather they don't turn off) and sometimes they show as off when they're on...it's something that needs to be fixed in this whole initiative. To be fair to the Gunnlogi, there are only 2 anti-shield options to try to configure it against...(Fluxes and PLCs), I'll try to theory-craft numbers with something like a Forgegun that does Thermal or EM damage...and see how that would theoretically hurt the gunnlogi. (And yes, Flux strikes exist, but I don't think balancing around the OBs is a good precedent to start). Also, it doesn't help that the Gunnlogi is a Caldari Tank that CCP wants (Or rather wanted) to behave like I'd expect a Matari Tank... In short, Maddy needs love, I don't think Gunnlogi would be OP if we had a heavy Lazer or Heavy Plasma (Or even Mjolnir Swarms...or a Flux Driver) but I will try to crunch numbers to find out...and glitches are bad and should be fixed . Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6013	Posted - 2014.12.27 19:00:00 - [557] - Quote I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
MetalWolf-Cell ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 22	Posted - 2014.12.27 19:09:00 - [558] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. DUST 514/LEGION
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.27 19:17:00 - [559] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now I will give a Tech 3 cruiser, 5 subs for it, a Confessor, a Faction Frigate of their choice, and Tech 2 rigs for all of the above, to the person who can bring that forward XD (Or equivalent EVE ISK Value as determined by the average from the past couple of days, to be set as soon as I can get to a computer with the eve client on it). Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
BatKing Deltor Delta Vanguard 6 885	Posted - 2014.12.28 01:53:00 - [560] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now Are what your looking for? Vehicles Old weapon stats Including AV Source Lynn Beck, message to Batking Deltor - "I reject your reality and I substitute my own!"

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6026	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:22:00 - [561] - Quote Oh this is most of what I wanted. We can extrapolate from here. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:43:00 - [562] - Quote BatKing Deltor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now Is this what your are looking for? Vehicles Old weapon stats Including AV Source The question is, do you have a capsuleer? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6027	Posted - 2014.12.28 02:59:00 - [563] - Quote This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here. There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower. I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need). But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick. Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.28 03:31:00 - [564] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here. There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower. I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need). But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick. Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? Why not follow like the MLT Dropsuits and increase the Sica/Soma to have the same base stats as the Maddy/Gunnlogi, just with a reduced slot layout (either the current 2/2, or maybe a 3/1 if we change to a 4/2 slot layout on the Standards?) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6029	Posted - 2014.12.28 04:37:00 - [565] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here. There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower. I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need). But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick. Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? Why not follow like the MLT Dropsuits and increase the Sica/Soma to have the same base stats as the Maddy/Gunnlogi, just with a reduced slot layout (either the current 2/2, or maybe a 3/1 if we change to a 4/2 slot layout on the Standards?) That's what I'm possibly thinking. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
BatKing Deltor Delta Vanguard 6 885	Posted - 2014.12.28 05:35:00 - [566] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: BatKing Deltor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now Is this what your are looking for? Vehicles Old weapon stats Including AV Source The question is, do you have a capsuleer? No sir, I do not. Lynn Beck, message to Batking Deltor - "I reject your reality and I substitute my own!"
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.28 06:05:00 - [567] - Quote BatKing Deltor wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: BatKing Deltor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now Is this what your are looking for? Vehicles Old weapon stats Including AV Source The question is, do you have a capsuleer? No sir, I do not. I'll be transferring 750 million eve isk (Approx 125 mil DUST) through Gyn Wallace's ISK Exchange, I'll get the ISK and then transfer it to you from this Dust character (Unless there is a capsule pilot you want the isk delivered to) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16313	Posted - 2014.12.28 07:33:00 - [568] - Quote MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 768	Posted - 2014.12.28 10:32:00 - [569] - Quote True Adamance wrote: MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MetalWolf-Cell wrote: Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that) So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason. yep, except that reason didnt include anti infantry. ask for medium turrets instead of OP large blaster turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6032	Posted - 2014.12.28 13:35:00 - [570] - Quote You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right? It's doable in a sentinel. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.



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.