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)
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 184	Posted - 2015.01.13 03:37:00 - [961] - Quote Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6359	Posted - 2015.01.13 06:19:00 - [962] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice. Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields. 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 4358	Posted - 2015.01.13 06:47:00 - [963] - Quote Good to see you're watching the thread Rattati. I only wish I didn't have to many projects that are splitting my time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1246	Posted - 2015.01.13 07:38:00 - [964] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spreadsheet A lot of the stuff is very good, but your small missiles are too direct damage focused (out DPS railguns) and have awful splash everything (DPS and radius) which is frankly dumb. Missiles should be a solid middle ground between blasters and rails (decent at both, but outclassed by either at the specific role) or try to match them. Bah, not making good word typing! Most is good, but the small missiles are just awful and the no more ADS is somewhat irritating to me. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6360	Posted - 2015.01.13 08:28:00 - [965] - Quote I amnot going to arbitrarily change numbers on vehicle turrets without input from vehicle drivers. I'm comfortable tweaking AV. I know AV like I know my belt needs to be replaced with a smaller one. But I prefer vehicle input before changing things. Just remember that the numbers here would be modified by skill bonuses in the skill tab. These numbers are a direct rip from chrome, not numbers I pulled out of my ass. And in chrome vehicles were lethal. One of the things I want is the old heavy damage mods back. To do that I have to bugger up the HMG to account for damage mod presence in the game, which will **** off my easy mode sentinel brethren immensely. I'm also brainstorming how to stat out rattati's theoretical autocannon. It will, by necessity, have to fire in a manner unlike the regular HMG. But as I said. I'm comfortable tweaking AV. Serious (not obnoxious) suggestions will be added to the various vehicular theorycrafting tab. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6362	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:01:00 - [966] - Quote In another note I have figured out how to stat out the minmatar AV autocannon and gallente mortar ideas rattati proposed. If you're paying attention to how I am thematically running things, I'm keeping AV overall performance within a certain threshold. My reasons for doing this so that they are easier to balance from a DPS/alpha standpoint and do not have a wide variation in DPS from each other. This means the individual firing mechanics and the damage profiles are intended to be the primary determination of performance versus specific vehicle classes. I intend for the forge and autocannon to perform well versus armor and comparatively poorly versus shields. I intend for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar and plasma cannon to perform comparatively poorly versus armor but well against shields. And I want them to do so in a consistent and predictable fashion so that players can use the weapons which best conform to their playstyle without having a "clearly superior" weapon. Given these factors I intend that the shield cracker weapons clearly perform poorly vs. Armor and vice versa so that picking which weapon ( and by extension which fatsuit) has a direct effect upon your performance on the battlefield. Again, along predictable lines. I intend to balance based around my numbers for the forge guns. Fast DPS, low alpha weapons will be set up to perform overall similarly to the Assault Forge Gun. (Scrambler lance) Mid alpha/DPS will be comparable to the standard forge. (Minmatar Autocannon) High Alpha, sluggish RoF/inaccurate will be comparable in DPS to the Breach Forge. (Gallente Plasma Mortar) None of these heavy weapons will be built with AA, lock mechanics or any other mechanical assists in mind. All of them are being balanced vs. The chrome numbers. They are nit (as currently written) balanced against any other proposal or current mechanics. However they are going to be easy to translate. If you habe any particular objection to this balance approach, pleas speak up and be heard. I would hope that you do so with reasons that make sense or use math. I am unwillingto deliberately transform AV/V into Easy Mode favoring the AV. My intent is that there be a moderate base mechanical advantage to HAVs that individual AV gunners must overcome with proper tactics, positioning and skill. 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 430	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:09:00 - [967] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice. Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields. 1. Are you saying it is fair that a shield booster gets shut off if something hits it hard enough to stop the regen? 2. The shield booster is supposed to boost the shield back up even while taking damage, this happened in Chrome and Uprising - This is basically the same as a rep on a heavy and it not breaking off when the heavy is hit by an AR
