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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16662	Posted - 2015.01.18 22:14:00 - [1231] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I kinda figured the Amarr for the types to consider the marauders to be main battle tanks, and what everyone ELSE thought as MBTs to be "scout tanks" and then get butthurt when CONCORD reclassifies the Seraphim a "Marauder." Penitent tanks might LITERALLY be a punishment detail. And Militia tanks are for weekend warrior reservists who couldn't be trusted with anything much more powerful than a tricycle. Just seems to be an amarr thing, Go big or GO HOME. with lasers. That actually make sense. Lore wise it would honestly make a great deal of sense that the reason the Amarr had not deployed their own tanks was because they found the designs of the other racial groups to be befitting their racial designs to be unacceptable and spared no expense the development of the Seraphim Tank. However as the project wore on the realities of mass producing and outfitting main battle tanks with reinforced graphine lined RHA plating became more apparent. Not only was the process significantly more expensive, something that over a matter of months saw a drop off in investor confidence leaving Imperial Armaments to the shoulder the financial burden of development, and also required significantly more powerful drive systems which saw production outsourced to Khanid Innovations. In YC 117 after the initial designs were accepted into the Imperial Guard's active rotation opening skirmishes against the Lighter and more flexible Minmatar HAV caused the Imperial Guard to rethink it's armoured doctrines as a result of higher than projected HAV losses. It wasn't until a CONCORD symposium regarding the recently military technologies during which time the CONCORD representative mistakenly referred to the Seraphim as the commonly accepted term, Marauder, that the Amarr accepted the Seraphim as a Heavy Tank and reallocated its Research and Development assets to produce the Penitent and the lighter variations of HAV. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6577	Posted - 2015.01.18 22:44:00 - [1232] - Quote Its the exorcist. I misspoke. The seraph is the ADS Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16663	Posted - 2015.01.18 23:04:00 - [1233] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Its the exorcist. I misspoke. The seraph is the ADS Naming wise I think we can do a little better than the generic "religious themes". I'd really like to see and identity developed for the Amarr to conveys their ideals/ battle philosophy rather than having the religious nature thrown in your face again. I always saw the Amarrian tank using the name Leviathan......but since thats the name of a Capital Ship in EVE....we can't. Also I was thinking that if the Amarr ever got their tank they should have the largest hull in terms of size. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:23:00 - [1234] - Quote The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16667	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:40:00 - [1235] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions. *"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 2704	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:40:00 - [1236] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: you don't have to have rapid firing weapons to have solid CQC combat on tanks however unlike you I don't believe balance and the development of HAV necessarily requires the game to provide "assault weapons" for tanks. It basically comes down to these two things, in which Yes, you kinda do have to have fast firing weapons in CQC, as every second you're not putting rounds into the target is rounds wasted in CQC. It doesn't matter as much at range because you have to aim more, which gives more time to think. That's why good CQ weapons are most likely high DPS low alpha weapons, or a pseudo alpha like a shotgun. I never said it wouldn't lead to balance, I said it would lead to constantly changing meta due to FOTM's. With this, everything preforms differently, and would preform better or wose depending on the situation you're in. It leads to pilots egging the opponents into the ideal situation, so it becomes a situation of who can get better positioning, who can break that to their advantage, or who can maintain it, while properly using their modules. It just works better for variations within variations, instead of everything being the same, which I'm frankly sick of in any game. Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns? Simply put lack of penetrability vs a tank that repairs itself. Apparently according to Thaddeus graphene based technology is a very viable form of technology in New Eden alongside super dense alloys and what we'd consider FHA and RHA. Couple that with Nanite based technologies which repair damaged segements of armour while under-fire..... it honestly doesn't begin to make sense to use Assault weapons on a tank. I don't think it much matters about wasted seconds in CQC. You shouldn't ever want to get up close in a tank knowing full well you penetrate armour more easily and can be destroyed more easily not only this but as long as assault weapons exist tanking will never require any effort from its players who can just turn assault weapons high rates of fire against infantrymen, sustain that fire, and continue to abuse an insanely powerful hull. It requires more discipline from a player to make their shots could in close range with single shot weapons that it does to blaze away with a Plasma machinegun. That logic is thrown out the window when you see that blasters themselves actually worked before, and the new blasters have now even more alpha than before. The problem with this is that you don't pen armor in just one shot here, rather it absorbs the blast, and disperses over the armor, much like shields do, although, probably not as good. You won't get penetration until you kill the armor in general, which is why we don't have things like this in either EVE nor Dust. You're quite trying to tie Modern day until FAR into the future (even with the fall taken into account). And yes, you actually do think about wasted seconds in CQC. As I said before, the best CQ weapons are usually ones that are high DPS (SMG for most of Dust, and Assault SMG vs. Breach SMG, I think I've made my point). So yes, seconds missed is damage lost, because missing won't help you, in fact will hurt you. you can't at all rely on alpha in those situations. You're banking on having all large turrets cannons to be even valid, and that simply won't happen. As for they killing infantry, look at his stats. Those things would be terrible for killing infantry. Blasters would have **** range due to spread, AC's would have trouble even hitting their targets, and Pulse lasers would overheat before they got a good shot at them. The only way your argument makes sense is if they were all like the current or old blaster, and they are not. Not a single one of his are accurate machine guns, nor have I asked for such. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2704	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:45:00 - [1237] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions. Funny, all three of those propsals have assault turrets in them. Also, all three of them wants a hybrid of sorts, they've been going off of each other, and as far as I know, they want Master Splinter to pick the best off of each. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 163	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:46:00 - [1238] - Quote Updated My Numbers 1) Added in more skills, and how bonuses affect things 2) Added in almost all the old modules, and adjusted their stats to play with current values 2a) I'm assuming that Shield Boosters should be fixed by removing shield delay 3) Added in Vehicle Scale Detection 4) Proposed Adding EWAR and Detection Mods (Some of which are based on ideas from Lazer and Spker) 4) Updated Turrets, still working on them, Added in EMP Cannons to artillery (Flux Driver needs to happen) 4a) Changed Missile Launcher from being a Burst god to being a solid burst fire turret, with 4 different variants for choosing damage type. 4b) Changed Missile Launcher name to MLRS 4c) Added stats for Guided Missile Launchers. 5) Modified fitting and base stats of HAVs 5a) Started Rounding and normalizing values for HAV stats 6) Started working on LAV pages, same principles as the HAVs (Reduce Base Stats, increase fitting and slots, generate racial stats based on relative values of dropsuits). 7) Started working on Small Turrets, stats are based on relative DPS of Infantry Rifles (But still very early on). Things I'm working on next: Finishing Generating LAVs, Generating Dropships, Small Turrets, "Solid Slug" Blaster (could use ideas for names), then generating Infantry AV stats (following a lot of Breakin's stuff, but adjusting for my numbers) etc etc I'm sticking with keeping "Assault Turrets" for sake of completeness, I don't believe they'll be too powerful against infantry given adequate dispersion and heat control. (Considering lowering "assault turret" DPS or upping heat even more...because LOLScorch) 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 16673	Posted - 2015.01.19 03:48:00 - [1239] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Updated My Numbers 1) Added in more skills, and how bonuses affect things 2) Added in almost all the old modules, and adjusted their stats to play with current values 2a) I'm assuming that Shield Boosters should be fixed by removing shield delay 3) Added in Vehicle Scale Detection 4) Proposed Adding EWAR and Detection Mods (Some of which are based on ideas from Lazer and Spker) 4) Updated Turrets, still working on them, Added in EMP Cannons to artillery (Flux Driver needs to happen) 4a) Changed Missile Launcher from being a Burst god to being a solid burst fire turret, with 4 different variants for choosing damage type. 4b) Changed Missile Launcher name to MLRS 4c) Added stats for Guided Missile Launchers. 