DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6456	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:35:00 - [1081] - Quote awesome. in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets. have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency. 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 18:40:00 - [1082] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: awesome. in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets. have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency. Oh, how did you know that consistancy of design gets me all hot and bothered? "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 18:42:00 - [1083] - Quote you available in skype right now? 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 18:44:00 - [1084] - Quote Not really, I can sneak a forum message in ever so often but the boss is lurking so Skype would be pushing it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6457	Posted - 2015.01.15 18:50:00 - [1085] - Quote fair enough. used the forge guns as the baseline because LOLswarms. at each level the Scrambler lance is only 50 DPS from the Assault forge at each level. the Autocannon is within 50 of the standard forge at each level the plasma mortar is within 50 of the breach forge at each level. So there's predictable and consistent performance at all levels. Fast firing/high DPS run DPS similar to the IAFG, medium fire rate/alpha to the standard forge guns and the slow fire/high alpha to the breach. I'm letting the damage profiles and the actual differences in firing mechanics do the heavy lifting rather than having wildly varying performances that seem random as hell between weapons. It also makes creating variants less headache inducing because there's a guideline. so if you wanted the assault plasma mortar, you could start with the 575 DPS range, slightly below the IAFG and work the mechanics outward from there. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 157	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:10:00 - [1086] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: fair enough. used the forge guns as the baseline because LOLswarms. at each level the Scrambler lance is only 50 DPS from the Assault forge at each level. the Autocannon is within 50 of the standard forge at each level the plasma mortar is within 50 of the breach forge at each level. So there's predictable and consistent performance at all levels. Fast firing/high DPS run DPS similar to the IAFG, medium fire rate/alpha to the standard forge guns and the slow fire/high alpha to the breach. I'm letting the damage profiles and the actual differences in firing mechanics do the heavy lifting rather than having wildly varying performances that seem random as hell between weapons. It also makes creating variants less headache inducing because there's a guideline. so if you wanted the assault plasma mortar, you could start with the 575 DPS range, slightly below the IAFG and work the mechanics outward from there. Breakin, do you mind if I borrow your Heavy weapons ideas (adjusted to my numbers ofc) for when I get around to AV theorycrafting? 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 6458	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:10:00 - [1087] - Quote feel free. Just bear in mind they need to change based on how your vehicles are set up. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 477	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:05:00 - [1088] - Quote 1. Logi DS need a kick out button 2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill 2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi 2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer 3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles 4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on 5. Shield passive recharge is constant 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 - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges 7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level 7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes 7b. Some values taken from EVE 7c. Some new modules added 7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance % 7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot 8. Hulls have had certain stats changed 8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values 8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout 8c. Marauder 5/3 8d. Basic HAV 4/2 9. PC/FW before pubs 10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus 11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6461	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:18:00 - [1089] - Quote Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 157	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:23:00 - [1090] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Logi DS need a kick out button 2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill 2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi 2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer 3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles 4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on 5. Shield passive recharge is constant 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 - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges 7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level 7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes 7b. Some values taken from EVE 7c. Some new modules added 7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance % 7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot 8. Hulls have had certain stats changed 8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values 8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout 8c. Marauder 5/3 8d. Basic HAV 4/2 9. PC/FW before pubs 10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus 11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml To address point 1. Why not X...labelled as Bay doors or something on flying vehicles? I love the EWAR concept actually having some EWAR now XD... The Target breaker as you have it could be very powerful...I'd suggest instead a penalty to lock on times instead of just a flat out "No Locking"...I'm fine with it throwing off AV 'nades Shield Regen numbers look solid. I'd go with Either or on the Marauder Bonuses...you're increasing it's EHP by a frakton there (or tone down both bonuses, Marauders need to be Tanky as hell, but not unassailable) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 477	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:24:00 - [1091] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 487	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:32:00 - [1092] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Logi DS need a kick out button 2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill 2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi 2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer 3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles 4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on 5. Shield passive recharge is constant 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 - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges 7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level 7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes 7b. Some values taken from EVE 7c. Some new modules added 7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance % 7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot 8. Hulls have had certain stats changed 8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values 8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout 8c. Marauder 5/3 8d. Basic HAV 4/2 9. PC/FW before pubs 10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus 11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml To address point 1. Why not X...labelled as Bay doors or something on flying vehicles? I love the EWAR concept actually having some EWAR now XD... The Target breaker as you have it could be very powerful...I'd suggest instead a penalty to lock on times instead of just a flat out "No Locking"...I'm fine with it throwing off AV 'nades Shield Regen numbers look solid. I'd go with Either or on the Marauder Bonuses...you're increasing it's EHP by a frakton there (or tone down both bonuses, Marauders need to be Tanky as hell, but not unassailable) 1. Current animations has the door opening and closing all the time and they need to be fixed so that if a kick em out option arrives i can hit it and the compartment will flash red and then they get booted like a HALO drop 2. EWAR yea i called it ECM but its EWAR, i want to add more but mainly its because of that SL ive added ECM to it 3. Penalty to lock times is the second module which is passive - I dont see why i cant break lock against the SL since in EVE i have mods which block the enemy from targeting me and i think DS at least need a module like this if the logi DS will be the APC of the sky - Current problem is what bonus to add to the skill book 4. Its a constant passive regen numbers which i plucked out of the sky, frankly shield gets more, armor is limited 5. Rattati does want marauders to be damn strong - If its going to be point defence and slower as a result then it cant escape as quick so its more open to damage over the long run and also the AV weapons are mainly armor based so the surya is weaker until we have parity over the shield av weapons 5a. The way i do see it marauders get taken out by enforcers, this is a HAV vs HAV propsal 1st and HAV vs HAV needs to be like uprising with a variety of options but not 3shot peek a boo crap which makes it so unfun
