| 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) |
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
13639
   |
Posted - 2014.12.15 09:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15903
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 09:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community.
Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions.
I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back.....
But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities.
Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this
https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI
11698
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 10:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced.
Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15904
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 10:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced.
That's honestly debatable. One thing I think most pilots and AV liked about Marauders was the cost. To fit them out, to take pride in them, and when the vehicle goes up in smoke the satisfaction of a really juicy kill.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
20205
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 10:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm not sure a Vayu can effectively counter a Falchion if the Falchion can instapop it with 'quick aiming' (countering the Vayu's main defensive ability of circling to avoid being tracked), and long range means a number of benefits which mean that it would be unlikely to actually get engaged by a live Vayu.
Also, I feel that the enforcers should not be particularly expensive. If they are, that'll likely lead to a lot of frustration given how weak they apparently are.
Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15904
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 10:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Just to get some things early in the thread for Rattati's eyes to see I'll throw down some links to specific vehicle suggestions threads and can update them as required as more are posted.
Pokey Dravon's Vehicle Rebalance
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing
True Adamance's Reintroduction of the 180mm Reinforced Armour Plate
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2517569#post2517569
True Adamance's Redesignation of the Large Blaster Turret
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=182471
Tesfa Alem's Vehicle Module Discussion Thread
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=184256&find=unread
Deathwind Rising's Sagaris Discussion Thread
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2507447#post2507447
Here are a few but its 11:44 and I have to get up at 6:30 for a bike ride and head off to work. Will post more as I find them during my breaks.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Canaan Knute
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
156
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
How will these vehicles fare against AV? |
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2274
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
I've been out of the vehicle game for a while, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt.
First, we need to establish what each vehicle needs to do. Then we need to establish what it needs in order to do it. The problem with rock/paper/scissors is the implication that one should always win against the other. The Marauder shouldn't always win against the basic frame, simply have an advantage. Just like the Cr has an advantage over armor tanks, but it doesn't guarantee victory.
As far as how the tree should look, I think it should be the same as ADS, where you have the ADS skill which then branches into racial ADS. So there would be a marauder skill giving a bonus to both, then racial marauders giving a bonus to that specific race. Same for enforcers. This means they would have 2 bonuses, one from the base skill and one from the racial skill.
Marauders: these should be the heavy duty, stand and deliver type vehicles, both of them. The Surya should do it better than the Sagaris since armor is supposed to be stand and deliver, but The Sagaris should definitely be able to take the pain better than the Gunnlogi/Madrugar. To this end, I would say a appropriate resistance bonus to shield/armor would be the most ideal. Outside of bonuses, they would have more health than the basic frames. As a drawback, they should have reduced maneuverability (turning, acceleration, top speed) these things should hope to weather the storm instead of escaping it. Perhaps even give them a siege type module that buffs their defenses at the cost of maneuverability. That would give them something that sticks out from the basic frames instead of being the same tanks with some new colors and a bonus slapped on.
Marauders: 4% resistance to shield/armor
Caldari Marauder: 5% reduction to shield module CPU/PG
Gallente Marauder: 5% reduction to Armor module CPU/PG
Enforcers: These are basically glass cannons. They swoop in, deal damage, swoop out. To this end, we need to give them bonuses to damage. In lieu of direct damage bonuses, we could give them PG/CPU reductions to damage mods, making fitting them easier. The Falchion would be served well with a bonus to missile turrets. I would say something like more missiles per magazine or faster reload. Something that increases its ability to do damage without actually increasing damage dealt (save for damage mods) The Vayu would of course use blasters, but this is tricky to balance. The only real thing we could do to increase damage dealt without actually touching damage is reducing dispersion of blasters, meaning they can fight infantry easier. But then, they'll be easier to kill than the basic frames, so perhaps that balances it out. In lieu if dispersion, we can increase ROF, allowing blasters to actually reach lethal levels of DPS in vehicle battles. Outside of bonuses, they should be faster than basic frames, better turning, acceleration and top speed. Maneuverability should be key. As a drawback, give them a reduction to total health/regen. They should want to attack from the flank and destroy their opponent before they can react. A caught Enforcer is likely to be a dead Enforcer.
Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG
Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size
Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
Varoth Drac
Titans of Phoenix
516
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
How about giving marauders a bonus to small turrets, to emphasise their role as more anti-infantry? I am assuming this role since destroyers seem to have the AV role, even though I know marauders will be AV as well. |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
128
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Are you also going to be addressing the disparity between armor and shield HAVs while your doing this?
(Theory-crafting out some numbers using the Combat Battlecruisers for the MBTs, Attack Battlecruisers for the Enforcers, and Combat Battleships for the Marauders as a base...I'm also going to reference the heavy frame vs the Sentinal vs the Commando)...
a quick question, is it possible for you to integrate a role bonus (Single, flat bonus) into a hull/skill instead of one that increases per level?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Racro 01 Arifistan
501st Knights of Leanbox
471
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
not sure if I like the idea of the falch insta poping the vayu/surya.
please don't give any of the caldarian tank's a rail bonus. we don't need bonused double complex modded railguns. or at least keep railgun bonus to minimal ammounts
missiles at least punish the user for missing their targets with slow reloads and having to line/track targets.
blasters.................does anything else need to be said.
while your doing tank changes.
PLEASE REDUCE THE LARGE BLASTER DISPERION. AV on roof tops is ridiculos. at least railguns and missiles have a chance of kicking them off of a roof top. the blaster how ever is basically defencless and cant counter such a tatic.
dont give the blaster pin point accuracy but at least give us less dispersion or the longer the blaster is fired the more that dispersion is appernet.
and dispersion makes it a horrible pain to kill bunny hoping av users. takeing or sitting to long to kill a LONE av user until buddies come to help him is a death sentence. as it is right now blaster fitted tanks are just harmless beasts that cherrys feed off for points.
at the very least give the gallente tanks some sort of bonus to reduce dispersion.
Elite Gallenten Soldier
|
Racro 01 Arifistan
501st Knights of Leanbox
472
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 12:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced. That's honestly debatable. One thing I think most pilots and AV liked about Marauders was the cost. To fit them out, to take pride in them, and when the vehicle goes up in smoke the satisfaction of a really juicy kill.
I was happy paying 2.7mill isk for a single tank that could stand up to AV that was op back and befor chromsome and basically keep the enemy in check and having fear of seeing my surya with scattered ion cannon and 2 xt- cycle missiles ''marudering'' around.
but no. AV wasn't happy with the fact they were OP and the only way to stand up to them was with insanley costly tanks.
now look at the vehicles we have now...............my surya form chromo would melt them all.
Elite Gallenten Soldier
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5774
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 12:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
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.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Juno Tristan
Obscure Reference
231
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1 for the vehicle attention
I hope the extra content means players are more willing to look down the other side of the barrel |
Derrith Erador
Fatal Absolution
3183
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
I wrote down my opinion on this with IWS, I'll paste the HAV parts here for you.
Tanks: As it stands, tanks are a pure AV role. Which in all honesty, should not be the case. In PC, tanks are of little use and an ADS could easily do what they do in the way of AI. That being said, I believe that reintroducing enforcer and Marauder tanks would be a good way to balance this out.
Enforcers
My thought is this, enforcer tanks are the AI variants of tanks. They would have less EHP, a little more speed, and benefits to large turrets to help them assault infantry.
Example: blasters would get lowered dispersion on the Vayu, allowing them to fight infantry more effectively, and make them viable on open maps. Missiles would get more splash so they can catch infantry on them.
As it stands currently, tanks don't have much else to do but fight themselves, shoot ADS and become giant roadblocks. Introduction of an AI tank will add more of a robust vehicle world.
Marauders
My next thought is that marauders should be the AV tanks. They'd have more HP, maybe a little less speed, and benefits that would make them AV titans.
Blasters would get something like increased ROF and lowered heat build up, helping them to tear into a shields hull for faster and longer.
Missiles would get a damage buff and increased total magazine size.
Rails would get reduced heat build up and better cooldown.
That's just my two cents on the issue. Tanks need to have an AI version, along with an AV version.
99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg
Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.
|
Cat Merc
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
13855
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield?
If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied.
Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
13645
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
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.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5776
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Can you scale the tank models so they are smaller?
I would make the enforcers 25% smaller than standard tanks, remove one or both secondary turrets and make them cheap.
Smaller means harder to hit.
I would also make their turret elevation limit higher.
Marauders are harder. Given the current state of the gunnlogi and sica making them tougher seems... not good.