5) Modified fitting and base stats of HAVs 5a) Started Rounding and normalizing values for HAV stats 6) Started working on LAV pages, same principles as the HAVs (Reduce Base Stats, increase fitting and slots, generate racial stats based on relative values of dropsuits). 7) Started working on Small Turrets, stats are based on relative DPS of Infantry Rifles (But still very early on). Things I'm working on next: Finishing Generating LAVs, Generating Dropships, Small Turrets, "Solid Slug" Blaster (could use ideas for names), then generating Infantry AV stats (following a lot of Breakin's stuff, but adjusting for my numbers) etc etc I'm sticking with keeping "Assault Turrets" for sake of completeness, I don't believe they'll be too powerful against infantry given adequate dispersion and heat control. (Considering lowering "assault turret" DPS or upping heat even more...because LOLScorch) Hoho 14k eHP for 10.5 seconds ..... nice! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2015.01.19 05:02:00 - [1240] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions. Is this backed up by CCP in any way or is every twatt just throwing their silly ideas in here to get attention? There are 2 worlds that people seem to live in: 1. That what CCP is actually capable of in doing 2. What people would want in the game but is delusional And i highly question it that Ratatti is going to fill the missing racial parity on the vehicles. Until Ratatti doesnt changes something in his OP nothing of this daydreaming has any revelance. Or some 1 gives me a link where he says something about it. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6584	Posted - 2015.01.19 05:36:00 - [1241] - Quote I think Thaddeus said it best. Who gives a crap which/if any proposal gets picked as long as it gives rattati ideas for successfully rebalancing vehicles? Giving ideas is the sum total of the objective. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 05:45:00 - [1242] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think Thaddeus said it best. Who gives a crap which/if any proposal gets picked as long as it gives rattati ideas for successfully rebalancing vehicles? Giving ideas is the sum total of the objective. That is true, however I'm an opinionated ** who wants only the best , and I so far thinks that Thaddeus is the best ** (Pokey is in last place, as I have seen not a bit of solid numbers and only old concepts from him, so there's that). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:11:00 - [1243] - Quote Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:40:00 - [1244] - Quote Well, although my fitting tool deleted itself, I got another one, and I tried fitting such (all basic): Madruger Blasters in all slots Nitro Heavy armor repairer (active) 120mm plate 2x hardeners Coolant injector Tracking Computer CPU is fine (actually has reamining CPU), but maxes out on PG by 304. Still working on actual HP stats, give me a couple days for that, I got other things to do. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:42:00 - [1245] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more. Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:48:00 - [1246] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more. Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo The AV is a sidenote and fun between trying to kitbash the HAV numbers. It gives me something else to focus on when the math PISSES ME OFF. The turrets pissed me off intensely but the AV numbers had an unexpected side effect. They gave me a basis for building heavy turrets so that they are not going to be as fast-killing in AV, but remain a superior HAV killing option than a forge gun. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:50:00 - [1247] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thaddeus' setup is interesting and ambitious. This has it's advantages and drawbacks. Mine is based on tested fundamentals. This has it's advantages and it's drawbacks. And yes Godin I fully agree that you are an opinionated ****. A lot of your things are similar in nature, comparing your ideas and his. You seem to focus on AV more so than the HAV's themselves, and he wants to focus on vehicles in general, not just HAV's, which is why I like his more. Scrambler Lance is very ambitious imo The AV is a sidenote and fun between trying to kitbash the HAV numbers. It gives me something else to focus on when the math PISSES ME OFF. The turrets pissed me off intensely but the AV numbers had an unexpected side effect. They gave me a basis for building heavy turrets so that they are not going to be as fast-killing in AV, but remain a superior HAV killing option than a forge gun. Oh, cool. Could you tell me what is the current general TTK you're shooting for? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:57:00 - [1248] - Quote Between 20-30% reduction in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 08:03:00 - [1249] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Between 20-30% increade in TTK from chrome. AV TTK will remain the same but we shouldn't see anymoye two shot kills or instablaps on the AV side. Unless you're max skill and shooting at militia tanks or enforcers. Enforcers are intended to hit like a truck. They are also intended to pay for that power with fragility. Turret TTK as well? That would be a no. EDIT: I think I found some numbers for you for turrets, stand by. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 08:47:00 - [1250] - Quote I think you are misunderstanding me. Turret TTK should increase 20-30%. So if the fights lasted 8 seconds before, they will now last 10-11 between vehicles. ONLY between vehicles. All heavy turrets will maintain higher overall DPS values than infantry at the core baseline. Because I'll be buggered if I can think of a legitimate reason why a handheld weapon should be more efficient at killing a tank. Capable? Absolutely. But an HAV turret should be the go-to option for vehicle hunting efficacy. That's what I'm doing. Heavy missile turrets are now the middle ground for Alpha and DPS. I adjusted them so their rate of fire is steady, taking away the ability to dump their entire payload into an armor vehicle in under 3 seconds for a near-instapop. Railguns are the lowest overall DPS with the highest per-shot alpha. Blasters have the lowest per-shot alpha but the highest DPS. It used to be blasters were inferior. Rails had the best sustained dps Missiles made running armor impossible. These three issues have been corrected. Damage mods will no longer allow instapop threshold damage by enhancing beast mode DPS. The falchion and vayu should be that thing that makes you Sh*t yourself if you find one in your back arc, but fragile enough to kill before he eliminates you if you maintain good awareness and you are more skilled. I want HAV V HAV combat to reward awareness, fitting creativity, tactical flexibility and audacity. Not reward cookie cutter of the month. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1963	Posted - 2015.01.19 10:34:00 - [1251] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think you are misunderstanding me. Turret TTK should increase 20-30%. So if the fights lasted 8 seconds before, they will now last 10-11 between vehicles. ONLY between vehicles. All heavy turrets will maintain higher overall DPS values than infantry at the core baseline. Because I'll be buggered if I can think of a legitimate reason why a handheld weapon should be more efficient at killing a tank. Capable? Absolutely. But an HAV turret should be the go-to option for vehicle hunting efficacy. That's what I'm doing. Heavy missile turrets are now the middle ground for Alpha and DPS. I adjusted them so their rate of fire is steady, taking away the ability to dump their entire payload into an armor vehicle in under 3 seconds for a near-instapop. Railguns are the lowest overall DPS with the highest per-shot alpha. Blasters have the lowest per-shot alpha but the highest DPS. It used to be blasters were inferior. Rails had the best sustained dps Missiles made running armor impossible. These three issues have been corrected. Damage mods will no longer allow instapop threshold damage by enhancing beast mode DPS. The falchion and vayu should be that thing that makes you Sh*t yourself if you find one in your back arc, but fragile enough to kill before he eliminates you if you maintain good awareness and you are more skilled. I want HAV V HAV combat to reward awareness, fitting creativity, tactical flexibility and audacity. Not reward cookie cutter of the month. I agree with near enough everything you are saying . Now if TTK is increased for vehicle vrs vehicle combat will that mean a drastic increase in TTK with av Wepons? Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 10:54:00 - [1252] - Quote Should be with swarms. I'm not changing them from what we have now because they will have the lowest alpha/refire ratio by a wide margin. Wiyrkomi swarms DPS is just shy of 400 higher than the IAFG today. 