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)
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 142	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:17:00 - [151] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. obviously, 50% isn't an arbitrary number Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:17:00 - [152] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. You would have to touch Hardeners. 40% is too effective. A standardised Active Hardener value is more than fair. Especially if weaker hulls have small HP buffs to bring their Shield/Armour allocations more in line with how they should be. Additionally. Passive Shield Reistance modules could have slightly higher values E.G- Basic Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 15% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation I Advanced Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 15.75% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation III Complex Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Armour Resistance: 16.75% Required Skills: Armour Adaptation IV Basic Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 16% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation I Advanced Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 17% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation III Complex Adaptive Ward Amplifier Shield Resistance: 17.5% Required Skills: Shield Adaptation IV Again under this model Shield and Armour values for each kind of vehicle can attain fair parity even at Dropship and LAV tiers. *"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 23:18:00 - [153] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15981	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:19:00 - [154] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. These are not Bastion Modules. *"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 143	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:19:00 - [155] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15982	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:23:00 - [156] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive. *"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 23:27:00 - [157] - Quote Well lets not get too crazy with changing 20 things at once at this point. Lets dial it back a bit and look at a couple options for the fundimentals True's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 3/2 and 2/3 Enforcers and Marauders have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have more limiting PG/CPU, pushing defensive ability down Utility Modules may need to be tweaked to make them inexpensive to fit (Pokey Note: Fitting Reduction Bonus for utility modules?) Move Damage Modules to Low or add passive Low Damage Mod Darth's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have 4/3 and 3/4 Marauders have 5/2 and 2/5 Need to tweak defensive modules (Pokey Note: Possibly less base HP for enforcer to force weaker defenses than Basic HAV?) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:28:00 - [158] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive. True can come off as rough around the edges when it comes to vehicles but he really means well. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 745	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:32:00 - [159] - 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. Use a shield booster instead of extender and boost after the initial volley. You end getting most of your hp back he and doesn't have his burst dps anymore to help him. Use a rail turret and if you don't overheat it you'll win.
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 143	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:36:00 - [160] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: 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 hardeners need to be buffed. Kinda pointless to resist 50% of the damage if it takes twice as long to get away and you take twice as much damage. True. Maybe a 25% difference then. Idk I'm just brainstorming. Again I apologise..... I'm just passionate about the vehicle aspect of this game not trying to be antagonist or dismissive. I know how you feel bro, you've seen my petition from forever ago. (Didn't mean for that to rhyme lol) Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 143	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:39:00 - [161] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well lets not get too crazy with changing 20 things at once at this point. Lets dial it back a bit and look at a couple options for the fundimentals True's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 3/2 and 2/3 Enforcers and Marauders have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have more limiting PG/CPU, pushing defensive ability down Utility Modules may need to be tweaked to make them inexpensive to fit (Pokey Note: Fitting Reduction Bonus for utility modules?) Move Damage Modules to Low or add passive Low Damage Mod Darth's Suggestion Basic HAVs have 4/2 and 2/4 Enforcers have 4/3 and 3/4 Marauders have 5/2 and 2/5 Need to tweak defensive modules (Pokey Note: Possibly less base HP for enforcer to force weaker defenses than Basic HAV?) I agree with all of Trues points except the slot layout, you can put that in if you want Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 131	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:40:00 - [162] - Quote My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Rodan shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4002	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:44:00 - [163] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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. Use a shield booster instead of extender and boost after the initial volley. You end getting most of your hp back he and doesn't have his burst dps anymore to help him. Use a rail turret and if you don't overheat it you'll win. Double Hardened without extender gives you a little less than 5000shield HP. Assuming you get the booster off in time thats about 2000 more HP. SO lets say 7000 Shield eHP + 1500 armor HP. So lets say they're using a standard missile launcher at 415 damage a missile, 22 missiles, 0.15 interval. 