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)
Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7458	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:54:00 - [61] - Quote My main issue with this is that they're being designed as a Vehicle versus Vehicle option to a game in which vehicles ultimately have no other purpose than quick destruction of neutral installations and infantry killing. There -HAS- to be a reason for these things to exist beyond just killing other vehicles when there is no other reason HAVs to exist in the first place. The problem with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance is that they were only considered for 'Vehicle vs Vehicle' play and there were no intentions of accepting 'Vehicle vs Infantry' feedback into account at the time. Thusly, problems occurred. If anything, I think the Falchion is going to wind up being a long-range ADS killer while the other vehicles just act as Suped-Up HAVs that are going to be just as efficient at infantry murder as their normal counterparts while having the added benefit of being harder to kill. The problem I see with Turret Tracking and Turn Speeds is that they have to be considered one in the same. You can sort of bypass the turret tracking restrictions just by turning the vehicle itself unless the turret movement is completely separate of the vehicle (meaning, if I turn the vehicle right without touching the right analog stick, the turret does not move at all). Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I'm not sure a Vayu can effectively counter a Falchion if the Falchion can instapop it with 'quick aiming' (countering the Vayu's main defensive ability of circling to avoid being tracked), and long range means a number of benefits which mean that it would be unlikely to actually get engaged by a live Vayu. Also, I feel that the enforcers should not be particularly expensive. If they are, that'll likely lead to a lot of frustration given how weak they apparently are. I'll echo Arkena's concerns as it's much easier to go stationary and aim at a threat than it is to both maneuver around a target while trying to keep a steady aim on it. If the Vayu has to worry about traversing terrain, beating the target's tracking, and staying on target when the Falchion only has to worry about getting that one shot off... There's going to be problems. Not even going to bring up the propensity for Redlining with a Falchion. Varoth Drac wrote: How about giving marauders a bonus to small turrets, to emphasise their role as more anti-infantry? I am assuming this role since destroyers seem to have the AV role, even though I know marauders will be AV as well. Cat Merc wrote: Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield? If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied. Both of these are very good suggestions/concerns to bring up and I think it'd be better if we started with an Anti-Infantry Platform that is powerful, while having another platform designed to counter it. I could see and anti-infantry variant having additional Small Blaster damage / reduced heat build on the Gallente, and on the Caldari having increased Splash Radius on Small Missiles. Small Missiles already have very good damage so there's no reason to increase that and having it become just another AV option. Whereas the AV platform would have increased Large Turret damage to better counter the AI platform. Long-Term Roadmap More Hard Questions
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3983	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:55:00 - [62] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer. The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed. So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots. Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...) Yet T2 Ships almost always have more module slots that T1's. The issue I see with it is that even if the power of Marauders or Enforcers in is their role bonuses that tanks themselves aren't very interesting or enjoyable to use. Well you know my concerns with more slots for Marauders. The modules are currently balanced around the assumption that at most you're getting 3-4 main racks at most, and on HAVs, Heavy modules assume 3 slots. Fitting is however....stupidly boring. I think more slots are fine as long as the base stats are not modified too heavily. Initially I envisioned a +15% or so increase to base HP with no additional slots, but if we want to approach it as an additional main rack slot without much change to the base HP, I think that would work as well. I would also encourage more "soft" bonuses to the HAVs. Avoid bonuses that directly increase eHP, especially if there are already more slots. I think a focus on HP recovery, increase duration of modules, increased module cooldown speed, ect. are good ways to make vehicles perform better without pushing the eHP way out of proportion. Preliminary thoughts then. Maruaders 4/2 and 2/4 Reduced Movement Speed Reduced Large Turret Tracking Speed Soft Bonuses to Defenses Enforcers 3/3 and 3/3 (Extra off-rack slot used for mobility or damage mods, depending on tank type) Increase Movement Speed Reduced base HP Soft Bonuses to Offense In addition we need more things vehicles can do such as large scale support functions. Things like mass infantry repping, big sweeping scans, troop transport, resupplying infantry, and providing mobile options to swap fits. Things like this give vehicles things they can do besides "Kill all the things!". I'd like to see the Marauder be the slow moving support platform, and not so much the "Anti Infantry HAV". It should be the HAV your troops use as cover and want to stay near because its capable of supporting them in a fight in ways other than actual fire support. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2275	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:15:00 - [63] - Quote I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 390	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:15:00 - [64] - 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. Vehicles on this spreadsheet have scan percision and scan profile. How does that work with a scout behind the wheel.Should when you get in a vehicle your vehicle scan percision and profile take over and your suit go inactive?I like that idea.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 390	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:33:00 - [65] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 390	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:39:00 - [66] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry. We fight over those tall towers all the time near that old objective with the pipes.We could have a high up objective on a tower that we have to stay near or have a hacking module on the vehicle to hack it up in the air with a dropship. Big Rolling hills with the old Chromsome Vehicle Weight station Resupply that is activated by vehicle weight to attack enemy mcc.It only fires at a mcc if a vehicle is on it.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15928	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:52:00 - [67] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry. We fight over those tall towers all the time near that old objective with the pipes.We could have a high up objective on a tower that we have to stay near or have a hacking module on the vehicle to hack it up in the air with a dropship. Big Rolling hills with the old Chromsome Vehicle Weight station Resupply that is activated by vehicle weight to attack enemy mcc.It only fires at a mcc if a vehicle is on it. Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal. Lets not get distracted. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3983	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:03:00 - [68] - Quote Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order. Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine) Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat Determine preferred slot layouts Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.) Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15929	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:12:00 - [69] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order. Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine) Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat Determine preferred slot layouts Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.) Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles Grrr Pokey. I spent an hour this morning agonizing over a bare bones post that summarised my points...... and you surmised them all in bullet points, probably in minutes...... Certainly the latter two are very important. Which modules if any are coming back, how will they affect the balance of vehicles and what will they achieve, once all is said and done the vehicle base stats are a small part that really don't need to be drastically different tank to tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 655	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:40:00 - [70] - Quote So i assume that the valchion will get bonuses to missiles and the vayu gets the bonus to blasters. But meh for pubs people will just flock to marauders like sagaris/surya to have better survivability. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3984	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:48:00 - [71] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: So i assume that the valchion will get bonuses to missiles and the vayu gets the bonus to blasters. But meh for pubs people will just flock to marauders like sagaris/surya to have better survivability. I'm very wary of anything that directly buffs turret DPS. Large Missiles in particular. I've already seen posts of people asking for more missiles in the magazine. Considering the Basic Large Missile turret outputs nearly 5000 damage in less than 2 seconds with only 12 missiles, anything that increases that magazine size is going to make Large MIssile turret quickly overpowered in Vehicle combat. Even a 25% increase (raise max ammo to 15) would be a massive benefit (an additional 1245 damage in the magazine). As someone else pointed out, there have been many points where vehicle matches basically turned into "Bring a rail and whoever shoots first wins". I don't want that. As the same poster also stated, I want bare fisted, bloody knuckle brawls with other vehicles. Flanking and beating the ** out each other. Honestly the most enjoyable HAV vs HAV fights I've ever had were two vehicles fighting with Large Blasters, dodging and weaving around the terrain where skill in piloting and moving won the fight, not sitting on a hill sniping each other. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 699	Posted - 2014.12.15 22:56:00 - [72] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal. Lets not get distracted. Nope the reason people are going off on so many tangents is because there are more underlying issues that need to be address at a higher priority BEFORE this new stuff should ever be added or addressed. Doing so now only makes the game worse not better. That's why so many side-tracks on this topic. Maybe CCP should take notice of that as an indicator of how poor a disc ion this is at this time. The more people are on topic the more likely it is what is needed, the more tangents or references to other stuff, the more likely it's not the right time for it to happen. I honestly think that adding HAV's at this point in time should be a dead topic as racial parity and lower tier vehicles need to be addressed first in order to create the "niches" for specialized HAV's to take advantage of.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3984	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:04:00 - [73] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal. Lets not get distracted. Nope the reason people are going off on so many tangents is because there are more underlying issues that need to be address at a higher priority BEFORE this new stuff should ever be added or addressed. Doing so now only makes the game worse not better. That's why so many side-tracks on this topic. Maybe CCP should take notice of that as an indicator of how poor a disc ion this is at this time. The more people are on topic the more likely it is what is needed, the more tangents or references to other stuff, the more likely it's not the right time for it to happen. I honestly think that adding HAV's at this point in time should be a dead topic as racial parity and lower tier vehicles need to be addressed first in order to create the "niches" for specialized HAV's to take advantage of. I tend to agree. I would prefer at the least we balance shield vs armor and get placeholders for Amarr and Minmatar of existing vehicle types so that when Marauders, Enforcers, LLAVs, ect. are design, we can do all 4 at once instead of basically doing it twice, once for GalCal and then again for MinAmarr. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 699	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:06:00 - [74] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order. Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine) Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat Determine preferred slot layouts Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.) Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first: Create racial parity for small turrets. Create racial parity for LAVs. Create specialized LAVs Create racial parity for dropships. Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits Create racial parity for large turrets. Create racial parity for HAVs. Fix vehicle locking system. Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC Once you have all that stuff, THEN you will have more reason to create more HAV's to counter things like the smaller vehicles, or to be anti-infantry/MTAC or to be anti-air or to hunt down and take out the enemy's command tank etc.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3985	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:14:00 - [75] - Quote Gunnlogi (2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender) Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base) Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base) Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle 60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP 15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 75s Average eHP = 6747 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s (Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.) Recharge Delay 4s Burst Hardener eHP Cycle 30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP 45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 105s Average eHP = 6877 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s Recharge Delay 4s Madrugar (1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate) Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base) Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles Assumed Pure Armor Tanking 45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP 37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s Average eHP = 7887 eHP Repair Rate = 138HP/s Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s Recharge Delay 0s Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep. If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals. 1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs 2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3985	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:19:00 - [76] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first: Create racial parity for small turrets. -Assuming this is even a possibility right now given available resources Create racial parity for LAVs. -Placeholders are good, I agree Create specialized LAVs -Specialized LAVs are in the same boat as Specialized HAVs. You can't say one is more important than the other. Create racial parity for dropships. -Again, Placeholders are good. Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. -Same deal as specialized HAVs. All Specialized vehicles are equally important Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits -Already have a preliminary design, check Post #2, True posted a link to the community document. While I want these, I don't feel they are a requirement before specialized vehicles. Create racial parity for large turrets. -Same deal with the small turrets Create racial parity for HAVs. -Placeholders are still good Fix vehicle locking system. -Agreed Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) -This goes with my general concept for "Large Scale Support Functions" and this would be considered a specialized HAV/LAV/Dropship so...same deal as before. Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC -Lol you're funny. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1128	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:59:00 - [77] - Quote What Pokey said ^ The correct little **** Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.15 23:59:00 - [78] - Quote Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3989	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:02:00 - [79] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. I mean....you could? But I just don't like it at all. I mean an Amarr tank is still an armor tank, it still moves similar to Gallente Tank, it has similar tanking style to a Gallente Tank. So an Amarr tank that looks and behaves like a Madrugar? I'm ok with that for now. But a Laser is nothing like a Railgun Hell its not even the right damage profile. Like I said it would work but it's just kinda tacky I guess? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:07:00 - [80] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. Do do I. Yet to be fair consider that, shameless self advertisement, if Rails remain as they are, missile remain as they are, Blasters fall under the model I suggested, we have two rather simple existing models that we could use for the other turrets. Big Laser Beams...... and the only blaster mechanics for Auto Cannons........ but yes I cry for the thought of Beams lancing from a Blaster turret...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1130	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:08:00 - [81] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. I mean....you could? But I just don't like it at all. I mean an Amarr tank is still an armor tank, it still moves similar to Gallente Tank, it has similar tanking style to a Gallente Tank. So an Amarr tank that looks and behaves like a Madrugar? I'm ok with that for now. But a Laser is nothing like a Railgun Hell its not even the right damage profile. Like I said it would work but it's just kinda tacky I guess? For placeholders I pretty much see everything Amarr using golden Gallente tech and brown Caldari stuff for Minmatar. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
BL4CKST4R Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3479	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:09:00 - [82] - Quote Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3989	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:13:00 - [83] - Quote Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15935	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:18:00 - [84] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 391	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:32:00 - [85] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Gunnlogi (2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender) Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base) Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base) Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle 60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP 15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 75s Average eHP = 6747 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s (Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.) Recharge Delay 4s Burst Hardener eHP Cycle 30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP 45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 105s Average eHP = 6877 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s Recharge Delay 4s Madrugar (1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate) Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base) Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles Assumed Pure Armor Tanking 45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP 37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s Average eHP = 7887 eHP Repair Rate = 138HP/s Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s Recharge Delay 0s Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep. If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals. 1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs 2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows. My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV?
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 391	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:34:00 - [86] - Quote BL4CKST4R wrote: Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill Hard to Kill by HAV = Impossible to Kill by Infantry You want this give me a Super breach Forge gun with 12 second spool up that can almost kill it with one shot.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15939	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:46:00 - [87] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Gunnlogi (2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender) Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base) Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base) Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle 60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP 15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 75s Average eHP = 6747 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s (Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.) Recharge Delay 4s Burst Hardener eHP Cycle 30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP 45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP Total Cycle Duration: 105s Average eHP = 6877 eHP Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s Recharge Delay 4s Madrugar (1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate) Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base) Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base) Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles Assumed Pure Armor Tanking 45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP 37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s Average eHP = 7887 eHP Repair Rate = 138HP/s Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s Recharge Delay 0s Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep. If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals. 1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs 2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows. My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV? Nope this is simply how HAV are currently. This is bad. No HAV should ever have high static eHP values AND regenerative power like the Gunnlogi has now. Instead vehicle pilots need to be able to determine what they want to do with their vehicle. Do they active tank and fit module that provide transient benefits (powerful reps or resistances) or passive tank and receive constant but smaller benefits and less regenerative power..... or somewhere in between. But no vehicle pilot should ever have both. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 391	Posted - 2014.12.16 00:56:00 - [88] - Quote The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. 1. I like the spreadsheet with the data especially scan profile and scan precision. 2.Vehicles must have something to do besides attack each other and Attack Infantry/ 3.Infantry AV must be part of this Rock/Paper/Scissor Balancing (Tank 514 /ADS 514 was unbearable for some of us ) 4.Vehicle Only Objectives would help support Vehicle on Vehicle Gameplay (For your Rock /Paper /Scissor thing) 5.Flavor of the month will be supreme and Meta will push community to the Op Design.(Who uses a Blaster on a Incubus only try hards that are stubborn like me No kills )You want kills you put missiles on it.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 744	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:01:00 - [89] - Quote BL4CKST4R wrote: Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill? I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine. Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15945	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:04:00 - [90] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: BL4CKST4R wrote: Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill? I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine. Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost. Yes and no. Because something is expensive, and thus a limiting factor in its use in the same way Prototype dropsuits are vs Basic, it should have benefit that allow it to become tougher through skilled use. At the same time no as in it should never be something that cannot be destroyed. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.



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.