250-300 when compared to my AV tabes With chrome baseline AV. the lower alpha as compensation swarms are already sufficient to hunt marauders and the odd firing mechanics compared to other AV make it a literal "balance by feel" problem. I can predict direct fire/artillery style behavior mathematically. Homing missilesare a bit different for me. But the intent is for MLT/STD AV to have similar TTK to today's proto versus today's militia HAVs. Adv should have similar TTK versus standard HAVs and Enforcers as proto does versus the madrugar today. Prototype is entirely intended to fight the more heavily tanked marauders. If rattati builds metalocked matchmaking options then this breakdown will balance out and smooth the agony felt by newbros in their first HAVs by keeping ME from running up their ass with a triple modded IAFG. Forge guns and other AV weapons should be closer to chrome baseline TTKs. Madrugar and gunnlogi HAVS should be survivable to run and marauders should be tackled either by teams or by AV gunners who have dumped as much SP into their overall fits as marauder pilots . So yes, if you're fighting a marauder you're going to need to reload unless hammering the weakspot. If you're actually good at AV then this will be a difficult fight rather than a mugging or an insurmountable task. TL;DR: If you want to solo marauders then make sure you don't cheap out on the core skills, dropsuit support and AV skills. If you don't want to dedicate that level of commitment Then bring friends and don't cry to me that it's hard. It's intended to be hard. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
pegasis prime BIG BAD W0LVES 1963	Posted - 2015.01.19 11:47:00 - [1253] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Should be with swarms. I'm not changing them from what we have now because they will have the lowest alpha/refire ratio by a wide margin. Wiyrkomi swarms DPS is just shy of 400 higher than the IAFG today. 250-300 when compared to my AV tabes With chrome baseline AV. the lower alpha as compensation swarms are already sufficient to hunt marauders and the odd firing mechanics compared to other AV make it a literal "balance by feel" problem. I can predict direct fire/artillery style behavior mathematically. Homing missilesare a bit different for me. But the intent is for MLT/STD AV to have similar TTK to today's proto versus today's militia HAVs. Adv should have similar TTK versus standard HAVs and Enforcers as proto does versus the madrugar today. Prototype is entirely intended to fight the more heavily tanked marauders. If rattati builds metalocked matchmaking options then this breakdown will balance out and smooth the agony felt by newbros in their first HAVs by keeping ME from running up their ass with a triple modded IAFG. Forge guns and other AV weapons should be closer to chrome baseline TTKs. Madrugar and gunnlogi HAVS should be survivable to run and marauders should be tackled either by teams or by AV gunners who have dumped as much SP into their overall fits as marauder pilots . So yes, if you're fighting a marauder you're going to need to reload unless hammering the weakspot. If you're actually good at AV then this will be a difficult fight rather than a mugging or an insurmountable task. TL;DR: If you want to solo marauders then make sure you don't cheap out on the core skills, dropsuit support and AV skills. If you don't want to dedicate that level of commitment Then bring friends and don't cry to me that it's hard. It's intended to be hard. I really do hope your proposals bring about the game play you speak of but I can still fore see armies of wiki swarms strapped to min commando's. I would have loved to see the Iintroduction of dammage profiles to hav's such as 30% natural dammage reduction to front side 20% dammage reduction to the side and top but with a much higher weak spot dammage multyplyer than we have now this would both reward the compotent tanker and compotent aver alike but I don't think that will ever happen Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 916	Posted - 2015.01.19 11:51:00 - [1254] - Quote Hey, some questions here without having read more than two pages (I'm sorry, it's a really long thread): - What happens when you bring a STD HAV and someone brings proto AV? I'm asking this because the typical response to spotting a STD DS in a public match appears to be deploying a damage modded pro rail tank. When people decide to counter, they tend to go all the way - if they can. Since public matches generally carry several people with proto AV these days this may lead to a very high mortality rate for STD HAVs. - How many simultaneous STD SLs will it take to dislodge a blaster Marauder and how long will it take? While in competitive matches we'll be looking at marauders vs proto AV, in pubs I expect people to use the most expensive gear to harvest the worst equipped players. Right now two or three STD SLs can drive off an HAV well enough to give your team some breathing room. - I've recently found logic in having blaster turrets be the thing that ties HAVs into infantry play. Use blaster to kill infantry, use rail to kill blaster. Proceed with rail v rail combat until rail-superiority is achieved and then use this to field blasters. Missiles act as a hybrid AV-AI solution if you don't want to commit either way. As an example this is what currently happens with DS. If you have rail-superiority on your team you can have DS act much more offensively than otherwise. What's your stance on this?