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)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:46:00 - [1051] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it. The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained. Why do you always think in terms of "I must do this myself," rather than hoping there's a pilot on your team? That kind of thinking is poisonous. 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. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:47:00 - [1052] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. 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 156	Posted - 2015.01.14 16:54:00 - [1053] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes 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 16578	Posted - 2015.01.14 21:18:00 - [1054] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes I always quite liked the idea of small missile pods I could activate during the rechambering time of my HAV's main gun..... if you look at the old fan art of the Caldari Marauder you'll see what I mean. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16580	Posted - 2015.01.14 22:52:00 - [1055] - Quote By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 157	Posted - 2015.01.15 00:30:00 - [1056] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes I always quite liked the idea of small missile pods I could activate during the rechambering time of my HAV's main gun..... if you look at the old fan art of the Caldari Marauder you'll see what I mean. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg Something like a Coaxial Small Gun? 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 187	Posted - 2015.01.15 00:34:00 - [1057] - Quote True Adamance wrote: By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day.... Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16585	Posted - 2015.01.15 00:50:00 - [1058] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day.... I've found some very interesting non-standard tank designs that could be cool looking to base anything new off of. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2740	Posted - 2015.01.15 01:14:00 - [1059] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 188	Posted - 2015.01.15 02:13:00 - [1060] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas. Why is it a bad idea? A lock on large turret would be a bad idea, as you couldn't engage enemy AV.... At all. Meanwhile, guided missiles would let you engage both infantry AND vehicles more effectively (especially DS)..... Some times I don't get your reasoning Spkr, and infantry aren't the only ones with bad ideas.... Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 157	Posted - 2015.01.15 02:19:00 - [1061] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on) but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas. So...how about instead of going on a McCarthyesque Witchhunt for "Infantry" and further hurting your credibility, why don't you actually discuss why you dislike the ideas? Infantry and AVers have every right to comment on the Balance of our HAVs, vehicle modules, and turrets, just as we have every right to comment on the balance of Dropsuits, Dropsuit Modules, and Weapons. I have put forward that I like the Idea of adding a Guided Missile Turret (not replacing current "Missile" turrets) where the missile(s) launched would follow your crosshairs in their flightpath instead of a lock-on function because I feel that a Guided Missile would give me much more versatility as a vehicle operator, particularly in the areas of bombardment, and artillery support, not to mention it would take away your ability to engage infantry entirely. As I stated above (which you conviniently cropped out of the quotation) I am not opposed to a lock-on main turret, and stated that I would not want to loose my potential bombardment support capabilities, so would not use them and instead opt for my mainstay railgun. Swarm Pods would be the smaller, more limited version. A lock-on function making them essentially mounted swarms seems like the easiest way to implement them, and would be a major boon to small turret operators for AV purposes. Not to mention it would prove helpful on LAVs and ADSs, providing them another option for harassing HAVs, and hopefully making the whole of vehicle combat more interesting and varied, while making them more vulnerable to AV toting infantry themselves. 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 16590	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:32:00 - [1062] - Quote Hey Thaddeus if I threw you some main battle cannon stats could you bash some sense into them? I'm trying to keep the turrets themselves unique, with as few disparities between them as possible. I have the Charged Electron Blaster - A tri-barrel electron accelerator that fires three projectiles at one in a small cluster. 150mm Carbide Railgun - A single shot high muzzle velocity railgun with the most devastating AoE. Dual Focused Pulse Laser - A pulsing laser turret with no AoE but also no ammunition values or projectile falloff. 200mm Artillery Cannon - A devastating anti tank cannon with the highest AoE splash zone and alpha but slow reload and a lower muzzle velocity. They need a bit of checking as their DPS values don't totally line up with how I want them however each turret has character which I think will be fantastic for the role. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 157	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:39:00 - [1063] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Hey Thaddeus if I threw you some main battle cannon stats could you bash some sense into them? I'm trying to keep the turrets themselves unique, with as few disparities between them as possible. I have the Charged Electron Blaster - A tri-barrel electron accelerator that fires three projectiles at one in a small cluster. 150mm Carbide Railgun - A single shot high muzzle velocity railgun with the most devastating AoE. Dual Focused Pulse Laser - A pulsing laser turret with no AoE but also no ammunition values or projectile falloff. 200mm Artillery Cannon - A devastating anti tank cannon with the highest AoE splash zone and alpha but slow reload and a lower muzzle velocity. They need a bit of checking as their DPS values don't totally line up with how I want them however each turret has character which I think will be fantastic for the role. Sure I can take a look for you Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 710	Posted - 2015.01.15 11:40:00 - [1064] - Quote I do like most of you proposal, lol at naming officer weapons after you and your buddies, but the Av changes....well, well, well. I disagree to the your forge guns changes, heavy damage mod changes, and the AV grenades. Not sure if i'm going to describe you as biased, but adding roughly over 1000 potential damage (factor in damage mod stacking and you number changes) and removing all draw backs for Forge guns (breach charge wont lock you in place, charge time decreased for all forge guns)... Current Forge numbers are more than suffcient. Wirykami breach max skills currently do 2415 damage without damage mods. Your version would do 2500 base, + max skills 2,875 without damage mods. Add a new 10% damage mod to that 3162, + 10% damage to armor 3478, Dropships already have a hard enough time as it is, i'd like for you not to have to land one shot to take down a python and two to take down an incubus without having to use damage mods. Fully damage mod stacked on a caldari heavy, one round woud be all you need to clean the sky, thats extremley OP. 3.5 seconds between shots max skills...And you want breach forge guns to roam free? I'm onto you. The old chrome grenades were extremley OP, and to revert back to them now will negate the purpose of bringing in AV fits to begin with. 5,292 damage in three grenades, why would you even need a swarm fit or a forge gun fit when two squadmates can do 10,384 damage chucking these auto homing things from behind a supply depot or nanite field? You've already concurred that current swarms have noo need of a buff vs chrome vehicles, i have hard time fathoming why a form of Av with does less damage than current forge gun is capapble, and yet forge guns need to buffed to compensate for new vales? I think you know by now that I may have a pro vehicle bias, but i do want the game to balanced for everyone. I'd say look at how the stats, play out, and if we end up returning the bad old days of 1.7 then bring the Forge and AV grenades up to spec. But man, i really dont like the idea of limping along in my incubus after one hit from you proposed forge guns hit takes me from 4274 hp down to 796 hp with one damage mod. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2694	Posted - 2015.01.15 11:49:00 - [1065] - Quote [quote=Lazer Fo Cused] 6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system 6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance 6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do). 6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic. 6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos. 6c: Agreed. 6d: Read 6 and 6a click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 455	Posted - 2015.01.15 12:43:00 - [1066] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: [quote=Lazer Fo Cused] 6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system 6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance 6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do). 6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic. 6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos. 6c: Agreed. 6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6443	Posted - 2015.01.15 13:04:00 - [1067] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: things and stuff The forge gun changes are reversal TO chromosome stats as are AV nades. The prototype AV is viable versus the sagaris and surya, the intended targets. NOW. That being said, I haven't done much for dropships because I have been asking REPEATEDLY for input on how to set them up to retain their current TTK. My best idea for the militia and standard was to make them less reliant on fitting modules. I'm not touching the ADS without dropship pilot input. But as far as my initial impressions I'd jump them up to 5%/level rate of fire but so far I would love to know what fittings you would need in your ADS of either type to not get instapopped. And the wiyrkomi breach two shots dropships now, so that's hardly a change in status quo. Current meta for ADS is three hits from an IAFG. Starting there and working up to par is hardly what I consider unfair Care to collaborate on making dropships not a suicide SP trap like they were in chrome? Hell if you skype Id be more than happy to explain every single tweak and why. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:55:00 - [1068] - Quote sure dude, you can find me on skype tesfa514 Back the Forge gun numbers vs ADS, yes it would still be a two shot to the dropship. TTK from the breach wont change so much. Yet, with current stats Prof 5 W. breach (+ 10% damage + 10% bonus to armor) i would still have that extra 1,351 HP on the incubus. I can evade and possibly negate the effect of a swarm missile fired in conjunction. No enough to survive another direct hit, but enought to survive a following strike with swarms. ROF bonus would be nice, but that doesn't necessarily help with survivability. They are an offensive measure and not a defensive one. Perhaps theory craft an addtional high for inc. For the python, that should be left to the dedicated python pilots, i don't thing they would have much use for another low slot except for another CPU or PG upgrade slot to fit better high slot modules. An extra high on the inc could be used for either a shield extender or shield booster without sacrificing the afterburner. Hard to say really. AV grenades, yes i know its the old school chrome grenades, but they were insanely OP even back then. Would not want to go back to those days at all. And the pre 1.7 days, you didn't really need a dedicated AV fit, because grenades were enough on thier own to kill any tank. They should be a finisher, and not the equavalent primary weapon. Overall though, big two thumbs up, i like what i see. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6449	Posted - 2015.01.15 14:58:00 - [1069] - Quote I was thinking giving the ADS a buff to acceleration so you can get into evasive maneuvering faster. Not getting hit > taking it like a champ. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:26:00 - [1070] - Quote Evasive manouvers are fine (if you call sweaty nerve racking moments of circling a forge gun on the roof in a fight of attrition fine) vs forges. i'm not a python pilot so i'm used to my flying brick. I prefer the idea of an active module as a densive counter measure to use as soon as we do get hit. As long as the ADS has to sacrfice slots to fit PG and CPU they will always be minus one low slot, screwing wih the theorcrafting. To be fair, i havnt taken into consideration how the return of old modules would affect the ADS, mostly i've been looking at things from a tankers perspective. e.g Will the proposed hardener stats hold up? Will Active reppers do well? i have no idea, i was a transport pilot ( loved my gorgon) back then and was trying to spec into the Logi DS. Certainly will need 5% ROF buff or a rail gun buff to deal with the high ehp tanks. If you've ever seen a dropship try to take out a blaster installtion that cant even move, you know how miserable it may be trying to small rail a 12,k hp Sagaris. which leads me back to the Av nade point. Why not just up the count to three nades and leave damage stats as they are? Yes i hear ya, The sagaris and suraya have tons of eHP, but the other tanks and LAVs dont. I think of how many people each match pull out core locus grenades, and by only changing the 'nades on the suit, 3 nades will pop anything that wasn't a Proto fit suraya or sagaris, for a minute fraction of the cost. Being an AV should be more than that, and we run the risk of making the suraya and sagirs into what the gulogi is today, i.e. The only viable fit vs AV so thats what tankers run. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6450	Posted - 2015.01.15 15:41:00 - [1071] - Quote Valid concerns. Let's see if we can find an acceptable compromise point shall we? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 711	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:16:00 - [1072] - Quote Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6455	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:17:00 - [1073] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can excuses, excuses. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:43:00 - [1074] - Quote Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:49:00 - [1075] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley Ask me about my v
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:01:00 - [1076] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:11:00 - [1077] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? for me, not for you. I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:25:00 - [1078] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? for me, not for you. I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow. Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:27:00 - [1079] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed. so long as you can walk me through the numbers that you have relative to the numbers we have NOW, I can absolutely do the conversions. I just have to understand from start to finish what's being nerfed, what's being buffed and what the numbers are going to look like in the end. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4399	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:32:00 - [1080] - Quote Don't worry I intend to do a Current and Proposed comparison so you can easily see the deltas "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net



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.