Giving the marauder a buff to secondary turrets as.well as defenses might make the party tank a credible threat to infantry as well.
But as far as it goes I believe thw best way to balance them is to change the main cannon firing mechanics a bit.
More on that later if you are interested.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2682
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 13:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Well I think this is the wrong direction personally. The heart of the vehicle rebalance should be the capacitor, and the introduction of webs and neuts. It is my opinion that you cannot have proper vehicle balance without this. If vehicles can't be trapped and crippled to be slowly beat down by other vehicles and/or AV (or rescued by teammates), then vehicles will always have to be pretty weak. Tactics for them limited, and the side grade over upgrade mentality will be required. I think that's shallow and, to be blunt, sh*tty gameplay.
I'd like to capture the risk/reward mentality from EVE. I'd like to see someone roll out a 10+ million ISK tank that he'd spent a week grinding ambushes in a starter fit to pay for that was significantly better than what other players were fielding. I'd like him to feel like a god as he cuts down other vehicles, and then absolute terror when a scout manages to get tackle on him and his cap starts getting neuted out. He turns off his overdrive, to conserve cap, calling to his squadmates frantically for rescue on coms. His cap is getting dangerously low, when one of his squad mates flys a dropship to him and begins to triage. The AV retargets the dropship and it goes down quickly since it's cap was being used for reps and didn't have enough to afterburner out. The pilot bails at the last second and manages to kill the guy webbing the tank. Finally free, the tank tries to make his escape, but one last neut grenade goes off and he's capped out. His hardener/repper shut off and he is going to loose an asset he spent a week's worth of grinding in starter fits to get.
That's the kind of gameplay that would be truly amazing. Risk/reward, joy, elation, terror, relief, rage, victory, defeat, this is the emotional connection that EVE is able to capture. I don't think any other FPS could come close to DUST if we had that kind of depth to vehicle gameplay with so much on the line. We can never get there without capacitors and the "tiericide" mentality. You need to have linear performance improvements for exponential ISK costs. Thats part of how you maintain the risk/reward balance.
With the tiericide, paper/rock/scissors approach, tanks become not much differen from other kinds of suits with special abilities. It's the disposable approach and it's boring and shallow, just like every other FPS game that doesn't hold my attention for more than a week. This is our chance to do things better.
Start with capacitors. Model the vehicle stats around frigs in EVE. I did some preliminary analysis with this, and I think it could be a viable approach to balance.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3442
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:22:00 -
[20] - Quote
Instead of bring in 2 types to counter each other in a rock paper scissor game, i would prefer to turn one (between enforcers & marauder) in logi tank.
Less firepower, more modules.
Of course we need some modules back.
Another thing i would like to say is to not put toghether slow movement, low HP and high damage, otherwise people will only camp.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
|
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
600
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Some constructive Critiscm of the Tank fitting philopshy as per your spreadsheet.
For the Falchion:
- Slow Turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Fast Turret tracking
-Slow Forward Speed
This is pretty much the epitome of the Redline RailTank. Without the HP buffer to at least survive an infantry ambush, or the speed to get away through an ambush, these guys will only be safe within the redline, trying to snipe tanks and other infantry then roll backwards. Which double and triple modded tanks already do, yet the slow turret tracking speed helps to counter this somewhat. It ougt to more closley follow in the Vayu below.
Maurader
- Normal Turn Speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Slow turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed
This is a good philosophy for a hard hitting tank, makes it tough to engage head on but gives other faster tanks a fighting chance.
Vayu
- Fast turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Slow Turret Tracking
- Fast Forward SpeedSide grade to MBT
This is more what i envision a tank destroyer to be. Very fast, low hp but hit and run
Maruader
- Slow turn speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Normal Turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed
I envision this pretty much aas a beefier maddy.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Grimmiers
742
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
MAV!
Rambling Warning:
I wanted to talk about how hav's make every other vehicle not worth the effort in means of both av and ai. While tanks can have a rock paper scissors type gameplay the 3 vehicle frames as a whole appear more like a pebble, rock, boulder design. What I mean by that is the lav can use a turret designed for av against a dropship/tank, but doing so is in vain and is usually a death sentence. Dropships can fight each other, but it feels like your smashing two rocks together until one of the finally breaks. Lastly the Hav's which has the ability to take out the lavs and dropships fairly quickly.
I think the only way to bring back the Hav and other vehicles types is to let them feel like more of a threat to each other. It's silly how we can be okay with jihad jeeps only because small turrets have always been an inaccurate joke that can barely destroy another lav. The light turrets being stuck on dropships are also not working well. Not only does your turret hit way off target, the missile turret can kill the gunner and the camera for the ads autoresets constantly and is looking through the ship. This makes it pretty hard to shoot anything in 3rd person and if you go into 1st person you have to make sure your dropship is parallel to the ground. It's also easier to kill infantry with a railgun compared to a blaster.
The point I'm trying to make is that vehicles should be more flexible in what they can achieve. You can have lavs be transport, but it should be fun and viable for destroying other lavs and finishing off tanks/dropships. Tanks would have more defining roles besides killing other tanks and every other vehicle type in shot if the smaller frames were more survivable and actually posed a threat. With that in mind infantry av should be a much more strategic role where av and flux grenades can disable a tanks modules. Swarm launchers would do raw light damage, forge guns could slow down vehicles, and plasma cannons could lower repair rates with a "burn" damage. The current power of the swarm itself would be better off as an anti air medium turret that you could fit as a primary tank turret if you wanted. |
Cat Merc
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
13858
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:04:00 -
[23] - 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 don't see a role.
All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced.
As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role.
Pounding the objective until it went kaboom.
That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles.
This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant.
I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV.
Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
|
Vitharr Foebane
Terminal Courtesy
Proficiency V.
2099
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rattati I love the idea of returning removed content, however due to the lack of a real anti shield AV solution this will lead to rants and fights and petty forum wars between V/AV. Basically, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE US A HEAVY LASER SOON.
Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando V, Logistics IV
I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5777
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote: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 don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV.
You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Cat Merc
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
13858
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Cat Merc wrote: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 don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC
That could work.
Have a damage threshold after which null cannons shut down to reinforce themselves.
Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please don't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Cat Merc wrote: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 don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV. You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily to keep the enemy from striking the MCC
+1 great idea, maybe we could also give turrets on tanks higher elevation capability to combat dropships, although DS is kinda UP right now
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5779
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that
this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
696
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:27:00 -
[30] - 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.
OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done.
Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at?
FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!!
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:29:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote: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. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!!
Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Racro 01 Arifistan
501st Knights of Leanbox
473
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:35:00 -
[32] - Quote
[quote=Vitharr Foebane] anti shield AV solution quote]
simple
flux grenades
plasma cannon
forge guns
theres your anti shield av.
Elite Gallenten Soldier
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:35:00 -
[33] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better.
Honestly, I think that if they buff proto av to counter the new tanks, then it would be fine. Give std an extra slot for their racial tank, buff AV accordingly. Then the new tanks would only have one extra slot, making balance much easier. Only problemi see is other vehicle types getting slaughtered, but this can be countered by buffing them up.
These changes wouldn't change anything except giving vehicles extra slots for more variety.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:36:00 -
[34] - 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 guns are anti armor
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
698
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote: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. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!! Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
It obviously worked since it got your attention didn't it?
I like the idea of expanding the specialization of HAV's but I also believe that CCP is progressing in a backwards and wrong way to accomplish it. They are trying to skip to the end gameplay without fixing or even providing any intermediary steps. This results in players who cannot participate in the end game play becoming upset and crying about how "broken" the vehicles are. But in a world where LAV's and smaller dropships are worked on FIRST, then there would be intermediate counters to the latter higher powered HAV's.
This is my issue with CCP's approach to making changes in their game. They race to fix the stuff at the end that only a minority of players can actually do anything about and then afterwards they realize the mistake (as players leave the game) and then try to make up for it with bonus skillpoint events.
Seriously, most people develop things in the order of crawl, then walk, then run, then fly... CCP is skipping to fly and when they crash and burn because they never considered that they actually NEEDED the other stuff to build upon in order to be able to do the flying at the end.
HAV's are SUPPOSED to be these powerful things on the battlefield. However a small group of light fast LAVs or ADS's should be able to single out and gang up on one. But this gameplay aspect is missed because the LAV's are ignored for updating and specialization and dropships are next on the ignored list. If you introduce more HAV types now, it will only spur more players to want to try them out (of course as everyone wants to try the new thing). This will mean many HAV's on the field and no natural non-HAV counter for them. This will result in everyone crying on the forums about how OP they are and there is no way to counter them. This will result in a knee-jerk reaction from CCP to either nerf the HAV's more or to buff the anti-vheicle weapons carried by infantry. This will even further marginalized the LAV's and the dropships.