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 12:46:00 - [1255] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I really do hope your proposals bring about the game play you speak of but I can still fore see armies of wiki swarms strapped to min commando's. I would have loved to see the Iintroduction of dammage profiles to hav's such as 30% natural dammage reduction to front side 20% dammage reduction to the side and top but with a much higher weak spot dammage multyplyer than we have now this would both reward the compotent tanker and compotent aver alike but I don't think that will ever happen that is beyond my capacity. I am a sperg with his very first spreadsheet, not a programmer. If we had a bigger dev team that might have been feasible. As it stands I have to work within the bounds of what we have. What we have might change in the future but until then I'm only keeping speculative changes to things that rattati said he wanted/would be willing to do, such as racial parity via reskinned but existing art assets. It's not a perfect solution, but too much of game balance is contingent upon weapons and vehicles we do not have. If he's willing to bring the stuff in, even if imperfectly, then I want to provide as much creative ammunition as possible to maximize the potential of seeing new stuff in the game. If the placeholders do the job well, and CCP can get more vehicle players back/ more infantry back/ more newbies who do not loathe the game on contact, we might get enough AUR sales to justify more devs being added to the team. My objective is fun and dynamic play. That is the long and short of my agenda. I want HAV and other pilots to feel like they are having fun in DUST because if they genuinely have fun playing? I get a target rich environment. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 12:51:00 - [1256] - Quote Stefan the answers to your questions depend entirely on which of the proposals you are looking at. There is mine, which will be very close to chromosome balance with a few egregiosly easy exploits being smothered with a pillow gently. There is thaddeus, whose proposal is both comprehensive and ambitious. And pokey, who seems to be seeing if the current build of vehicles and AV can be kit-bashed into something fun. Lazer fo cused is also doing his own proposal based on chrome with a very different vision. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6587	Posted - 2015.01.19 13:05:00 - [1257] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Hey, some questions here without having read more than two pages (I'm sorry, it's a really long thread): - What happens when you bring a STD HAV and someone brings proto AV? I'm asking this because the typical response to spotting a STD DS in a public match appears to be deploying a damage modded pro rail tank. When people decide to counter, they tend to go all the way - if they can. Since public matches generally carry several people with proto AV these days this may lead to a very high mortality rate for STD HAVs. - How many simultaneous STD SLs will it take to dislodge a blaster Marauder and how long will it take? While in competitive matches we'll be looking at marauders vs proto AV, in pubs I expect people to use the most expensive gear to harvest the worst equipped players. Right now two or three STD SLs can drive off an HAV well enough to give your team some breathing room. - I've recently found logic in having blaster turrets be the thing that ties HAVs into infantry play. Use blaster to kill infantry, use rail to kill blaster. Proceed with rail v rail combat until rail-superiority is achieved and then use this to field blasters. Missiles act as a hybrid AV-AI solution if you don't want to commit either way. As an example this is what currently happens with DS. If you have rail-superiority on your team you can have DS act much more offensively than otherwise. What's your stance on this? In chrome gunnlogi and madrugar HAVs could weather 3-5 direct, non weakspot hits with a near maxed ishukone assault forge gun. Current meta is 4 for the maddy no matter what. Realistically 3-4 swarms could drive a marauder away. If the driver refuses to buy the hint swarms do 1000 alpha apiece, militia swarms can fire twice, STD three times. No skill swarms (no sp swarms) will require a significant gang up to ambush and kill a MAD. My stance on your last statement is I want a circular food chain with every hull having a role, and fitting flexibility. If you can hold the skies clear by all means bring out the missile pythons. You just have to contend with infantry AV. Enforcers are intended to be an AV first strike platform or "poor man's HAV." Fast, heavy hitting and squishy, in my brain they should be made a priority for killing by infantry AV so your team can hold ground armor superiority better. I would like to see more creative uses of fits to fit changing conditions rather than the current cookie cutter winmobile requirement. But doing things like wiping out enemy armor and swapping to hunter fits to completely suppress the enemy should be an option. My view of infantry AV is to keep the practice from being a given, or safe. Everyone should be in danger. Everyone needs to feel threatened. Now if only DUST rewarded audacity and bravery rather than risk aversion vehicle play would INSTANTLY change regardless of build. