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)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3991	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:24:00 - [91] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV? Im not really sure what you mean. All the listed math is using existing values. As for my suggestion, any HAV pilot will be able to tell you that its MUCH easier to fit a Gunnlogi (even without PG/CPU Upgrades) than it is a Madrugar. I'd be happy if I had enough resources of my Madrugar to actually put stuff in my high slots...I dont think letting me fit some scanners, fuel injectors, or god forbid a damage mod, would make me unkillable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1775	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:44:00 - [92] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? The Barrel of the Combat Rifle into the Caldari one...... = Boom solved all art asset issues! Frankensteined laser turrets wouldn't be so bad, I don't think it would work quite so well for projectiles though. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15948	Posted - 2014.12.16 02:38:00 - [93] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic. As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too. I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game. Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? The Barrel of the Combat Rifle into the Caldari one...... = Boom solved all art asset issues! Frankensteined laser turrets wouldn't be so bad, I don't think it would work quite so well for projectiles though. Chuck the HMG barrel on a Caldari Turret. Or a Large Combat Rifle Barrel and forward sections of the gun's body. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1075	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:13:00 - [94] - Quote My two cents. If you're reworking all of the vehicles (albeit some not as much as others). If you were to make bpo/militia LAV's faster, weaker and as more of a personal transport. This would enable you to get rid of the murder taxi physics on the free bpo LAV's, enable for a bigger 'type' gap between the other LAV's that you're introducing and give more fodder for the larger HAV's that are soon to be. This would mean getting rid of the gun (for the speed and handling) leave the side seat though. Maybe increase regen massively for both armor and shield types. Of course, I'm assuming the instant exit/enter portal is going to be fixed.. :) SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:21:00 - [95] - Quote Is there any chance we can get the standard and breach forge gun revamped to go with this HAV thing? Or get a placeholder set up for a AV laser cannon heavy weapon? Honestly until I sweet some example fits from your proposal, with the raw HP values I can't critique much. I can eyeball something and tell you how destructible it's going to be with current equipment and I can generally give a rough idea of how powerful a sentinel fit is going to be just by looking at the layout you want but when it comes to fitting tanks I'm a bloody novice at best. All I know right now is armor tanks are easy mode and shield tanks are borderline impossible to kill without a gangup right now. I have a proposal for the forge gun thing if you consider it relevant to topic. I'll talk to pokey about figuring out the fitting values in your spreadsheet. I'm a lot better at eyeballing a fit and figuring out if you can kill on the fly it than I am at actually cooking the fit up. So most of my feedback will be on the "can it be shot down" side. but until we actually have some kind of efficient shield cracking weapon for AV anything that takes more than five direct hits from an assault forge gun in rapid succession is excessive. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Fizzer XCIV Heaven's Lost Property Negative-Feedback 1368	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:32:00 - [96] - Quote I too appreciate that some of the flavor is coming back to vehicles, because its been something a lot of pilots have been missing. I also strongly agree with the "sidegrade, not upgrade" approach that will be taken. But as some others have stated, the prices shouldn't be ludicrously higher than the basic chassis like they used to be. They shouldn't cost any more than 150% of the prices of Madrugars and Gunnlogis. Enough for Madrugars and Gunnlogis to gain a role of being the relatively "cheap" HAVs, without making Specialized ones a massive loss. I actually wish this approach was used more for the dropsuit frames as well. The only suits that currently follow it are Commandos and Logis. Scouts, Assaults, and Sentinels are all just pure upgrades, which completely eliminates the usefulness of all the Basic Frames. Please, make my Opus pretty...
Zepod Titans of Phoenix 27	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:48:00 - [97] - Quote Can we just do a copy/paste of the vehicles from before Uprising 1.7? You may not like what I just said, but you know it's true...
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 744	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:02:00 - [98] - Quote I just want to point out that no matter how much sp and isk you invest in making your tank more powerful, a suicide jeep will still kill you. Suicide jeep = greatest av I hate suicide jeeps
Kuruld Sengar Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 78	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:04:00 - [99] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I was going to contribute, but upon reading the link above I have no reason to. It matches or trumps all of my ideas, and seems reasonably balanced for a first iteration of the vehicle deploy...