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6362	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:13:00 - [968] - Quote 1. Only barely, and I'll freely admit it's a stretch. If baseline regen values for shields are lowered, such as for my proposal, the answer is emphatically NO. 2. Again, only in a situation where native regen is HIGH. UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE the answer is not only no, but f*ck you... NO! EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2691	Posted - 2015.01.13 11:41:00 - [969] - Quote @Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6364	Posted - 2015.01.13 12:35:00 - [970] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: @Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it. You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked. This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris. Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry. If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight. 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 430	Posted - 2015.01.13 13:30:00 - [971] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: @Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it. You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked. This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris. Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry. If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight. 1. An MBT in todays world or even back in WW2 didnt seat more than the crew and they did not stop off to pick and drop of soliders 2. All transport vehicles are built for support which generally contain the driver and perhaps a gunner for general defence, some APC may pack a meaner gun but generally its not for hammering MBTs 3. Current DS fill the role of troop transport, logistic DS would be better for the role but if you give the role to an armored MBT then why the need for the DS?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6370	Posted - 2015.01.13 14:37:00 - [972] - Quote The idea of versatility and providing tactical flexibility and options should apply as equally to vehicles as to infantry. Further whenever I cite real world and historical examples they are summarily dismissed. I see no reason I should treat those arguments any different. Finally this is a proposal not the document which has been chosen for use. Nor am I particularly of the mind that everything from the theorycraft tabs will be used even were it adopted. But allowing an HAV to operate with a cohesive squad hardly seemed unreasonable given that usually the best defense from infantry AV is an infantry screen. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 149	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:29:00 - [973] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The idea of versatility and providing tactical flexibility and options should apply as equally to vehicles as to infantry. Further whenever I cite real world and historical examples they are summarily dismissed. I see no reason I should treat those arguments any different. Finally this is a proposal not the document which has been chosen for use. Nor am I particularly of the mind that everything from the theorycraft tabs will be used even were it adopted. But allowing an HAV to operate with a cohesive squad hardly seemed unreasonable given that usually the best defense from infantry AV is an infantry screen. My current issue with the bay is that the fitting cost seems extremely high, particularly for a module with such a high penalty to base defense associated with it Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6375	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:38:00 - [974] - Quote I made it cost less than a standard small turret. In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry. The net benefit far outweighs the cost. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 149	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:48:00 - [975] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I made it cost less than a standard small turret. In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry. The net benefit far outweighs the cost. We will ignore that it is an optional module because I think forcibly inflicting tagalongs who want to AFK and reap kill assists in vehicles need to die in a fire. The module can be easily removed from play once (if) MAVs are introduced at a later date. Did you get your CPU/PG columns reversed then? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6375	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:06:00 - [976] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I made it cost less than a standard small turret. In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry. The net benefit far outweighs the cost. We will ignore that it is an optional module because I think forcibly inflicting tagalongs who want to AFK and reap kill assists in vehicles need to die in a fire. The module can be easily removed from play once (if) MAVs are introduced at a later date. Did you get your CPU/PG columns reversed then? If the Cpu column is 1 or 0 then no. I can't think of any justification why a bay would require any cpu control. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 185	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:16:00 - [977] - Quote Alright guys, everyone else has been giving great ideas, so I wanted to summarize my own. This is based on my personal experience as a tanker, along with all of the feedback I've seen here and elsewhere. Please keep in mind that all of this is my opinion. WARNING: wall of text First of all, major changes need to be worked into tanks at the Standard level. I believe that the Gunnlogi and Mardugar each need an extra slot for their racial tank, with a buff to AV. This works on the philosophy that a tanks power should lie in its modules, not its base stats. This would also inject a lot of variety to tanks, which is a good thing. Only problem I see with this is that the other vehicle types would get destroyed, which means they would need an extra slot for their racial tank as well (maybe an off rack mod for ADS). this might mean that vehicles would need a buff to their CPU and PG to accommodate