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 530	Posted - 2015.01.19 13:13:00 - [1258] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: True Adamance wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: The fudge is this? Since when grew this thread to over 60 pages? So whats the TL;DR version of this threadnought? Three Different Proposals -Pokey Dravon's Balance -Breaking Stuff's Chromosome Rebalance -Thaddeus Reynold's Balance Also there's a big hullahbaloo about whether or not the current "assault turrets" should exist and if they should be replaced with "Main Battle Cannon". There's also a bit of technical jargon about WW2 tanks here and there and inane arguments about our personal opinions. Is this backed up by CCP in any way or is every twatt just throwing their silly ideas in here to get attention? There are 2 worlds that people seem to live in: 1. That what CCP is actually capable of in doing 2. What people would want in the game but is delusional And i highly question it that Ratatti is going to fill the missing racial parity on the vehicles. Until Ratatti doesnt changes something in his OP nothing of this daydreaming has any revelance. Or some 1 gives me a link where he says something about it. 1. It is not backed up by any CCP dev at all 2. Its everyone doing there own thing and im doing one aswell and so is Spkr i think so it makes 5 in total and im sure ive seen others earlier on but it ranges from vehicles are useful and good to vehicles are nothing more than WP pinatas waiting to be cracked open 3. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles may never happen so im not doing anything about them since they also require turrets 4. Rattati needs to update his spreadsheet so we know how far off we are from CCP vehicle vision
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2708	Posted - 2015.01.19 16:43:00 - [1259] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think you are misunderstanding me. Turret TTK should increase 20-30%. So if the fights lasted 8 seconds before, they will now last 10-11 between vehicles. ONLY between vehicles. All heavy turrets will maintain higher overall DPS values than infantry at the core baseline. Because I'll be buggered if I can think of a legitimate reason why a handheld weapon should be more efficient at killing a tank. Capable? Absolutely. But an HAV turret should be the go-to option for vehicle hunting efficacy. That's what I'm doing. Heavy missile turrets are now the middle ground for Alpha and DPS. I adjusted them so their rate of fire is steady, taking away the ability to dump their entire payload into an armor vehicle in under 3 seconds for a near-instapop. Railguns are the lowest overall DPS with the highest per-shot alpha. Blasters have the lowest per-shot alpha but the highest DPS. It used to be blasters were inferior. Rails had the best sustained dps Missiles made running armor impossible. These three issues have been corrected. Damage mods will no longer allow instapop threshold damage by enhancing beast mode DPS. The falchion and vayu should be that thing that makes you Sh*t yourself if you find one in your back arc, but fragile enough to kill before he eliminates you if you maintain good awareness and you are more skilled. I want HAV V HAV combat to reward awareness, fitting creativity, tactical flexibility and audacity. Not reward cookie cutter of the month. Based on what exactly? Now? If now, that's not very much, seeing as fights last a solid 10 seconds or so. Back then it was about the same. Fights inbetween then and now (and when during times like Codex even) could last from 30 seconds upwards (if done right) to a solid minute or so. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6598	Posted - 2015.01.19 16:48:00 - [1260] - Quote Yeah, I'm not going to push TTK upwards of half a minute to a minute. There's absolutely no point engaging when your opponent can always escape to the safety of the redline before you can destroy him. The fights will be a bit longer than chrome. But I'm not dragging them out that much. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley



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.