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3993	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:08:00 - [100] - Quote Kuruld Sengar wrote: True Adamance wrote: You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I was going to contribute, but upon reading the link above I have no reason to. It matches or trumps all of my ideas, and seems reasonably balanced for a first iteration of the vehicle deploy... Working on version 1.1. Basically ecompasing all of the comments and suggestions on the first pass into a clean doc, with some more specifics on designs for LLAVs, Marauders, and Enforcers (Even though I still think there are some more specific issues that need to be looked at first, namely PG/CPU of existing HAVS). Nevertheless I want to have it out by Friday, so please be sure to keep an eye out and give feedback. This is a community project, I'm just doing the formatting "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:15:00 - [101] - Quote Pokey seems to be on the right track. And just before I forget, thanks for this Rattati. I miss having a variety of HAV opponents to blast the utter crap out of. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5795	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:24:00 - [102] - Quote Also one of the things I have noticed about vehicles in general is that since most of the base HP stats were moved directly to the hull and the fittings were dropped sharply it's been almost impossible to have a variety of fittings for situational use. Right now we have cookie cutter builds with modules hardly used because the vehicles are hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. the more stuff that is front-loaded into the hull means the less wiggle room you have to customize fits to playstyle. I firmly believe that it should be the other way, with the fitting being more important than the hull itself. But that's just me. the front-loading of the base resists and HP onto the hulls was IMHO a mistake. It's the source of a lot of woes right now. I would think if you're going to do a revamp it's time to trim some off and do things like re-introduce 180mm plates and such while making it so HAVs can actually fit what they need to become effective. This is primarily what seems to be holding the gallente tanks down. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2815	Posted - 2014.12.16 06:06:00 - [103] - Quote What ever you guys do I would love for vehicles to actually want to fit small turrets again. I would also like to see clear defined roles for each. I will leave the definition of those roles down to CCP the CPM and the wider vehicle user community as I have been out of the vehicle loop for quite some time. "Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones" "Guns for show, Knives for a pro" MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1778	Posted - 2014.12.16 06:31:00 - [104] - Quote ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
LAVALLOIS Nash QcGOLD 344	Posted - 2014.12.16 06:54:00 - [105] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though). If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages: 1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for: 2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions. 3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts. It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake.[/quote] @Ratatti ^ i agree here with these concerns. With the other gameplay in Dust, balance is achieved racially. (Strong against armor, weak against shields, ect). I feel that by using a bunch of Gal and Cal tanks arrayed into different roles it makes it completely different than the rest of Dust. An Amarr tank with a laser turret or a Minmatar tank with a howitzer type mass driver turret could both alter balance in a favorable way without having to introduce two categories of side grades. (Not to mention im scared that racial vehicle variants will be forever cancelled due to the daunting task of building 7 tank variants for each race). I want more vehicles, and your proposal elates me because of how possible it is in the short term. However, in the long term, it might harm and even bigger wish of mine. Also, consider the capacitors/objective smashing requests. Tanks should be a threat to victory, and need bigger stuff to destroy than CRUs. Youll see better games if an all powerful team in a skirmish has to divert manpower from its main fight to go battle a pair of tanks chipping away at what use to be a safe objective.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15964	Posted - 2014.12.16 08:07:00 - [106] - Quote Just so people are aware. A Tank Destroyer historically referred to an Armoured Fighting Vehicle expressly designed to fight other tanks. Basically the Tank Destroyer was an incredibly large calibre self propelled artillery piece armed with a fixed angle turret. The rounds fired from these tanks travelled at incredibly velocities adding to the vehicles penetrative power. Additionally most Tank destroyers due to the fixed angle of their guns had angled armour along the frontal hull of the vehicle to deflect incoming rounds away from the vehicle. While in modern times the Tank Destroyer is not a part of most military armoured divisions as Main Battle Tanks now fulfil multiple roles on a single hull there has been a resurgence in these kinds of vehicles under the name "Protected Gun Systems". I mention this because of a specific design philosophy that I