STOP marginalizing the LAV's and the dropships! They are the path forward to fixing things in the rock-paper-scissors world of vehicles in DUST. Please address them first and more importantly please create Minmatar and Amarr versions of LAVs and then dropships along with the light turrets to go with them BEFORE trying to create more HAVs.
There, is that constructive enough for you? =P
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2685
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote: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. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!! Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though).
If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages:
1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for:
2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions.
3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts.
It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
698
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:55:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote: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. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!! Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though). If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages: 1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for: 2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions. 3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts. It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake.
Hey Darth, this guy got it, why didn't you? More importantly, why doesn't CCP?
|
Gabriel Ceja
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
71
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 15:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Well first of all with the slots, and I know some people may disagree, but for the sake of balance need to have the Same slot layout as the standard tanks pretty much be glorified STD Tanks but with more pg/cpu of course for better fitting options.
The reason for this solution is because it would be a lot better if it possibly under performs with this layout than being OP off the bat that way if it does under perform well than you can add in more slots and pg/cpu with a hotfix.
As for bonuses since the marauders are the super heavy tank which sounds Kick A. btw would like to sse maybe a bonus to shield extender/armor plate efficiency.
"Throw on the flux capacitor."
activates fuel injector
"WOOOOOO!!!"
|
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
Capital Punishment.
2942
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Look into the fitting of the Madrugar. The primary reason why the Gunnlogi is superior to the Madrugar is the down right terrible fitting. Losing 370 CPU for 370 PG is no where near a good trade. My Gunnlogi is a piece of cake to fit while my Madrugar is pretty much instantly maxed out on CPU no matter what I do.
I will also say that prices should be close. Marauders were previously balanced around cost. I think this is a bad idea as balancing something by putting a high price tag on it hurts poor people and those that have one billion ISK could not care less.
I greatly dislike the "insta pop" mechanic, even if it is meant as a hard counter like pulling in one specific tank to take out one specific tank. Even my cheapo Gunnlogi runs at 315,000 ISK. One thing I didn't like about 1.7 is that tank fights were no longer bruised bare fist bar fights, it a gun fight on whoever shot and hit first won. While TTK was being increased for Dropsuits, it was being heavily decreased for vehicles. I think it is currently decent as is considering the overheat stops you from instant blaping other tanks but I am still dubious on a design that is meant to "insta pop" given the prices of these vehicles. Unlike Drop Suits, I don't get a bonus if I am not using that Tank.
If I am running in my Prototype Scout and I die a lot, I can decide to run around in my Basic Scout. My level 5 Caldari Scout still gives me insane scan range, a very easy to fit Cloak, and makes me harder to see. If I have level 5 UHAV and a Falchion keeps killing me so I drop to my Gunnlogi/Madrugar, those level 5 points are wasted. The difference is that there is NO cheaper option to be a UHAV than to go to a completely different skill set. Possible fix: allow MBT's to get some benefit from those other skills. Possible flaw: completely removes the idea of tieracide for tanks as it was originally designed in 1.7.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:02:00 -
[40] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:Vell0cet wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote: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. OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done. Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at? FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!! Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though). If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages: 1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for: 2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions. 3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts. It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake. Hey Darth, this guy got it, why didn't you? More importantly, why doesn't CCP?
I never said I disagreed with your post did I? I just said that the kind of feedback you gave was not the kind we need, so I asked you to go away. You could have posted feedback in a positive way, and I would have completely agreed with you. Instead, you decided to go the 12 year old route and flame the post.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
Al the destroyer
NECROM0NGERS
212
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better.
I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. |
Cat Merc
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
13859
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.
So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots.
Feline overlord of all humans - CAT MERC
n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
128
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.
So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots.
This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
698
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:36:00 -
[44] - Quote
Joseph Ridgeson wrote:Look into the fitting of the Madrugar. The primary reason why the Gunnlogi is superior to the Madrugar is the down right terrible fitting. Losing 370 CPU for 370 PG is no where near a good trade. My Gunnlogi is a piece of cake to fit while my Madrugar is pretty much instantly maxed out on CPU no matter what I do.
I will also say that prices should be close. Marauders were previously balanced around cost. I think this is a bad idea as balancing something by putting a high price tag on it hurts poor people and those that have one billion ISK could not care less.
I greatly dislike the "insta pop" mechanic, even if it is meant as a hard counter like pulling in one specific tank to take out one specific tank. Even my cheapo Gunnlogi runs at 315,000 ISK. One thing I didn't like about 1.7 is that tank fights were no longer bruised bare fist bar fights, it a gun fight on whoever shot and hit first won. While TTK was being increased for Dropsuits, it was being heavily decreased for vehicles. I think it is currently decent as is considering the overheat stops you from instant blaping other tanks but I am still dubious on a design that is meant to "insta pop" given the prices of these vehicles. Unlike Drop Suits, I don't get a bonus if I am not using that Tank.
If I am running in my Prototype Scout and I die a lot, I can decide to run around in my Basic Scout. My level 5 Caldari Scout still gives me insane scan range, a very easy to fit Cloak, and makes me harder to see. If I have level 5 UHAV and a Falchion keeps killing me so I drop to my Gunnlogi/Madrugar, those level 5 points are wasted. The difference is that there is NO cheaper option to be a UHAV than to go to a completely different skill set. Possible fix: allow MBT's to get some benefit from those other skills. Possible flaw: completely removes the idea of tieracide for tanks as it was originally designed in 1.7.
AHA! See CCP, you missed the bout on intermediate steps even in the current gameplay. THIS is part of the issue that is wrong with the balance of vehicle gameplay in your game. There needs to be more intermediate steps that build up to that big HAV monster at the end. You finially got it right (somewhat) with the dropsuit tieracide, but the vehicles need it badly. You need to make the lower end vehicles actually worth piloting, and then when the high end HAV comes out to play it will actually mean something. Unlike now when people literally go hunting for HAV's with their swarms!!! Meaning that they have to hunt for vehicles because no one is using the damned things enough!!!!
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
698
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:Vell0cet wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:
OMG!!!! Can you please finish the freaking RACIAL PARITY in vehicles and turrets before trying to fix the gameplay/balance of this s**t?!? Seriously. How can you expect to balance only two races' of vehicles and then upset that balance by introducing the other two races' of turrets and vehicles only to find that they will break everything all over again? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add in racial parity for the vehicles first and then add in the specialized tanks etc. I play a Minmatar, I would have maxed out my dropship piloting skills by now except for one problem... THERE ARE NO DAMNED MINMATAR DROPSHIPS RIGHT NOW!!!! So rather than waste points on Caldari or Gallente dropships, I've been DENIED that aspect of the game waiting patiently for YEARS now for you to get off your ass and get the racial parity in vehicles done.
Seriously CCP you have wasted so much damned potential for so much gameplay by not following through with full racial parity that it's just insane!!! If you need proof, just look back at the spikes in players and activity every time you finished racial parity for the other things like rifles and heavy/scout suits!!! Hell you still haven't finished racial parity on heavy weapons, again we see only two races' heavy weapons, where are the other two at?
FINISH YOUR DAMNED GAME THEN ADD THE NEW STUFF PLEASE!!!!
Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though). If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages: 1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for: 2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions. 3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts. It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake. Hey Darth, this guy got it, why didn't you? More importantly, why doesn't CCP? I never said I disagreed with your post did I? I just said that the kind of feedback you gave was not the kind we need, so I asked you to go away. You could have posted feedback in a positive way, and I would have completely agreed with you. Instead, you decided to go the 12 year old route and flame the post.
LOL, did you not read the post right before? Here, I'll link it for you since you are incapable of finding it yourself:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2519188#post2519188
|
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI
11700
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:50:00 -
[46] - Quote
Not directly related, but related to the plan for vehicles in general, and why killer HAVs need to exist. Consider Cat Merc's ideas.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=183524
Cat Merc wrote:So, scratching my head about trying to figure out a place for vehicles on the battlefield without making them super dropsuits that massacre infantry without a care in the world, I thought of something.
Vehicles need a role, a reason to exist on the field, and so I thought: "What would make vehicles extremely valuable to infantry without having them be extreme killing machines?"
