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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:15:00 - [121] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I fully support this initiative and will provide likely TTK feedback for on foot AV based on current. My first thought is that we need to be careful with the things. We're at the point where the gunnlogi can shrug off AV fire with impunity. Where are these tanks intended to fit in the AV/V debate/debacle as far as design goes? My concern is that based on current EHP of HAVs re-introduction may necessitate a rework of AV again. Especially since the forge gun really has only one effective variant, and the PLC is situational. Nevermind you have to be using a wiyrkomi breach for damage mods to change TTK for heavy weapons. I am excited to get potentially new and fun targets again but concerned with their effect upon infantry AV. Don't bother, because you'll want the PRO breach forge to do 2500 base damage before proficiency and damage mods. 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. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:18:00 - [122] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. I'm going to shout down those commenting with absolutely terrible ideas. I'll post my response to your Google doc in a little while. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 3195	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:18:00 - [123] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 To be fair, almost no one ever did use them. Personally, I believe that Marauders should be the AV variant of the tank, while the enforcer should be the AI part. Tanks need to be able to something more than fight themselves and occasionally shoot at ADS. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:21:00 - [124] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: [quote=Vitharr Foebane] anti shield AV solution quote] simple flux grenades plasma cannon forge guns theres your anti shield av. Forge isn't anti shield, it has a bonus against armor. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3999	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:26:00 - [125] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 +2 Missiles in the magazine per level would increase Large Missile turrets to 22 shots before reloading. At basic levels of 415 damage a missile, that means the magazine would hold 9130 Damage that could be emptied into a target in 3.3 seconds. This would instantly kill any vehicle regardless of tier of module. Throw a single complex damage mod on there and now you're doing 10,956 damage in 3.3 seconds, with a basic turret, and 300m range. Not only would that be horrifically overpowered, but EVERYONE would use it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2542	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:27:00 - [126] - Quote Reply to Google Doc First off, the skills... They need to be on par with infantry again. Shield skills +5%, armor +5%, CPU and PG +5%. Will the Enforcers and Marauders have a built-in siege/bastion module? If you're going to offer a damage bonus to the Enforcers, Gallente should get a higher bonus due to having only one turret, as well as the turret with the least range. You need to get in a tank's face to destroy them, as 50m out just isn't enough. I like the idea of the Marauders get more HP. The Enforcers and Marauders need more slots if they're to fulfill their roles properly. Maybe only allow tanks to fit one damage mod like the NOS, keeping a built-in damage mod as well. It would provide a massive bonus for slaying. I'll respond more when you put out more information. 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. 2544	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:33:00 - [127] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 +2 Missiles in the magazine per level would increase Large Missile turrets to 22 shots before reloading. At basic levels of 415 damage a missile, that means the magazine would hold 9130 Damage that could be emptied into a target in 3.3 seconds. This would instantly kill any vehicle regardless of tier of module. Throw a single complex damage mod on there and now you're doing 10,956 damage in 3.3 seconds, with a basic turret, and 300m range. Not only would that be horrifically overpowered, but EVERYONE would use it. XT-201s can already destroy an armor tank in one volley. I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4001	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:39:00 - [128] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2279	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:17:00 - [129] - Quote Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:28:00 - [130] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:54:00 - [131] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I tested a Gunnlogi with an extender and 2 hardeners vs ADV missiles with no damage mods in a PC last night. The missile took off half the shield of the Gunnlogi. PRO missile with a damage would melt a lot more than that. Missiles don't need more before having to reload. Thank you for proving my point. Adding nearly double the capacity would allow you to melt both shield and armor with a single volley. Thus that bonus would be horrifically overpowered, and thus everyone would use it as the best Enforcer because it would be an iWin button. It's a terrible idea for a bonus, however you stated no one would use it, which is incorrect. People will use what works best, and in this case the Caldari Enforcer would work better than anything else. The Maths of it is as follows. NB- Protofits uses the Projectile Damage Values for the LML? Is this an in game feature? That would make them even more powerful. PRO Tier - Xt-201 Large Missile Launchers Direct Damage - 539.5 Direct Damage vs Armour- 620.43 Direct Damage vs Shields- 458.58 DPS- 3596.7 Total Magazine Damage- 6474 Direct Damage vs a Hardened Shield HAV - 3301.92 (add damage module thats 3631.9) *"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 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:05:00 - [132] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:08:00 - [133] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. To avoid damage creep we could potentially look at a fitting reduction bonus for Large Turrets to facilitate easier use of higher tiered turrets? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15979	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:25:00 - [134] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Something I need to add; if we are talking side grades like not objectively better than basic tanks, or side grade in how the assault suit is a "side grade" to the medium frame? Or the sentinel is a "side grade" to the heavy frame? Personally I think it need to feel like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Overall its an improvement, but there is a small downside in one way or another. So for example a Marauder may gain an extra slot and defensive bonuses, but move slower than a standard HAV. You should feel more powerful in a Specialty Tank, but also notice that is is inferior in a certain way. The Enforcer might suffer class wide tracking bonuses and lesser fitting utility to represent a larger calibre gun but have increased damage, increased torque, and weapons specific benefits. To avoid damage creep we could potentially look at a fitting reduction bonus for Large Turrets to facilitate easier use of higher tiered turrets? Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:32:00 - [135] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! I suppose the thought is that decreasing the cost of the Large Turret means that it encourages the fitting of a higher tiered turret, over using a lower tiered one and using additional resources to overtank yourself and end up with a very speedy and tanky fit. I guess it kinda comes down to do you can it to be like an Assault or like a Commando? Similar role but different execution. Regardless you raise valid points about a straight damage bonus, just understand my fear of HAV battles turning into nothing but 1-2 shotting each other with rails because that's all that is effective due to damage creep. So lets just say a preliminary cut in comparison to a standard HAV, all values are just placeholders so people don't get a bad case of bunched panties. Enforcer +15% to Top Speed & Torque -15% to Base HP (could play with the balance of shield/armor +1 Module to Off-Rack Both would end up being 3/3, damage mods or speed mods would work well for Gallente Enforcers, though we really need low slot items for shield enforcers. Perhaps bring back the Low Slot passive but less effective versions of High-Slot active modules? Overdrives, Nanofibres, ect. Enforcer Role Bonus: +2% Large Turret Damage/Lvl or +5% PG/CPU Cost Reduction for Large Turrets/Lvl Caldari Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Reload Speed/Lvl (Very useful for sustained DPS, particularly for Large Missiles) Gallente Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Dispersion Decay/Lvl (Have to be careful with this, you don't want to turn Large Blasters into Anti-Personelle wrecking machines again, that's not the Enforcer's Role) or +3% to Falloff Damage? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 657	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:08:00 - [136] - Quote Rattati you should bring up actual skill/hull bonuses for those vehicles and not just claim what their intended function should be. Range bonus for missiles for example did no good on the old variant for it cause you could simply dodge the incoming missiles with no problem. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:11:00 - [137] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Rattati you should bring up actual skill/hull bonuses for those vehicles and not just claim what their intended function should be. Range bonus for missiles for example did no good on the old variant for it cause you could simply dodge the incoming missiles with no problem. I think he's asking us what those exact bonuses should be "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:12:00 - [138] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Not really sure how that would affect the use of Enforcers since most tankers would be forgoing small turrets to fit the better tiered ones anyway...... Moreover the Turret Upgrades skills probably should be reducing the cost of turrets anyway if it isn't already. I was under the impression that the Enforcer was designed to be your light tank with a big gun...... vs an eHP Marauder it would have no benefits or reason for use if its damage output was equivalent.....and arguably pointless to use solely vs infantry if its eHP is comparatively lower than a standard tank. Currently Quasar Storm makes a very good point that vs a eHP stacked vehicles perhaps a Passive Tanked HAV even pro tier turrets will struggle to apply enough damage to destroy them. Moreover this is the perfect time to rid ourselves of active damage modules! I suppose the thought is that decreasing the cost of the Large Turret means that it encourages the fitting of a higher tiered turret, over using a lower tiered one and using additional resources to overtank yourself and end up with a very speedy and tanky fit. I guess it kinda comes down to do you can it to be like an Assault or like a Commando? Similar role but different execution. Regardless you raise valid points about a straight damage bonus, just understand my fear of HAV battles turning into nothing but 1-2 shotting each other with rails because that's all that is effective due to damage creep. So lets just say a preliminary cut in comparison to a standard HAV, all values are just placeholders