this. Second change for standard tanks, the Gunny needs to lose the ability to dual tank, while the Madrugar needs to gain the ability to fit a full proto racial tank + a proto large turret with little room for much else. The same would go for the Gunnlogi, full proto racial tank + a large proto turret. Example fit: Gunnlogi, 2 Heavy Complex shield Extenders, 1 complex hardener, I complex heavy booster, XT-201 Missile Launcher, Basic passive damage mod and a ammo expansion unit in the lows. Madrugar: 1 180mm Polycrystalline plate, 2 Complex Reppers, 1 complex Hardener, 80GJ Ion Cannon, basic fuel injector and scanner. Now, on to skills, which also need major rework. Here are my suggestions on the vehicle skills and bonuses as far as tanks go. It should be Vehicle command 5>HAV operation 3> Racial HAV operation 3> Specialized Racial HAV operation HAV Operation unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation at level 3, giving a 1% bonus to overall HP per level. Caldari HAV Operation unlocks Gunnlogi at 1, Caldari Enforcer at 3, Caldari Marauder at 5, giving a 3% bonus to shield recharge rate per level. Caldari Enforcer Operation unlocks the Falchion, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Missile Velocity and Range per level, also giving a 5% bonus to Large Railguns Cooldown and all damage mod fitting per level (Enforcer Role Bonus) Caldari Marauder Operation unlocks the Sagaris, gives a 5% bonus to Shield Module fitting per level, 2% to shield resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus of 5% to small turret fitting and damage. Gallente HAV Operation unlocks the same way as Cal, gives a 3% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente Enforcer Operation unlocks the Vayu, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Blaster rof and Dispersion decay per level (circle decays slower) as well as the large rail and damage mod bonus above. Gallente Marauder Operation Unlocks the Surya, and gives a 5% bonus to Armor Module fitting per level, 2% to armor resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus to small turrets. Marauders have a weaker weak point (30% more damage). Enforcers have a hard time fitting defensive mods, 25% increase of CPU and PG of all defensive mods for Enforcers (boosters and reppers unaffected) Now, for the hulls. Please note that I leave out CPU and PG values, with the slot changes I have no idea what they should be. CPU and PG should go Marauder>STD=Enforcer>MLT (IMO) Gunnlogi 4/2 layout Cost of 100k Above average acceleration and turn speed, lower top speed. 3250 shields, 1000 armor. Generalist Falchion 4/3 layout Cost of 150K Very fast top speed and Acceleration, only loses to the Vayu. Better tracking but lower turn speed. 3000 shields, 1000 armor Hit and run from a distance, using the range of missiles to be a longe range mobile killer, but easily destroyed at close range. Sagaris 5/2 layout Cost of 300K Very slow top speed and Acceleration, only faster than the Surya. Slower turn speed but better tracking. 3500 shields, 1250 armor. Drives around an objective, using its small turrets to deter or kill any infantry around it. Madrugar 2/4 layout Cost of 100K Slower than average Acceleration, higher top speed. Turn speed is lower than Gunny, but has the ability to aim lower. 3500 armor, 1000 shields Generalist Vayu Cost of 150K 3/4 layout Fastest tank in the game, in both speed and acceleration, but suffers from slower turn speed than the Falchion 3250 armor, 1000 shields Close range, very fast hit and run. Nitrous in with dmg modded Blaster, tear s*** up, GTFO. Surya 2/5 layout Cost of 300K 3750 armor, 1250 shields Slowest tank in the game, in both speed and Acceleration, but has better tracking than the Sagaris. The Behemoth. Sits on an objective, eating everything the Infantry has got, until a smart AV'er or Enforcer hits its weak spot That's all my hull stats. Now, here's some other tid bits. Gunnlogi Shield recharge needs to be toned down, and I see 2 ways of doing it. Option 1: Lower recharge to 60 per second able to be modified by rechargers and extenders, keep everything else except Maddy recharge gets dropped to 40. Option 2: lower recharge to 30 per second but make it constant, modified by rechargers and energizers. Only shield vehicles would get constant recharge, Maddy gets 20 a second. Modules need to be re introduced. All of them. Make Booster work under fire Turret variety would be nice. Give tanks a role. Something other than tanks to shoot at. Logi Vehicles, MAV, etc. You could also let tanks damage null cannons to the point where they shut down and have to be re hacked. That's about it guys, let me know what you think about my proposal, and keep in mind that I don't know what the exact stats should be for AV and other vehicles after this. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6379	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:33:00 - [978] - Quote Most of what you are proposing is covered under my "revive chrome vehicle balance" proposal. The idea here is that the HAVs are fit-centric rather than hull centric. It doesn't matter if you runa maddy or a marauder. Without proper fittings you're driving a paper tiger. I'm basing the AV values on chrome balance and I would like to alter the turrets to incorporate changes that apparently made HAV vs HAV more fun according to vet drivers I am still waiting for input on dropships from pilots so I can incorporate the less squishy transport ship and ADS concept. If I don't have any input within 48 hours I will begin creating theorycrafting tab entries for turrets, dropships and whatever else we are missing. This is a chance to keep me from buggering your toys up. Providing me numbers to work with and number crunch will increase the viability of this proposal. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 185	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:40:00 - [979] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Most of what you are proposing is covered under my "revive chrome vehicle balance" proposal. The idea here is that the HAVs are fit-centric rather than hull centric. It doesn't matter if you runa maddy or a marauder. Without proper fittings you're driving a paper tiger. I'm basing the AV values on chrome balance and I would like to alter the turrets to incorporate changes that apparently made HAV vs HAV more fun according to vet drivers I am still waiting for input on dropships from pilots so I can incorporate the less squishy transport ship and ADS concept. If I don't have any input within 48 hours I will begin creating theorycrafting tab entries for turrets, dropships and whatever else we are missing. This is a chance to keep me from buggering your toys up. Providing me numbers to work with and number crunch will increase the viability of this proposal. Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6382	Posted - 2015.01.13 17:17:00 - [980] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 185	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:40:00 - [981] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6387	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:43:00 - [982] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly that's the chromosome stats. I want to shift that turret bonus to enforcers. Let me be VERY clear. ONLY the stats in the theorycrafting tabs are my work. the rest of these numbers are ripped directly from the chromosome build during closed beta, when the AV/V interaction was at it's best overall. I'm not arbitrarily altering these stats precisely because I want driver input as well, and I want them to have a say in what will be fun to play. So if you have better ideas I will add said ideas into the theorycrafting tabs appropriately. That way everyone can see the base stats this is based off of AND see how the proposal changes them. I am an AV gunner primarily. I want pilot input in how I change the meta because I don't want you beggars having a leg to stand on accusing me of attempting to "ruin the game for you." EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 185	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:58:00 - [983] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree? You tell me. Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly that's the chromosome stats. I want to shift that turret bonus to enforcers. Let me be VERY clear. ONLY the stats in the theorycrafting tabs are my work. the rest of these numbers are ripped directly from the chromosome build during closed beta, when the AV/V interaction was at it's best overall. I'm not arbitrarily altering these stats precisely because I want driver input as well, and I want them to have a say in what will be fun to play. So if you have better ideas I will add said ideas into the theorycrafting tabs appropriately. That way everyone can see the base stats this is based off of AND see how the proposal changes them. Well, you have my input on how tanks should be up above. The chrome stats were the best we have had, but I think that if we implement my proposal then we would have a nice vehicle interplay going on, with AV being toned up with the new tanks. Under my proposal, with Marauders getting bonuses to Small turret and an extra racial tank slot compared to Std, they would be the ideal objective taking HAV, able to shred Infantry with ease as long as you have gunners, while being hard to destroy, but very slow. The Enforcer counters that, being agile and hard to hit while dishing out a ton of damage to the Marauders through their bonuses to their turrets and damage mods, but not being able to take as many hits.. Then the Std vehicles are the generalist hulls, not being able to take damage or dish it out like an Enforcer or Marauder, but being average in both. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6390	Posted - 2015.01.13 19:20:00 - [984] - Quote I want to know if it's possible to scale down models. Enforcer with no secondary turrets, 25% reduced in size and much much faster than a marauder makes for a much more interesting glass cannon concept IMHO. Lower profile + faster = harder to hit. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 149	Posted - 2015.01.13 19:47:00 - [985] - Quote Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 185	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:13:00 - [986] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:19:00 - [987] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference making them SLOWER is my relevant thought. 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 437	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:52:00 - [988] - Quote https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16552	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:52:00 - [989] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference making them SLOWER is my relevant thought. The only reason I suggest bigger is for scale. A fair number of examples are present throughout the gaming industry.... however I'll just draw from history. The Tiger H1 was huge compared to smaller less well armed and armoured tanks. Personally one day I'd love to see specialised Marauder Hulls. Bigger, less conventional looking, etc. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg That Cannon is a Large Turret and a half! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:21:00 - [990] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml 1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. 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.