And then I realized: "Support vehicles"
If tanks are to hunt tanks, those original tanks need a reason to exist in the first place.
That was originally wrecking infantry, but as evidence shows, that's only fun for the pilots.
So we are in a position where vehicles don't really do much but "exist", and nobody bothers to bring their own vehicles to hunt them down since they're either not worth bothering with, or dispatched quickly with AV.
Imagine if Logi vehicles were highly tanky, to the point where infantry AV would require a long time and a lot of concentrated fire to take down.
Now imagine if said Logi vehicles provided powerful bonuses in an AOE to infantry: 100hp/s armor and shield regen, damage amplification, ammo resupply, mobile CRU, mobile supply depot, scanning, etc'.
You would want a way to get rid of them - You would WANT killer vehicles, vehicles designed to hunt other vehicles.
You would WANT to have armored control on the battlefield, so you could bring support vehicles with impunity.
This gives vehicles a reason to exist initially, and provides a target that infantry can't easily dispatch of.
This gives vehicles a reason to hunt down other vehicles.
This gives people a reason to want armored control of the field.
Gû¦Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum altGû+
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
If you had given constructive feedback in the first place, then nobody would have had a problem with it. Sure, the post got my attention, but for all the wrong reasons. If you left out all the crap, then CCP might actually pay attention to it. As well as the other people on the forums. As far as I know, flame posts have NEVER brought any change to the game. Only the good ones have.
And now you seem to be after me because I pointed out your feedback was not needed. Please continue if you wish.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
738
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:14:00 -
[48] - 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.
first thing i noticed in your proposal is that cpu/pg are the same for gunnlogi and Madrugar.
the Madrugar needs more of both. it cant make full use of its slots without fitting mods. itcan fit all basic gear without needing fitting mods. the gunnlogi on the other hand can fit whatever it wants because it can use its low slot for fitting mods. no one complains about it because there aren't any other useful low slot mods anyways.
the next thing is that it looks like youre looking to maintain current mechanics. but those mechanics were put in place after removing most of the old modules. is a rework of vehicle mechanics possible? or at least the modules?
can we get increased slot layouts if we want them? bringing back all the old modules is great, but without anywhere to put them we really wont have much in terms of viable fitting choices. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
739
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:27:00 -
[49] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote: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 don't see a role. All I see are more tank variants that will either make infantry whine or tankers whine, depending on how they're balanced. As Spkr said, in Skirmish 1.0 they had a role. Pounding the objective until it went kaboom. That meant that the defenders would bring their own vehicles to pound back at the attacker vehicles. This meant that vehicles had a role without being the "destroy all life" variant. I honestly do not think you should be adding more vehicle variants before you decide the role of the HAV.
they shouldve just fixed skirmish 1.0 instead of scrapping it. i know there were issues but none were beyond fixing.
the big issue was attackers would lose if they didnt get the first point fast enough. the should have been to replenish the MCC's hp by 25% each time a point was taken. id love to see it come back |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
739
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:31:00 -
[50] - Quote
Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough.
teamwork for "one" tank.
what happens when there's 6 of them?
we dont have enough players per team for that.
we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once. |
|
|
Al the destroyer
NECROM0NGERS
212
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 18:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once.
I would love to be in that battle the payout would be awesome. But all kidding aside in a skirm if they brought out 6 of those things they would be lacking somewhere else it wouldn't be a good tactic to do that if you wanted to win. |
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
2702
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 18:51:00 -
[52] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once.
You're right. I guess it's impossible for the same 2-3 people in AV to switch targets after they've killed one tank.
Dust is there! I was real!
Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
|
Grimmiers
743
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 19:08:00 -
[53] - Quote
It's probably best if we keep these designed as standard variants with the same number of slots. A lot of people want adv/proto level slot layouts which would be fine if higher tiers just got more pg/cpu to fit stuff with.
And if a vayu is getting instapop'd would it have lav ehp? What would this mean for dropships getting sniped by an a falchion perched against a hillside? I already get hit by 2 cycles of a rail if I try to engage enemies with no chance to react.
As for base hp have you thought about simply adding and taking away a Basic Extender/Plate's worth of health?
Sagaris: 3340 Shields
Falchion: 1960 Shields
Surya: 5020 Armor
Vayu: 2990 Armor
And lets try to paint out this vayu getting one shotted by a Falchion.
If a Falchion fits 3 damage mods on a proto rail with just the max DHAV fitting bonus 1 shot would do 3248 dmg which is less than the vayu's ehp with the 1200 shields still in tacked. If the falchion only got a 10% racial bonus we're looking at a vayu with around 3500 ehp (500 shields/2990 armor.
This is where I would suggest having light vehicles be a viable option in destroying these glass cannon tanks. I can see lavs filled with 2~3 av specialists being pretty potent against them, but It would be nice to have an assault lav class that can make use of any new av turrets.
Edit: Vayu's dps with this setup would be around 1662 |
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3449
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 19:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
To continue with my previous post, i find a rock paper scissor mechanic, good for a very short period, but in a mid long time it will be very boring.
It's like if to counter a cal heavy, you can use only scrambler rifle, scr can be the best option, but you have many other ways.
In a R-P-S mechanic, you'll will always do the same to counter your opponent move and he will inevitably do the counter move too, this till the end of the battle. (if they have enough SP of course)
Tanks suffer the same disease of the commando right now, low slot count, low resources, inability to fit all their turrets and have good modules (if you don't have lvl. 5 optimization).
With such a low slot count it's even hard to think at variations that are not RPS.
If you want to keep current stats of tanks, why don't you nerf all the modules and give to tanks old slot layout?
Tankers would be happy to play with their fits and vehicle world would get close to infantry world in term of variability.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
|
Al the destroyer
NECROM0NGERS
212
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 19:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
Grimmiers wrote:It's probably best if we keep these designed as standard variants with the same number of slots. A lot of people want adv/proto level slot layouts which would be fine if higher tiers just got more pg/cpu to fit stuff with.
And if a vayu is getting instapop'd would it have lav ehp? What would this mean for dropships getting sniped by an a falchion perched against a hillside? I already get hit by 2 cycles of a rail if I try to engage enemies with no chance to react.
As for base hp have you thought about simply adding and taking away a Basic Extender/Plate's worth of health?
Sagaris: 3340 Shields
Falchion: 1960 Shields
Surya: 5020 Armor
Vayu: 2990 Armor
And lets try to paint out this vayu getting one shotted by a Falchion.
If a Falchion fits 3 damage mods on a proto rail with just the max DHAV fitting bonus 1 shot would do 3248 dmg which is less than the vayu's ehp with the 1200 shields still in tacked. If the falchion only got a 10% racial bonus we're looking at a vayu with around 3500 ehp (500 shields/2990 armor.
This is where I would suggest having light vehicles be a viable option in destroying these glass cannon tanks. I can see lavs filled with 2~3 av specialists being pretty potent against them, but It would be nice to have an assault lav class that can make use of any new av turrets.
Edit: Vayu's dps with this setup would be around 1662
+1 you could have the same slot layout just higher base EHP CPU and PG to fit better modules! I don't think A/V needs a buff killing tanks now is easy I would love to hunt these new tough tanks with a FG squad!! |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
605
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 19:43:00 -
[56] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once.
Tank ISK prices have not changed since 1.7 dropped. Why do you think its extremely rare right now to encounter 6 enemy tanks?
Give me 6 forge gunners and see how quickly those 6 tanks disapear, either dead or in the redline. Plus tanks usually run into enemy tanks. We dont even see 6 militia fit sicas any more, i can't see why your worrying about a match where you would find very expensive 6 proto fit maruaders. Its half a million for a proto fit gunlogi right now, i can't see 6 players spending 3,000,000 or more isk in a pub match, let alone the cost of the higher tier tanks.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15924
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:00:00 -
[57] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.
So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...)
Yet T2 Ships almost always have more module slots that T1's.
The issue I see with it is that even if the power of Marauders or Enforcers in is their role bonuses that tanks themselves aren't very interesting or enjoyable to use.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spectral Clone
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3384
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:07:00 -
[58] - Quote
In order to bring a purpose to start the "tank escalation", there should be one tank type that will damage the MCC. 
Three types of tanks:
- Anti MCC
- Anti tank
- Anti infantry
EVE: Legion, also known as: Schroedinger's Game, EVE: Limbo, or just "Not-a-game-yet".
My PS3: http://imgur.com/a/5O8ok
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5786
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:16:00 -
[59] - Quote
Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough.