think that the Enforcer Tanks should have kept in mind while CCP Rattati is working on them. The Enforcer is designed to simulate the Tank Destroyer Role. The Tank Destroyer had incredibly large calibre guns at a fixed angle, and one of the common traits for larger main cannon was that the turret tracked more slowly, or in most cases did not track at all. Now we cannot just take full turret traversal away from the Enforcer Tank, I doubt most HAV pilots would support that idea, but what could be looked at is the idea that the Enforcer should be considered a "Protected Gun System" and should in theory to simulate its larger gun and designation as Anti Tank Platform be reliant, or encourage its pilots to fit weapons systems modules. For Example- Heat Sinks (Laser Weapons) Gyrostabilisers (Projectile Weapons) Flux Stabilisation Fields (Hyrbid Weapons) Loading Bay Co-ordinators (Missile Weapons) Tracking Computers (High Slot Active Tracking Modules) Tracking Enhancers (Low Slot Passive Tracking Modules) Torque Modules Ammunition Modules Etc There are a number of ways to encourage this kind of gameplay. One if to make such modules rather cheap to fit in comparison to eHP modules and Repair Modules thereby making them useful. Another means is to give the Enforcer less fitting allocations meaning that less eHP and Repair modules can be fitted, while some will be required a limited number of these kinds of fittings prevents eHP stacking and then damage module stacking for abuse. Turret Tracking Penalties on the Enforcer Hull as a Role wide penalty to encourage the use of tracking modules and or less ammunition carried on the hull. Coupled with fair hull turning capabilities this should make for trade offs when considering precise target acquisition. There are more of less artificial means of placing the vehicle in the role but I feel in some respects they are fair and almost necessary to prevent pilots from being the exploitative creatures we are. A real world parallel is the Jagdtiger which was a heavily armoured and fixed angle German Tank Destroyer equipped with a 128mm Gun (40mm large in calibre than the standard German 88mm Artillery piece). An EVE side comparison could be something like the "BattleCruiser Platforms" which is a pseudo class of battle cruiser comprised of ships that gain fitting bonuses to Large (battleship class) Turrets with all the benefits those entail such as range and fire power but are usually considered paper thin in terms of eHP. The penalties however for using these turrets are capacitor consumption and slow tracking meaning they suffer when trying to engage much smaller vessels. The vessels also lack the ability in most cases to field drones. Usually these kinds of ships are used for Sniping (like Tank Destroyers) and are fitted to improve range, tracking, and DPS as much as possible. Additionally considering the Large Blaster Turret in relation to this class of Hull I fervently believe that either - The Gallente AND Caldari should have a bonus that applies to BOTH Railguns AND Blasters as both are Hyrbid Turrets - No Enforcer should receive buffs to Missiles as DPS is already too great - No Hull should suffer arbitrary tracking penalties that are not part of the turrets profile unless it is a class/hull wide modifier - An Enforcer should have moderate capacity to turn in place regardless of racial profile. All Anti Tank Vehicles would share this design feature regardless of who was designing it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2819	Posted - 2014.12.16 08:08:00 - [107] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. "Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones" "Guns for show, Knives for a pro" MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15966	Posted - 2014.12.16 08:27:00 - [108] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 705	Posted - 2014.12.16 14:54:00 - [109] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Jadd Hatchen wrote: This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first: Create racial parity for small turrets. -Assuming this is even a possibility right now given available resources Create racial parity for LAVs. -Placeholders are good, I agree Create specialized LAVs -Specialized LAVs are in the same boat as Specialized HAVs. You can't say one is more important than the other. Create racial parity for dropships. -Again, Placeholders are good. Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. -Same deal as specialized HAVs. All Specialized vehicles are equally important Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits -Already have a preliminary design, check Post #2, True posted a link to the community document. While I want these, I don't feel they are a requirement before specialized vehicles. Create racial parity for large turrets. -Same deal with the small turrets Create racial parity for HAVs. -Placeholders are still good Fix vehicle locking system. -Agreed Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) -This goes with my general concept for "Large Scale Support Functions" and this would be considered a specialized HAV/LAV/Dropship so...same deal as before. Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC-Lol you're funny. Hey, I'm not allowed to be funny? Oh crap, did my funny license expire again?
Jadd Hatchen KILL-EM-QUICK 706	Posted - 2014.12.16 15:37:00 - [110] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them." Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one!