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2763	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:38:00 - [1093] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. Paranoid I hear therapists are good for that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2696	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:49:00 - [1094] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 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 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16599	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:53:00 - [1095] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 488	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:56:00 - [1096] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 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 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a. 6. The rep came out of the turret but you really had to be attached to the target tank which didnt allow much room, in comparision to a rep logi and sentinal i have alot of room 6a. HAV may not be repping vehicles but who is to say they cannot do it? I used to love using mine, put on a basic blaster and enough tank to survive and a few remote reps on were fun times - AOE heavy reps ive sorta gone meh on unless i create a module for the AOE heavy rep 6b. Needs stats for the special infantry rep plus it was inbuilt anyways on it, if lights do the same then tech its a bonus since it has a 2nd rep which can do the job except its AOE 6d. Ranges in game are quite small, i jotted a few numbers down but in game still seems small
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 488	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:04:00 - [1097] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... 1. History disagrees with you - It was formidable for its time
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:12:00 - [1098] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless. You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them. Bravo. Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... 1. History disagrees with you - It was formidable for its time See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. *"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. 2770	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:16:00 - [1099] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. Look what I found. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 491	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:22:00 - [1100] - Quote True Adamance wrote: See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. 1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:44:00 - [1101] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. Look what I found. Are you actually and idiot Spkr....of course an 88mm Round it ******* bigger than a 75mm Round, it has greater penetrative values, higher muzzle velocity etc. However that of course came with significant considerations. Horizontal Traversal, Longer Barrel, Barrel more prone to suffering damage, heavy weight meant access to bridges was limited and fording rivers was a necessity, increased armour thickness meant larger and more powerful engines to barely match the speed of British and American Cruising Tanks, and more. However your infliction assume that larger shell = better. That depends. The effective armour values on the Tiger 1 varied from between 102mm on the glaces plate to 25mm at the thinnest points. The 75mm gun withM72 AP shells had penetration values of up to 72mm vs Face Hardened Armour and 88mm vs Rolled Homogenous Armour. However you are comparing a German Heavy Tank with a very diffent design philosophy for the time with an American Medium Tank. It might be better if you compared the KV-2 or the ISU-122 to the Tiger 1 with its 152mm Howizter..... now Spkr I don't have to do the math here for you which is bigger? 122mm 152mm 88mm *"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 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:46:00 - [1102] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. 1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2698	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:50:00 - [1103] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 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 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a. 6. The rep came out of the turret but you really had to be attached to the target tank which didnt allow much room, in comparision to a rep logi and sentinal i have alot of room 6a. HAV may not be repping vehicles but who is to say they cannot do it? I used to love using mine, put on a basic blaster and enough tank to survive and a few remote reps on were fun times - AOE heavy reps ive sorta gone meh on unless i create a module for the AOE heavy rep 6b. Needs stats for the special infantry rep plus it was inbuilt anyways on it, if lights do the same then tech its a bonus since it has a 2nd rep which can do the job except its AOE 6d. Ranges in game are quite small, i jotted a few numbers down but in game still seems small 6: It didn't come directly out the turret, although it did come out of the front, and went the other way. It should had went 180, but there was a bug that wouldn't let you. Again, it was a bug. Also, the difference between both is that the HAV's can still be REALLY fast. picture if two sentinels could rep each other, but with a specific setup, could easily move with almost as fast as assaults, but could move with as much freedom as before, and still use your HMG's. 6a: You can. But you would have to deal with not being able to do it as good as other vehicles that are (aka LLV). It's not made as a repping vehicle, so it shouldn't be good at it. That's like asking for a Assault to be as good as a scout at scanning and hiding from scans. 6b: Don't have them. Don't ask me for any chromo stats, all of mine were lost. Anyways, what are you saying at that last part? It made no sense to me. 6d: And they need to stay small. You shouldn't to be able to move freely while repping, as reps are quite strong. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2698	Posted - 2015.01.15 22:11:00 - [1104] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: See above. The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease. Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge. History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless. 1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. The Tiger's armour designs are not derived from the sloped armour of the Russian T-34 as the Tiger has sheer armour angles. Which I think was very odd. Dammit True, back on topic. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16601	Posted - 2015.01.15 22:23:00 - [1105] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Dammit True, back on topic. My bad..... I like tanks...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
KILL3R H3LLH0UND Titans of Phoenix VP Gaming Alliance 184	Posted - 2015.01.15 23:42:00 - [1106] - Quote so enforcers and marauders are coming back... WHERES MY SPEC OPS TANKS FORM CLOSED BETA! Ex-Master Scout Trainer, been falling in love with my Minja again. I <3 my Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2698	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:02:00 - [1107] - Quote I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16607	Posted - 2015.01.16 00:36:00 - [1108] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. *"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 - 2015.01.16 02:19:00 - [1109] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? 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 16616	Posted - 2015.01.16 02:37:00 - [1110] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role). For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures). I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road. DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s. *"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.