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.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
699
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:51:00 -
[60] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:If you had given constructive feedback in the first place, then nobody would have had a problem with it. Sure, the post got my attention, but for all the wrong reasons. If you left out all the crap, then CCP might actually pay attention to it. As well as the other people on the forums. As far as I know, flame posts have NEVER brought any change to the game. Only the good ones have. And now you seem to be after me because I pointed out your feedback was not needed. Please continue if you wish.
Actually, Darth, you singled me out first with you wonderful post deriding my lack of taste post. If you wanted to "shame" me somehow with that original posting you would have been better off to have said so in a less douchie way... I'll admit my original posting was meant to be inflammatory on purpose. But you decided to drop down to that level right along with me solely to point it out. Now if you had said something more constructive as well, then I wouldn't have bothered replying to your reply. But since you "called me out" the inner douche in me just begged to be let out and have fun with you. So yeah I'm continuing because I wish to. =P
On another note, I've gone the path of constructive non-inflamatory critiquing in these forums before... AND I GOT NOTHING IN RESPONSE FOR IT. So psych 101 says that in the lack of a bio-feedback loop, I determine that there's been no reception of my initial attempts and thus I change tactics. Now that I'm receiving feedback (even negative feedback) it's proven that my message was at least received. Thus why forums/trolls and the internet suck for this kinda crap.
As for the original topic, I still stand by the point that adding more HAV's because they are "Hey guys look cool tanks!" is the wrong path to go with for this game. Instead a more solid and more balanced approach would be to do two things:
1 - Finish the racial parity for both vehicles and for vehicle turrets.
2 - Create more roles for LAV's (and even more types like trikes/quads etc) and for dropships (or light fighters or whatever you want them to be).
Hell this could be done at the same time as in CCP could be developing both more LAVs (like a one man trike without weapons) and at the same time be adding in the Minmatar/Amarr LAV's and the associated small turrets to go with them.
Then on the next pass they could create a different type of dropship or specialization for it and add in the Minmatar/Amarr ones and still use the already created small turrets.
Then on the last pass they could add in the new HAV's, including the Minamatar/Amarr ones and also finally include the new heavy turrets for the Minmatar and Amarr as well.
But instead we are jumping straight to the end of MOAR OP"NESS HEAVY STOMP ON UR BUTT TANKS!!! Gobble gobble much munch burp!!!
Why?
What happened to logistics LAV's? How about mobile depot LAV's for resupplying ammor to other vehicles on the run? How about a trike that a heavy can ride on (OMG fat dude on a Harley picture) instead of wasting a freaking full sized LAV all the time to get from place to place? What about a one man LAV that can carry a forward fixed heavy gun but nothing else for anti-tank jihading? Add in the other two races' small turrets to this whole mix and suddenly you have so many choices and opportunities for so much cooperative, constructive, and emergent gameplay!!!
WHY CCP!!!! WHY ARE YOU SO BLIND TO THE AWESOMENESS THAT COULD BE THIS GAME IF YOU WOULD JUST OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! THE WASTED OPPORTUNITIES JUST BREAK MY HEART AND CAUSE MY BRAIN TO GO INSANE WITH ANGUISH!!!!!!
Oh and one other thing!!! FIX THE VEHICLE LOCKS!!! Right now new players don't understand why they cannot get into a vehicle right away!!! They think the driver is just being a **** or stupid or something and thus shoot at vehicles not realizing how freaking annoying that **** is. It's an EASY FIX. Just have a state setting for all vehicles (I know you already have it as a blue character cannot enter into a red turret and instead is given the option to hack it). The state would just be an extension of the "is the vehicle your team or not" and instead of 0 or 1, make it 00, 01, 10, or 11 where 00 is other team must hack it; 01 is same team, but cannot enter because it's locked to owner only; 10 is same team, but may or may not enter depending upon if you are of the same squad as owner; and, 11 is unlocked and open for anyone on the same team. There I fixed it for you. =P (Yeah I know that's not how they did the code, but you'd be surprised sometimes.)
But instead we have to endure stupid OP tanks wars before we can have anything else because they happen to be somehow less "gratifying" for the programmers at CCP to code for or some stupid thing like that.
|
|
|
Aeon Amadi
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
7458
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
My main issue with this is that they're being designed as a Vehicle versus Vehicle option to a game in which vehicles ultimately have no other purpose than quick destruction of neutral installations and infantry killing. There -HAS- to be a reason for these things to exist beyond just killing other vehicles when there is no other reason HAVs to exist in the first place. The problem with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance is that they were only considered for 'Vehicle vs Vehicle' play and there were no intentions of accepting 'Vehicle vs Infantry' feedback into account at the time. Thusly, problems occurred.
If anything, I think the Falchion is going to wind up being a long-range ADS killer while the other vehicles just act as Suped-Up HAVs that are going to be just as efficient at infantry murder as their normal counterparts while having the added benefit of being harder to kill.
The problem I see with Turret Tracking and Turn Speeds is that they have to be considered one in the same. You can sort of bypass the turret tracking restrictions just by turning the vehicle itself unless the turret movement is completely separate of the vehicle (meaning, if I turn the vehicle right without touching the right analog stick, the turret does not move at all).
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:I'm not sure a Vayu can effectively counter a Falchion if the Falchion can instapop it with 'quick aiming' (countering the Vayu's main defensive ability of circling to avoid being tracked), and long range means a number of benefits which mean that it would be unlikely to actually get engaged by a live Vayu.
Also, I feel that the enforcers should not be particularly expensive. If they are, that'll likely lead to a lot of frustration given how weak they apparently are.
I'll echo Arkena's concerns as it's much easier to go stationary and aim at a threat than it is to both maneuver around a target while trying to keep a steady aim on it. If the Vayu has to worry about traversing terrain, beating the target's tracking, and staying on target when the Falchion only has to worry about getting that one shot off... There's going to be problems.
Not even going to bring up the propensity for Redlining with a Falchion.
Varoth Drac wrote:How about giving marauders a bonus to small turrets, to emphasise their role as more anti-infantry? I am assuming this role since destroyers seem to have the AV role, even though I know marauders will be AV as well.
Cat Merc wrote:Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield?
If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied.
Both of these are very good suggestions/concerns to bring up and I think it'd be better if we started with an Anti-Infantry Platform that is powerful, while having another platform designed to counter it.
I could see and anti-infantry variant having additional Small Blaster damage / reduced heat build on the Gallente, and on the Caldari having increased Splash Radius on Small Missiles. Small Missiles already have very good damage so there's no reason to increase that and having it become just another AV option.
Whereas the AV platform would have increased Large Turret damage to better counter the AI platform.
Long-Term Roadmap
More Hard Questions
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3983
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 20:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.
So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots. This I really like the idea of (Like tech 2 ships in eve loosing a rig slot and calibration), but it would require a major overhaul of the existing vehicle modules...(which they kinda already need...) Yet T2 Ships almost always have more module slots that T1's. The issue I see with it is that even if the power of Marauders or Enforcers in is their role bonuses that tanks themselves aren't very interesting or enjoyable to use.
Well you know my concerns with more slots for Marauders. The modules are currently balanced around the assumption that at most you're getting 3-4 main racks at most, and on HAVs, Heavy modules assume 3 slots.
Fitting is however....stupidly boring. I think more slots are fine as long as the base stats are not modified too heavily. Initially I envisioned a +15% or so increase to base HP with no additional slots, but if we want to approach it as an additional main rack slot without much change to the base HP, I think that would work as well. I would also encourage more "soft" bonuses to the HAVs. Avoid bonuses that directly increase eHP, especially if there are already more slots.
I think a focus on HP recovery, increase duration of modules, increased module cooldown speed, ect. are good ways to make vehicles perform better without pushing the eHP way out of proportion.
Preliminary thoughts then.
Maruaders
4/2 and 2/4
Reduced Movement Speed
Reduced *Large* Turret Tracking Speed
Soft Bonuses to Defenses
Enforcers
3/3 and 3/3 (Extra off-rack slot used for mobility or damage mods, depending on tank type)
Increase Movement Speed
Reduced base HP
Soft Bonuses to Offense
In addition we need more things vehicles can do such as large scale support functions. Things like mass infantry repping, big sweeping scans, troop transport, resupplying infantry, and providing mobile options to swap fits. Things like this give vehicles things they can do besides "Kill all the things!". I'd like to see the Marauder be the slow moving support platform, and not so much the "Anti Infantry HAV". It should be the HAV your troops use as cover and want to stay near because its capable of supporting them in a fight in ways other than actual fire support.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2275
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:15:00 -
[63] - Quote
I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:15:00 -
[64] - 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.