so people don't get a bad case of bunched panties. Enforcer +15% to Top Speed & Torque -15% to Base HP (could play with the balance of shield/armor +1 Module to Off-Rack Both would end up being 3/3, damage mods or speed mods would work well for Gallente Enforcers, though we really need low slot items for shield enforcers. Perhaps bring back the Low Slot passive but less effective versions of High-Slot active modules? Overdrives, Nanofibres, ect. Enforcer Role Bonus: +2% Large Turret Damage/Lvl or +5% PG/CPU Cost Reduction for Large Turrets/Lvl Caldari Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Reload Speed/Lvl (Very useful for sustained DPS, particularly for Large Missiles) Gallente Enforcer Bonus: +3% Large Turret Dispersion Decay/Lvl (Have to be careful with this, you don't want to turn Large Blasters into Anti-Personelle wrecking machines again, that's not the Enforcer's Role) or +3% to Falloff Damage? When I consider the Enforcer and this is perhaps the only time my opinion diverges from yours in terms of design I think of it more like this. Enforcer +X % to Torque (no speed benefits) -5% to base hull HP - 15% Turret Tracking +1 Slot Adjusted Fitting Capacity Design Philosophy: The Enforcer should theoretically be a "Protected Gun System" basically a mechanised Artillery Hardpoint designed around its main gun and the systems that support this gun. As a result it suffers from having less PG and CPU than a standard Tank Hull as all sub systems are routed towards damage out put. The Enforcer would become a system that could fit and use few eHP modules and is designed to have weapons system modifications fitted in their place to adjust how the main gun fires. In EVE eHP modules are significantly more expensive to fit than weapons modifications. I believe that the Enforcer (whatever the tanks name is) should be designed around its Superior Main Gun and the modules that affect that guns efficiency. - The severe penalties to the hulls HP are not required as players would seek to plug that weakness with eHP modules - 3/3 Slot lay out is odd to say the least - Reduced fitting capacity to high cost HP modules could and will prevent stacking and encourage the use of relatively low cost weapons systems modules. E.g- The Vayu has 880 Shields 3460 Armour and a 2/4 slot lay out. It also has 100 PG and 100 CPU after the main gun (for examples sake) which is less than than 200/200 of the Standard hull. A 180mm armour plate costs 75/50, a Heavy Repper Costs 50/25, and an Armour Hardener Costs 40/ 25. Trying to fit Plating, Repairers, and Hardeners is impossible and not part of the hulls design. Fitting a repairer and a hardener is possible but leaves you hull with low static eHP. This leaves 2 High Slots and 2 Low slots unfilled. 10 PG and 50 CPU to mess around with Good thing for you those turret modifications and core utility modules are very easy to fit. Heat Sink II 1 PG and 10 CPU Tracking Enhancer 3 PG and 20 CPU Damage Control 1 PG and 5 CPU Stabiliser Field 5 PG and 15 CPU I agree with your bonuses though. Roll Bonus should be damage at a static value at Racial Enforcer's V. While the bonuses should affect that races chosen turret. -However Gallente DO use BOTH Railguns and Blasters and should get a bonus that affects both. - Caldari typically EITHER get a bonus to Missiles alone OR Hybrid Turrets both Blasters and Railguns. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 142	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:27:00 - [139] - Quote I have a question. What kind of missile bonus should a caldari enforcer get? Range? Velocity? It shouldn't get extra missiles or damage I think, but what kind of bonus would be useful? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:39:00 - [140] - Quote Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:45:00 - [141] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 142	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:49:00 - [142] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:59:00 - [143] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. Alright forgive me if I'm over simplifying/misunderstanding this, but basically you're saying that the Enforcer would not have a significant amount of PG/CPU increase (assuming properly balancing resources in Armor/Shields first). Utility modules would be significantly cheaper than HP, so that 4th slot would be filled with utility and not HP because there isn't enough additional PG/CPU to actually fill it with an HP module. So in short you have less resources overall per slot, forcing a lower grade of your 3 primary defensive modules, making the HAV less defensive oriented, but allowing enough slots for additional utility since utility mods are cheaper to fit? If that's what you're getting at, its an interesting line of thought, though I think it might be very tricky to properly balance resources to achieve that without allowing for abuse. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:59:00 - [144] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment. *"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 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:00:00 - [145] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Increasing Main stack +1 like the other "side grades" but ensure that that slot is not going to be fitted with an eHP module or if a fitting modules one that does not provide too potent benefits due to lower CPU and PG allotment. Both Shield and armour tankers were benefit from this. Shield HAV will have access to damage modules in the Low Slots (where they always should have been as passive modules) as well as torque, fitting, ammo, etc. Additionally can make use of their High Slots for small Shield tanking and Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, prop modules, etc. In the same way the Vayu has access to 3/6 modules being weapons modifiers the shield HAV can do