Cody Sietz Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 4240	Posted - 2014.12.16 15:44:00 - [111] - Quote Are the vehicles being developed with the pilot suit in mind? Would it be impossible to add pilot suits in a coming update? Just recolor some light frame suits and add vehicle bonuses(maybe have a ground pilot suit and a air pilot suit so the bonuses are easier to balance) "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 471	Posted - 2014.12.16 16:04:00 - [112] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield? If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied. if tanks cant sht on infantry then why have them in the game? And why should tank destroyers even bother to show up if the marauder is just cruising around killing a random militia noob on the side of the map? Let Vayu be fast accurate blaster tanks that have massive bonuses to blaster range, dispersion and damage. Talking about almost 0 dispersion and 150-180m blaster ranges that make them nightmares to infantry. They fail hard at countering rails and handheld AV can make quick work of them from high ground. Vayu can also flank and use its dps & range to punch through shield tanks quickly while Sagaris struggles to react if caught off guard. -800 hull armor. Flachion sounds good as Rattati put it. Bonus to rail range & damage, aims nicely, lower top speed and accelerates slightly slower. Vulnerable up close and vulnerable to handheld AV. Sht on by ADS. -500 hull shield. Marauders just stick around for a long time. Not easily intimidated by handheld AV and are the reason tank destroyers exist. Marauders don't receive bonuses to turrets in any way but have more HP on their hulls. Surya is slow and can repair under fire like a mofo. Sagaris is the more maneuverable marauder, but less maneuverable than a MBT. Give them the chrome stats in terms of hull strength and number of slots. Also pricey. We must accept the fact this will be a long term project. Quicker these reach the hands of players, quicker we can see how they play out. & justice for all
Shadow of War88 0uter.Heaven 471	Posted - 2014.12.16 16:09:00 - [113] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: True Adamance wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them." Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one! instead of packing 3 ppl in one tank, just have the 2 noobs call in sicas. LOL end of small turret discussion. & justice for all
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15972	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:59:00 - [114] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: True Adamance wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles. Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match. I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them." Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one! Yes we do realise that..... it is only after all common sense.... But no the ultimate tank killer is any tank with an Xt-201 *"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. EoN. 2536	Posted - 2014.12.16 18:50:00 - [115] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors. Rattati, should I link to my thread, or will it be no problem for you to find it multiple times if need be? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2537	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:00:00 - [116] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I looked at his doc, it should be thrown out. It's terrible, and nerfing vehicles hard straight out the box. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2537	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:03:00 - [117] - Quote Canaan Knute wrote: How will these vehicles fare against AV? Due to what seems like great options, vehicles ought to be able to shrug off AV again to beat the hell out of each other again. 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 244	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:06:00 - [118] - Quote 1. Mauraders/Enforcers - Same slot layout as Gunlogi/Madrugars? Really? Why should i skill into them? I can do the same job without skilling into these new tanks 1a. Old Enforcers - They had milita stats and got beat by the basic tanks - Having the same slot layout will cause this problem again 2. Sidegrades - Its tiercide except no tiercide for infantry while my protosuit gets more of everything you can think of over the basic - I dont like it and defo wont like it if its a x8 skillbook yet i get nothing worthwhile in return like more slots at a minimum 3. AV will cry - They do it often so what is the supposed AV vs V supposed to be like because if a Falchion can OHK a Vayu then AV is going to cream it before it leaves the redline to deal with Marauder 4. Paper/Rock/Scissors - If this is for vehicles then AV is going to screw up the triangle in a big way, they already hammer normal HAVs now but they will hammer the Enforcer even harder and if they can hammer the Marauder then they will cry for an AV buff again and it will whack everything that isnt a Marauder even harder thus the cycle continues 5. Enforcers - aka Tank Destroyers - Destroyers in WOT generally have poor armor at the back and sides but angled armor at the front with the ability to bounce shells along with a high alpha turret, some have high mobility and next to no armor - In DUST we can bounce anything so resistances we rely on, also spotting is a WOT mechanic and again if we can see it we can shoot it so how is it not going to get wrecked coming out of the redline? Wishlist 6. Capacitors - Still needed, they are New Eden and with Capacitors so much more can be added for both sides and balancing is easier 7. Skills and skill bonuses - Need them back also from chrome days 8. Modules - Again no variety in fits 9. Pilot suits?
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 244	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:09:00 - [119] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer. The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed. So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots. Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. 1. Terrible idea 2. My Amarr logi is not pre fit 3. Why should my HAV come pre fit? I dont pre fit your assault suit 4. Do you want basic HAVs to destroy the new tanks? i used to do that with my Madrugar and kill Vayus often 5. Why are you in this thread you dont use vehicles?
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:13:00 - [120] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion. If that were the case, nobody would use the Enforcers. Again I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



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.

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!