Vehicles on this spreadsheet have scan percision and scan profile.
How does that work with a scout behind the wheel.Should when you get in a vehicle your vehicle scan percision and profile take over and your suit go inactive?I like that idea. |
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry.
How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry. |
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:39:00 -
[66] - Quote
Luther Mandrix wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry.
We fight over those tall towers all the time near that old objective with the pipes.We could have a high up objective on a tower that we have to stay near or have a hacking module on the vehicle to hack it up in the air with a dropship.
Big Rolling hills with the old Chromsome Vehicle Weight station Resupply that is activated by vehicle weight to attack enemy mcc.It only fires at a mcc if a vehicle is on it. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15928
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 21:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
Luther Mandrix wrote:Luther Mandrix wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:I think the Enforcers should be AI, and marauders AV. Echoing the sentiments above, there's no point in killing vehicles if they don't threaten infantry. How about a vehicle only Objective that can only be captured using a vehicle added to the map.This way vehicles could be used for more than steam rolling infantry. We fight over those tall towers all the time near that old objective with the pipes.We could have a high up objective on a tower that we have to stay near or have a hacking module on the vehicle to hack it up in the air with a dropship. Big Rolling hills with the old Chromsome Vehicle Weight station Resupply that is activated by vehicle weight to attack enemy mcc.It only fires at a mcc if a vehicle is on it.
Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal.
Lets not get distracted.
*"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
3983
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:03:00 -
[68] - Quote
Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order.
- Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs
- Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine)
- Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat
- Determine preferred slot layouts
- Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.)
- Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15929
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:12:00 -
[69] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order.
- Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs
- Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine)
- Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat
- Determine preferred slot layouts
- Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.)
- Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles
Grrr Pokey.
I spent an hour this morning agonizing over a bare bones post that summarised my points...... and you surmised them all in bullet points, probably in minutes...... 
Certainly the latter two are very important.
Which modules if any are coming back, how will they affect the balance of vehicles and what will they achieve, once all is said and done the vehicle base stats are a small part that really don't need to be drastically different tank to tank.
*"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
655
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:40:00 -
[70] - Quote
So i assume that the valchion will get bonuses to missiles and the vayu gets the bonus to blasters. But meh for pubs people will just flock to marauders like sagaris/surya to have better survivability.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3984
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:48:00 -
[71] - Quote
Bright Cloud wrote:So i assume that the valchion will get bonuses to missiles and the vayu gets the bonus to blasters. But meh for pubs people will just flock to marauders like sagaris/surya to have better survivability.
I'm very wary of anything that directly buffs turret DPS. Large Missiles in particular. I've already seen posts of people asking for more missiles in the magazine. Considering the Basic Large Missile turret outputs nearly 5000 damage in less than 2 seconds with only 12 missiles, anything that increases that magazine size is going to make Large MIssile turret quickly overpowered in Vehicle combat. Even a 25% increase (raise max ammo to 15) would be a massive benefit (an additional 1245 damage in the magazine).
As someone else pointed out, there have been many points where vehicle matches basically turned into "Bring a rail and whoever shoots first wins". I don't want that. As the same poster also stated, I want bare fisted, bloody knuckle brawls with other vehicles. Flanking and beating the **** out each other. Honestly the most enjoyable HAV vs HAV fights I've ever had were two vehicles fighting with Large Blasters, dodging and weaving around the terrain where skill in piloting and moving won the fight, not sitting on a hill sniping each other.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
699
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 22:56:00 -
[72] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal.
Lets not get distracted.
Nope the reason people are going off on so many tangents is because there are more underlying issues that need to be address at a higher priority BEFORE this new stuff should ever be added or addressed. Doing so now only makes the game worse not better. That's why so many side-tracks on this topic.
Maybe CCP should take notice of that as an indicator of how poor a disc ion this is at this time. The more people are on topic the more likely it is what is needed, the more tangents or references to other stuff, the more likely it's not the right time for it to happen. I honestly think that adding HAV's at this point in time should be a dead topic as racial parity and lower tier vehicles need to be addressed first in order to create the "niches" for specialized HAV's to take advantage of. |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3984
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:True Adamance wrote:Can we refocus on Rattati's proposal.
Lets not get distracted. Nope the reason people are going off on so many tangents is because there are more underlying issues that need to be address at a higher priority BEFORE this new stuff should ever be added or addressed. Doing so now only makes the game worse not better. That's why so many side-tracks on this topic. Maybe CCP should take notice of that as an indicator of how poor a disc ion this is at this time. The more people are on topic the more likely it is what is needed, the more tangents or references to other stuff, the more likely it's not the right time for it to happen. I honestly think that adding HAV's at this point in time should be a dead topic as racial parity and lower tier vehicles need to be addressed first in order to create the "niches" for specialized HAV's to take advantage of.
I tend to agree. I would prefer at the least we balance shield vs armor and get placeholders for Amarr and Minmatar of existing vehicle types so that when Marauders, Enforcers, LLAVs, ect. are design, we can do all 4 at once instead of basically doing it twice, once for GalCal and then again for MinAmarr.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
699
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Rattati, in general you have the over arcing concepts correct in my book. I would stress that these key issues need to tackled in order to properly implement this, and preferably in this order.
- Address disparity between the effectiveness of Shield HAVs vs Armor HAVs
- Determine what role you want Marauders to have (Enforcer as focused AV is fine)
- Determine what sort of bonuses you want to see on Marauders and Enforcers without breaking existing combat
- Determine preferred slot layouts
- Determine base attributes (HP, mobility, tracking, PG/CPU, ect.)
- Establish if any additional modules need to be added in order to help these HAVs fulfill their roles
This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first:
- Create racial parity for small turrets.
- Create racial parity for LAVs.
- Create specialized LAVs
- Create racial parity for dropships.
- Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles.
- Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits
- Create racial parity for large turrets.
- Create racial parity for HAVs.
- Fix vehicle locking system.
- Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field)
- Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC
Once you have all that stuff, THEN you will have more reason to create more HAV's to counter things like the smaller vehicles, or to be anti-infantry/MTAC or to be anti-air or to hunt down and take out the enemy's command tank etc. |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3985
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Gunnlogi
(2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender)
Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base)
Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base)
Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle
60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP
15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 75s
Average eHP = 6747 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s
(Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.)
Recharge Delay 4s
Burst Hardener eHP Cycle
30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP
45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 105s
Average eHP = 6877 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s
Recharge Delay 4s
Madrugar
(1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate)
Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base)
Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles
Assumed Pure Armor Tanking
45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP
37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s
Average eHP = 7887 eHP
Repair Rate = 138HP/s
Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s
Recharge Delay 0s
Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep.
If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals.
1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs
2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3985
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:19:00 -
[76] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first:
- Create racial parity for small turrets. -Assuming this is even a possibility right now given available resources
- Create racial parity for LAVs. -Placeholders are good, I agree
- Create specialized LAVs -Specialized LAVs are in the same boat as Specialized HAVs. You can't say one is more important than the other.
- Create racial parity for dropships. -Again, Placeholders are good.
- Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. -Same deal as specialized HAVs. All Specialized vehicles are equally important
- Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits -Already have a preliminary design, check Post #2, True posted a link to the community document. While I want these, I don't feel they are a requirement before specialized vehicles.
- Create racial parity for large turrets. -Same deal with the small turrets
- Create racial parity for HAVs. -Placeholders are still good
- Fix vehicle locking system. -Agreed
- Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) -This goes with my general concept for "Large Scale Support Functions" and this would be considered a specialized HAV/LAV/Dropship so...same deal as before.
- Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC -Lol you're funny.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1128
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:59:00 -
[77] - Quote
What Pokey said ^
The correct little **** 
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15935
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version.......
*"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
3989
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version.......
Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. I mean....you could? But I just don't like it at all.
I mean an Amarr tank is still an armor tank, it still moves similar to Gallente Tank, it has similar tanking style to a Gallente Tank. So an Amarr tank that looks and behaves like a Madrugar? I'm ok with that for now.
But a Laser is nothing like a Railgun Hell its not even the right damage profile. Like I said it would work but it's just kinda tacky I guess?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15935
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh.
Do do I.
Yet to be fair consider that, shameless self advertisement, if Rails remain as they are, missile remain as they are, Blasters fall under the model I suggested, we have two rather simple existing models that we could use for the other turrets.