the same thing. Shields 2940 Armour 1120 264.4 Light Shield Extender Energized Shield Ward Field Damage Control or Light Shield extender Tracking Computer Thorough-put Stabilization Field Power Diagnostics System 5618.59 eHP on this hull. Alright forgive me if I'm over simplifying/misunderstanding this, but basically you're saying that the Enforcer would not have a significant amount of PG/CPU increase (assuming properly balancing resources in Armor/Shields first). Utility modules would be significantly cheaper than HP, so that 4th slot would be filled with utility and not HP because there isn't enough additional PG/CPU to actually fill it with an HP module. So in short you have less resources overall per slot, forcing a lower grade of your 3 primary defensive modules, making the HAV less defensive oriented, but allowing enough slots for additional utility since utility mods are cheaper to fit? If that's what you're getting at, its an interesting line of thought, though I think it might be very tricky to properly balance resources to achieve that without allowing for abuse. It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:02:00 - [146] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Lack of slots does cause issues. Standard HAVs with 4/2 and 2/4, Enforces with 4/3 and 3/4, and Marauders with 5/2 and 2/5 would work. However you can't touch Hardeners because that would affect the other vehicles as a whole. All balancing would basically have to be done through base attributes and Heavy modules. I actually rather like that line of development more, it seems a little cleaner than some of the other suggestions. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:04:00 - [147] - Quote True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:11:00 - [148] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. Would be a waste on a tank like this to use fitting modules. Not only do they get less CPU/PG per module but if Damage Modules were in the low slots like they should be it would make more sense to fit those instead. However you have to admit this model while tricky to balance does produce HAV with fairly equivalent values for eHP, DPS, regen, etc. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:14:00 - [149] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: It wouldn't have any PG and CPU increase in fact it would have significantly less PG and CPU than a standard hull. So as to fit less eHP modules for its static role bonus, but allowing it to have just enough to fit Lows PG and CPU cost weapons systems modules. Seems like a very tricky balancing act, particularly for shield HAVs that can circumvent the lack of resources by fitting their lows with PG/CPU upgrades. Would be a waste on a tank like this to use fitting modules. Not only do they get less CPU/PG per module but if Damage Modules were in the low slots like they should be it would make more sense to fit those instead. Can you put together some mock stats for one of these so I can try to break it? Totally get where you're going with it, I just want to make sure it can't be abused and still work as it should. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 142	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:14:00 - [150] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Yeah not a huge fan of 3/3 unless it was Minmatar. Hmmm so you're looking at a +1 to main rack for both Enforcers and Marauders? so 4/2 and 2/4 for Cal & Gal? Only an increase to torque is fine, tanks are pretty fast as is, though I see this benefiting armor the most. Lesser Turret Tracking also seems reasonable, though will encourage longer range play. Do you see an increase in vehicle rotation speed to compensate? You don't want Enforcers to be helpless against other vehicles up close because of the inability to track even large targets. Would you give Marauders a +% to base HP then? to provide separation from Enforcer? I've very much ok with more HP on Marauder as long as the speed reduction is appropriate. Also Darth, I think the best bonus you can give to missiles without making them extremely overpowered is faster reload. Range is kinda meaningless because missiles are easy to dodge at long range. You can engage stationary targets at 300m but if they're moving its difficult to land enough shots to matter. Adding more range to that isn't going to help much. Travel velocity might be nice but I think I'd appreciate faster reloads more. You could also give a VERY small increase to magazine size but that's somewhat ill advised if damage levels on Large Missiles remains unchanged. 25% increase would give it 3 more shots which is over 1200 additional damage from a basic turret...it only gets worse from there. I'm thinking that std tanks get an extra high or low like old times, 4/2 on a caldari for example, then giving the enforcers that same layout with the extra off rack mod, 4/3 on caldari for example. Then, give marauders and extra high or low making them have either a 5/2 or 2/5 layout. This, coupled with nerfing all the mods a bit and adding in new/old ones is the best way to go for variety and fun, without making them OP because the mods have all been nerfed. Modules don't need to be nerfed for the most part. Heavy and Light Shield Extenders are fine. Shield Boosters are fine. Armour Plates are fine (though 180mm's might be needed) Armour reppers need active Armour Hardeners need +5% Shield Hardners need -10% Most mods are actually fine. Its the percentages on the resistance modules that make Shield HAV eHP too high at the moment. What if we don't reduce hardener effectiveness, but just add a speed reduction when using them? Like say, 50% damage for 50% speed. This could also be applied to active damage mods I also think armor gardeners need to be buffed. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....



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.