9130 Damage. The Shields will obsorb 8400 of that damage so your armor is getting hit by the remaining 730 damage but experience 876, leaving you at 0 shield, 624 Armor. If you are not at 100% HP when that happens, You die. If they use a damage mod, you die. If they use a better launcher, you die. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15988	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:54:00 - [164] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Roden shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Your Marauder is what the MAV should be with Medium Turrets. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 131	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:57:00 - [165] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Roden shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Your Marauder is what the MAV should be with Medium Turrets. I would suggest putting on 2 more small turrets as sponsons and another one facing back...but I don't know if that's even possible XD (If it isn't obvious, I really want an MAV...or a Baneblade (Stormlord)...) but in this case a really heavy version of the MAV 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 15988	Posted - 2014.12.17 00:12:00 - [166] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: My idea for bonuses to these tech 2 (Specialized) HAVs: Marauders - 6 passenger slots (1 pilot, 2 gunners, 3 passengers) serve as a Frontline bastion to support infantry, and give people a reason to want bring in enforcers to take them out (should be about 4-6 AVers to take them out) -25% Damage to Large Turret - FLAT +25% Damage to Small Turrets - FLAT 10% reduction in Small Turret Fitting Cost per Level 2% Increase to Shield and Armor HP per Level Caldari Marauder 2% shield Resistance per level 5% Cooldown Reduction for Shield Modules per level Gallente Marauder 5% to the efficacy of Armor repairers and hardeners per level 5% Bonus to active durration of armor modules per level Enforcer - Tank Destroyers following the racial flavors (I'm saying that Duvolle bought the recalled Roden shipyards missile hardpoints) could be taken out with combined light weapons fire 5% bonus to large turret damage per level 2% bonus to engine torque per level Reduced Resistance to Small-arms fire Caldari Enforcer - Powerful, largely fixed main gun...think the Cerberus role 10% bonus to Large Railgun and Large Missile Turret Range per level 10% reduced spool-up time per level 15% penalty to Tracking - FLAT Gallente Enforcer - Fast and deadly up close, think the Deimos 5% Reduction in heat buildup for Large Blaster per level 10% Reduction in Large Missile Turret Reload Delay per level 5% bonus to Tracking per level Just throwing out some ideas I had today... Your Marauder is what the MAV should be with Medium Turrets. I would suggest putting on 2 more small turrets as sponsons and another one facing back...but I don't know if that's even possible XD (If it isn't obvious, I really want an MAV...or a Baneblade (Stormlord)...) but in this case a really heavy version of the MAV This game could not handle a Baneblade..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Dergle Fatal Absolution 61	Posted - 2014.12.17 00:34:00 - [167] - Quote There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Ignore your instincts at your peril.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15994	Posted - 2014.12.17 00:44:00 - [168] - Quote Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition *"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 4004	Posted - 2014.12.17 01:19:00 - [169] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -Large Scale Logistics -Large Scale Scanning -Fortified Mobile Infantry Spawns -Fortified Troop Transport -Vehicle Repair Functions -Supply Transportation -Mobile Fitting Platform -Large Scale EWAR (Not just scanning) People love to throw around the talking point of "vehicles have no purpose" when there are plenty of things that vehicles can be made to do if a little thought if given to the issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2282	Posted - 2014.12.17 01:40:00 - [170] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -No point if tanks don't threaten infantry. -See above -See above -No indirect weaponry to bombard. -demolition of what? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1137	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:06:00 - [171] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: People love to throw around the talking point of "vehicles have no purpose" when there are plenty of things that vehicles can be made to do if a little thought if given to the issue. Emphasis mine: currently vehicles have no purpose. Certainly, they can have one, but they do not right now. LAVs are rapid, transient throwaways. DSs are mobile turrets and transport that is almost entirely obsoleted by map/team size. HAVs are mobile turrets. That's pretty much it. Vehicles in role would be brilliant, but I honestly think that without some major additions to the game, they'll remain lacking. Primarily team/map sizes need to go up. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16017	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:16:00 - [172] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -No point if tanks don't threaten infantry. -See above -See above -No indirect weaponry to bombard. -demolition of what? I've never said anywhere I do not want tanks engaging infantry. What I have said is that I would like to see tanks function in a useful and logical manner. I have suggested several times that large turrets gain access to a more meaningful splash damage value so that their turrets can adequately represent the large calibre cannon all tanks are equipped with. This would mean their PRIMARY goal is to engage other vehicles, installations, etc which SECONDARY and TERTIARY goals may have a focus on anti infantry work. I've made my suggestions regarding the Large Blaster (LBl) known and how I think it would open up more opportunities for the Autocannon if the LBl functioned more like the 25mm Main gun on the LAV (from Battlefield though I loathe to make the comparison). That has fair explosive and anti infantry capabilities while being a threat to the vehicles of the game. Moreover the LBl is the lowest DPS turret where it should be the highest. Now I feel if Large Turrets gain access to splash damage they will be able to achieve the roles of Suppression,Bombardment, and Field Demolition (the concept of removing installations from the map to your benefit). These following concepts are more or less what I consider are important when I am tanking either in this game or in War Thunder Suppression can be defined as whenever a Tank fires it's main gun at infantry. They should feel inclined to seek cover even if the chances of us hitting them is low. Guns should not only appear powerful, represent power, but also sounds powerful. Suppression is also the idea of using a turret with superior rate of fire to ensure constant barrage of projectiles at a specific location. Bombardment is the idea of sustained fire at a specific target/strong point. When a tank locks down a road or is attacking a specific section of the map where direct fire is not effective. Field Demolition the removal of tactical assets on the field from Anti Tank guns to specific hard points/ emplacements that the enemy can and will use against you. If you are concerned for Direct Infantry Support I can see this happening in two manners. The first is making use of you main gun to direct fire at enemies. Missiles can earn respectable numbers of kills, arguably the better shots of the game can do the same with Railguns, and under the "25mm Blaster" Tankers would have the ability to kill either through splash or through direct fire while having increased DPS vs tanks and vehicles. The other means is through the fitting of small turrets. More often than not I can sit 50-75moff the point, switch to a small turret, and eliminate enemy infantry with Railguns, either that or having someone crew your HAV. Siege is something I feel Marauders may do very well at being a tank designed to absorb damage. That's the idea of establishing yourself a bunker/emplacement, etc or being able to remain on field against a stronger AV presence. E.g- When Active Modules were a thing pre 1.7 I used a fit of something like 1x Heat Sink II 1x Damage Control II 1x 180mm Plate 2x Hardeners 1x Heavy Repper Blaster. Now if I had to destroy a CRU or mow down an infantry attack from or to an objective I would go into "Siege Mode" and activate all modules barring one hardener and the repper. The idea was to be able to take fire, adjust/ delay/ increase my resists and rep if required through incoming damage for a set duration until the job was done before leaving. *"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 16017	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:21:00 - [173] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. Of course there is. -Anti Tank -Siege and Suppression -Direct Infantry Support -Bombardment -Field Demolition -Large Scale Logistics -Large Scale Scanning -Fortified Mobile Infantry Spawns -Fortified Troop Transport -Vehicle Repair Functions -Supply Transportation -Mobile Fitting Platform -Large Scale EWAR (Not just scanning) People love to throw around the talking point of "vehicles have no purpose" when there are plenty of things that vehicles can be made to do if a little thought if given to the issue. Thinking about it yeah Pre 1.7 I had tanks for - Force Recon - Spawning - Troop Transport Basically what I'd like to see happen is have vehicles be tailor made.... yeah I think you are right Mr Dravon vehicles can do a lot of things to be true and that certainly going to be a good thing when more module return to the game.... but at the same time it would do us well to remember what tanks are. Tanks are not armed with Large Calibre Cannons on whim. There is a purpose and function for it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1603	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:37:00 - [174] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: one player must be countered by one player. Period. a vehicle that allows one player to force three players out of the battle to deal with him is in no way balanced. People are screaming enough about sentinels. I want you to imagine what we get if you get your wish. That is oversimpliefied. A game can be allowed to have more depth than that. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Zeke Dunevent 0uter.Heaven 21	Posted - 2014.12.17 03:49:00 - [175] - 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. This may be a stupid question but considering on that spreadsheet you give EVE equivalents of these tanks by comparing them to different classes of spaceships, are we ever going to see a Dust equivalent of a Titan class ship????? I think I know a lot. I can run just about anything.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2285	Posted - 2014.12.17 03:50:00 - [176] - Quote True Adamance wrote: "snip" I apologize for snipping, but I ran out of room to type. :( Here's my point of contention: If we had MTACs and MAVs and HDS and the whole slew of light to heavy vehicles, I would be on board with your ideas of anti-vehicle, bombardment, etc. I want tanks to have that job. However, let's look at the list of things an AV HAV has to shoot at. 1. LAVs 2. DS/ADS 3. Other HAVs 4. Installations Now LAVs are barely used at all as attack platforms beyond heavy taxis. Rarely, and I mean once every 2-3 weeks, do I see someone using the turret to kill infantry. Never have I seen it used with a driver and a gunner tandem. I have had potshots taken at me from a passing LAV, but they were using it to get from A to B, not using it as an attack vehicle. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but my experience tells me I have little to fear from LAVs. In fact, I fear the driver hopping out in a heavy suit more than the turret. Killing DS/ADS is a solid work, however the Blaster is woefully inefficient at it. At about 100m away it can't even stop shield regen. Missiles and railguns can get kills on them, so with blasters being the odd ones out, they can perform the AV role decently, although I wager more DS/ADS go down to infantry AV than to tanks. Other HAVs, if they are to be AV roles, aren't a threat to infantry. Why have it out to begin with, if all I have to do to neutralize the HAV as a threat... is leave my vehicle? And installations are destroyed in 2 missile volleys, one magazine of railguns, or about a minute of sustained fire from a particularly determined blaster tank and cannot be brought back into the fight after they are destroyed. Now out of these 4 things, we have one that A. is a threat to infantry and B. needs to be defeated over the entire match. One can make the argument of LAV killing saving infantry from heavy drive-bys, but the threat comes from the heavy driving the LAV, not the LAV itself. Installations are a threat, but they only need to be killed once. And if all HAVs are supposed to be AV, then why bother killing them? They don't threaten infantry enough. Only thing that fufills both criteria is DS/ADS. This is my point of contention. We need a ground vehicle whose PRIMARY goal is to kill infantry. Then the point of AV HAVs becomes clear; to kill those AP vehicles. We could give drivers control of the turret and have LAVs handle much like HAVs, with the left stick controlling the vehicle and right stick controlling the turret/camera. Or we could have large blasters become PRIMARILY about killing infantry, and balance them around that goal. But as a HAV pilot, I shouldn't be forced to have a gunner to threaten infantry any more than a heavy should have to have a gunner for his HMG. Enforcers can be this vehicle: A. they have less health, meaning infantry AV have an easier time killing/driving them off. B. the purpose of Marauders can be to engage/destroy these Enforcers to keep their infantry covered. Basic HAVs can be inbetween, jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. This gives each HAV a role to perform. It justifies Enforcers being weaker and faster (since they can more easily kill infantry, they can be more easily destroyed) and justifies Marauders being much tougher (since they don't really threaten infantry as much, they should take far more for infantry AV to destroy) I love your ideas for reworking blasters, but its only a great idea if we had other vehicles to use it on. As it is, until we have a dedicated AP vehicle, there is no need for a dedicated AV vehicle. Just like you don't need a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist, or a defense against an attack that doesn't exist. Should we get a vehicle, HAV or otherwise, with a dedicated AP role THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE TWO PEOPLE, I am totally on board with the HAV being king of AV. But we first need to give him a reason to AV in the first place. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1604	Posted - 2014.12.17 04:13:00 - [177] - Quote Proposals of having a certain type of utility vehicle (like logistic or anti-mcc or anti-air to counter high position links) has merit. I'd like to see both of those, and that in turn would really create purpose for AV-tanks. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5825	Posted - 2014.12.17 06:34:00 - [178] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. Why would I want that thing's base damage buffed? That's an idiotic assessment even for you. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4021	Posted - 2014.12.17 07:25:00 - [179] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. Why would I want that thing's base damage buffed? That's an idiotic assessment even for you. Don't bother with that guy Breakin, he's like the Appia of HAVs. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2574	Posted - 2014.12.17 07:46:00 - [180] - Quote Dergle wrote: There needs to be a vehicle for taking out infantry, otherwise there is no real point for vehicles. We had them, but we got punished for having good aim. Thus, the blaster was nerfed. Blame infantry I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



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.