Big Laser Beams...... and the only blaster mechanics for Auto Cannons........ but yes I cry for the thought of Beams lancing from a Blaster turret......
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1130
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:08:00 -
[81] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Parity would be a wonderful thing but how well can it be achieved? Remember they aren't place holders if they are the final version....... Obviously we've spoken on this before, but for posterity sake I think vehicles are easy to do. Design the stats, use existing models, swap in the correct models at a later date. Turrets on the other hand....I die a little inside at the idea of a laser shooting out of a Railgun I just....blegh. I mean....you could? But I just don't like it at all. I mean an Amarr tank is still an armor tank, it still moves similar to Gallente Tank, it has similar tanking style to a Gallente Tank. So an Amarr tank that looks and behaves like a Madrugar? I'm ok with that for now. But a Laser is nothing like a Railgun Hell its not even the right damage profile. Like I said it would work but it's just kinda tacky I guess?
For placeholders I pretty much see everything Amarr using golden Gallente tech and brown Caldari stuff for Minmatar.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
BL4CKST4R
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
3479
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill
Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3989
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic.
As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too.
I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game.
Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15935
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:18:00 -
[84] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic.
As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too.
I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game.
Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it.
Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
391
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:32:00 -
[85] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Gunnlogi
(2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender)
Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base)
Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base)
Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle
60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP
15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 75s
Average eHP = 6747 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s
(Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.)
Recharge Delay 4s
Burst Hardener eHP Cycle
30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP
45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 105s
Average eHP = 6877 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s
Recharge Delay 4s
Madrugar
(1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate)
Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base)
Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles
Assumed Pure Armor Tanking
45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP
37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s
Average eHP = 7887 eHP
Repair Rate = 138HP/s
Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s
Recharge Delay 0s
Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep.
If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals.
1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs
2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows.
My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV? |
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
391
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:34:00 -
[86] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill
Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill
Hard to Kill by HAV = Impossible to Kill by Infantry
You want this give me a Super breach Forge gun with 12 second spool up that can almost kill it with one shot. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15939
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:46:00 -
[87] - Quote
Luther Mandrix wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Gunnlogi
(2 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Extender)
Hardener Dowtime 45s (60s Base)
Hardener Upline 30s (24s Base)
Assumed Pure Shield Tanking (Atypical)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycle
60s Uptime = 5565 Shield + 1500 Armor = 7065eHP
15s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 75s
Average eHP = 6747 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 235HP/s
(Effective Regen Rate works on the principle that because the hardeners are reducing incoming damage but regen rate remains constant, the effective repping rate is actually higher than the listed value. For example if a unit has 1000HP and a 50% hardener, if it receives 600HP worth of damage, it only loses 300HP. If the regen rate is 100HP/s, it will heal 600 points of incoming damage in 3 seconds instead of 6 because it has less HP to heal. Thus the repper is actually performing at 200HP/s while hardened in respect the the raw incoming damage.)
Recharge Delay 4s
Burst Hardener eHP Cycle
30s Uptime (x2 Hardener) = 7479 Shield + 1500 Armor = 8979eHP
45s Downtime = 3975 Shield + 1500 Armor = 5475eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 105s
Average eHP = 6877 eHP
Recharge Rate (Natural) = 168HP/s
Effective Recharge Rate (Hardened) = 316HP/s
Recharge Delay 4s
Madrugar
(1 Complex Hardener + 1 Complex Heavy Rep + 1 Complex 120mm Plate)
Hardener Downtime 37.5s (50s Base)
Hardener Upline 45s (36s Base)
Optimal Hardener eHP Cycles
Assumed Pure Armor Tanking
45s Uptime = 7356 Armor + 1200 Shield = 8556eHP
37.5s Downtime = 5885 Armor + 1200 Shield = 7085 eHP
Total Cycle Duration: 82.5s
Average eHP = 7887 eHP
Repair Rate = 138HP/s
Effective Repair Rate (Hardened) = 173HP/s
Recharge Delay 0s
Just food for thought. Bear in mind this assumes that shield HAVs don't fit armor plates in their lows (And most do, myself included because the fitting allows for it). Also note that the listed Madrugar fit basically leaves little room for anything else to be fit, including any appreciable high slot items. I also find it problematic that while these fits assume complex modules, the differences in power between armor and shield really show with lesser fittings. Primarily that the Gunnlogi maintains very high eHP (especially if it fits armor plates) as well as its 168HP/s recharge rate regardless of what it fits when the Madrugar can't even match it with a complex rep.
If anything I think PG/CPU of the existing HAVs needs to be seriously looked at before anything else, primarily to fulfill two goals.
1. Discourage the use of Armor Plates on Shield HAVs
2. Allow the Madrugar to actually fit a similar meta-level to that of the Gunnlogi. (Most of my Armor fits cannot fit high slot items if I want all complex lows, whereas I can fit full complex modules on a Gunnlogi with enough to spare for armor plates or whatever I want in my lows.
My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV?
Nope this is simply how HAV are currently. This is bad. No HAV should ever have high static eHP values AND regenerative power like the Gunnlogi has now.
Instead vehicle pilots need to be able to determine what they want to do with their vehicle. Do they active tank and fit module that provide transient benefits (powerful reps or resistances) or passive tank and receive constant but smaller benefits and less regenerative power..... or somewhere in between.
But no vehicle pilot should ever have both.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Luther Mandrix
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
391
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 00:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay.
1. I like the spreadsheet with the data especially scan profile and scan precision.
2.Vehicles must have something to do besides attack each other and Attack Infantry/
3.Infantry AV must be part of this Rock/Paper/Scissor Balancing (Tank 514 /ADS 514 was unbearable for some of us )
4.Vehicle Only Objectives would help support Vehicle on Vehicle Gameplay (For your Rock /Paper /Scissor thing)
5.Flavor of the month will be supreme and Meta will push community to the Op Design.(Who uses a Blaster on a Incubus only try hards that are stubborn like me No kills )You want kills you put missiles on it.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:01:00 -
[89] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill
Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill
So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill?
I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine.
Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15945
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:04:00 -
[90] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:BL4CKST4R wrote:Tanks = expensive (1M+) =hard to kill
Tanks = cheap (less than 1M) = easy to kill So because something is expensive, it should be hard to kill? I don't see that happening with dropsuits. I kill proto in my basic fits just fine. Just because something is expensive, does not mean it is worth it's cost.
Yes and no.
Because something is expensive, and thus a limiting factor in its use in the same way Prototype dropsuits are vs Basic, it should have benefit that allow it to become tougher through skilled use.
At the same time no as in it should never be something that cannot be destroyed.
*"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
3991
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:24:00 -
[91] - Quote
Luther Mandrix wrote:
My question is are you making some HAVs the murder taxi that will be unkillable by Foot soldier AV?
Im not really sure what you mean. All the listed math is using existing values. As for my suggestion, any HAV pilot will be able to tell you that its MUCH easier to fit a Gunnlogi (even without PG/CPU Upgrades) than it is a Madrugar. I'd be happy if I had enough resources of my Madrugar to actually put stuff in my high slots...I dont think letting me fit some scanners, fuel injectors, or god forbid a damage mod, would make me unkillable.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1775
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:44:00 -
[92] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic.
As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too.
I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game.
Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? The Barrel of the Combat Rifle into the Caldari one...... = Boom solved all art asset issues!
Frankensteined laser turrets wouldn't be so bad, I don't think it would work quite so well for projectiles though.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15948
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 02:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Yeah I mean honestly the existing blasters in my mind....are AutoCannons. They perform like an AutoCannon should, not like how a Blaster should. Blasters should be more like shotguns or Plasma Cannons. But regardless we're straying off topic.
As I stated before I would like some serious effort put into the fixing of the PG/CPU situation for HAVs as a whole first. Better to get it right and use it as a baseline rather than use what we have a baseline then try to fix it later along with a pile of variants too.
I mean here is a serious question for you Rattati. Do you see the development of Faux Racial Vehicle Variants as a serious possibility for Dust in the short to medium term? No art assets, simply variants that are a different color if possible, but perform as if they were Minmatar or Amarr. Because if so, I think the community as a whole would prefer those come before we introduce the old variants back into the game.
Don't get me wrong, extremely glad you're giving some vehicle pilots some love, but we do need to be very smart about what we do and in what order we do it. Can we not just Plug a big version of this into a Blaster Turret? The Barrel of the Combat Rifle into the Caldari one...... = Boom solved all art asset issues! Frankensteined laser turrets wouldn't be so bad, I don't think it would work quite so well for projectiles though.
Chuck the HMG barrel on a Caldari Turret. Or a Large Combat Rifle Barrel and forward sections of the gun's body.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Syeven Reed
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
1075
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 03:13:00 -
[94] - Quote
My two cents.
If you're reworking all of the vehicles (albeit some not as much as others). If you were to make bpo/militia LAV's faster, weaker and as more of a personal transport. This would enable you to get rid of the murder taxi physics on the free bpo LAV's, enable for a bigger 'type' gap between the other LAV's that you're introducing and give more fodder for the larger HAV's that are soon to be.
This would mean getting rid of the gun (for the speed and handling) leave the side seat though. Maybe increase regen massively for both armor and shield types.
Of course, I'm assuming the instant exit/enter portal is going to be fixed.. :)
SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED
EvE - 21 Day Trial
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5795
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 03:21:00 -
[95] - Quote
Is there any chance we can get the standard and breach forge gun revamped to go with this HAV thing?
Or get a placeholder set up for a AV laser cannon heavy weapon?
Honestly until I sweet some example fits from your proposal, with the raw HP values I can't critique much. I can eyeball something and tell you how destructible it's going to be with current equipment and I can generally give a rough idea of how powerful a sentinel fit is going to be just by looking at the layout you want but when it comes to fitting tanks I'm a bloody novice at best.
All I know right now is armor tanks are easy mode and shield tanks are borderline impossible to kill without a gangup right now.
I have a proposal for the forge gun thing if you consider it relevant to topic.
I'll talk to pokey about figuring out the fitting values in your spreadsheet.
I'm a lot better at eyeballing a fit and figuring out if you can kill on the fly it than I am at actually cooking the fit up. So most of my feedback will be on the "can it be shot down" side. but until we actually have some kind of efficient shield cracking weapon for AV anything that takes more than five direct hits from an assault forge gun in rapid succession is excessive.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Fizzer XCIV
Heaven's Lost Property
Negative-Feedback
1368
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 03:32:00 -
[96] - Quote
I too appreciate that some of the flavor is coming back to vehicles, because its been something a lot of pilots have been missing.
I also strongly agree with the "sidegrade, not upgrade" approach that will be taken. But as some others have stated, the prices shouldn't be ludicrously higher than the basic chassis like they used to be. They shouldn't cost any more than 150% of the prices of Madrugars and Gunnlogis. Enough for Madrugars and Gunnlogis to gain a role of being the relatively "cheap" HAVs, without making Specialized ones a massive loss.
I actually wish this approach was used more for the dropsuit frames as well. The only suits that currently follow it are Commandos and Logis. Scouts, Assaults, and Sentinels are all just pure upgrades, which completely eliminates the usefulness of all the Basic Frames.
Please, make my Opus pretty...
|
Zepod
Titans of Phoenix
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 03:48:00 -
[97] - Quote
Can we just do a copy/paste of the vehicles from before Uprising 1.7?
You may not like what I just said, but you know it's true...
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
I just want to point out that no matter how much sp and isk you invest in making your tank more powerful, a suicide jeep will still kill you.
Suicide jeep = greatest av
I hate suicide jeeps |
Kuruld Sengar
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:04:00 -
[99] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing
I was going to contribute, but upon reading the link above I have no reason to. It matches or trumps all of my ideas, and seems reasonably balanced for a first iteration of the vehicle deploy... |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
3993
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:08:00 -
[100] - Quote
Kuruld Sengar wrote:True Adamance wrote:You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I was going to contribute, but upon reading the link above I have no reason to. It matches or trumps all of my ideas, and seems reasonably balanced for a first iteration of the vehicle deploy...
Working on version 1.1. Basically ecompasing all of the comments and suggestions on the first pass into a clean doc, with some more specifics on designs for LLAVs, Marauders, and Enforcers (Even though I still think there are some more specific issues that need to be looked at first, namely PG/CPU of existing HAVS).
Nevertheless I want to have it out by Friday, so please be sure to keep an eye out and give feedback. This is a community project, I'm just doing the formatting 
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5795
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:15:00 -
[101] - Quote
Pokey seems to be on the right track. And just before I forget, thanks for this Rattati.
I miss having a variety of HAV opponents to blast the utter crap out of.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5795
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 04:24:00 -
[102] - Quote
Also one of the things I have noticed about vehicles in general is that since most of the base HP stats were moved directly to the hull and the fittings were dropped sharply it's been almost impossible to have a variety of fittings for situational use.
Right now we have cookie cutter builds with modules hardly used because the vehicles are hull-centric rather than fitting-centric.
the more stuff that is front-loaded into the hull means the less wiggle room you have to customize fits to playstyle.
I firmly believe that it should be the other way, with the fitting being more important than the hull itself. But that's just me.
the front-loading of the base resists and HP onto the hulls was IMHO a mistake. It's the source of a lot of woes right now.
I would think if you're going to do a revamp it's time to trim some off and do things like re-introduce 180mm plates and such while making it so HAVs can actually fit what they need to become effective. This is primarily what seems to be holding the gallente tanks down.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
CommanderBolt
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
2815
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 06:06:00 -
[103] - Quote
What ever you guys do I would love for vehicles to actually want to fit small turrets again. I would also like to see clear defined roles for each. I will leave the definition of those roles down to CCP the CPM and the wider vehicle user community as I have been out of the vehicle loop for quite some time.
"Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones"
"Guns for show, Knives for a pro"
MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1778
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 06:31:00 -
[104] - Quote
^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
LAVALLOIS Nash
QcGOLD
344
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 06:54:00 -
[105] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:
Aaaannnnnnd this is the kind of feedback we don't need. Please go away
I agree the tone is not constructive, but I think the sentiments are valid criticism. It's really about the sequence of additions the vehicle roadmap should take. I think that is an important discussion/debate to have (perhaps not in this thread though).
If it were up to me, I would roll out the vehicle rebalance in the following stages:
1. Capacitors, neuts, webs, bring back the old modules, skills and rebalance the existing vehicles around these. This would be a big deal and could take a few rounds of hot fixing numbers to get right. That buys time for:
2. Introduction of full racial parity in vehicles, turrets and heavy weapons. Again this could take a while to balance the new additions.
3. Finally, release the vehicle variants, and balance them in, using the existing knowledge gleaned from the past balancing efforts.
It seems we're jumping straight to 3 (im guessing because the art assets already exist and it appears to be low-hanging fruit) and this will be much harder to ever get 1 and 2 added later. Instead of balancing being a progressive process and building over time, it would have to keep re-addressing the same issues repeatedly if we do things out-of-order. I think this would be a big mistake.[/quote]
@Ratatti ^ i agree here with these concerns. With the other gameplay in Dust, balance is achieved racially. (Strong against armor, weak against shields, ect). I feel that by using a bunch of Gal and Cal tanks arrayed into different roles it makes it completely different than the rest of Dust.
An Amarr tank with a laser turret or a Minmatar tank with a howitzer type mass driver turret could both alter balance in a favorable way without having to introduce two categories of side grades. (Not to mention im scared that racial vehicle variants will be forever cancelled due to the daunting task of building 7 tank variants for each race).
I want more vehicles, and your proposal elates me because of how possible it is in the short term. However, in the long term, it might harm and even bigger wish of mine.
Also, consider the capacitors/objective smashing requests. Tanks should be a threat to victory, and need bigger stuff to destroy than CRUs. Youll see better games if an all powerful team in a skirmish has to divert manpower from its main fight to go battle a pair of tanks chipping away at what use to be a safe objective. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15964
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:07:00 -
[106] - Quote
Just so people are aware.
A Tank Destroyer historically referred to an Armoured Fighting Vehicle expressly designed to fight other tanks. Basically the Tank Destroyer was an incredibly large calibre self propelled artillery piece armed with a fixed angle turret. The rounds fired from these tanks travelled at incredibly velocities adding to the vehicles penetrative power. Additionally most Tank destroyers due to the fixed angle of their guns had angled armour along the frontal hull of the vehicle to deflect incoming rounds away from the vehicle.
While in modern times the Tank Destroyer is not a part of most military armoured divisions as Main Battle Tanks now fulfil multiple roles on a single hull there has been a resurgence in these kinds of vehicles under the name "Protected Gun Systems".
I mention this because of a specific design philosophy that I think that the Enforcer Tanks should have kept in mind while CCP Rattati is working on them.
The Enforcer is designed to simulate the Tank Destroyer Role.
The Tank Destroyer had incredibly large calibre guns at a fixed angle, and one of the common traits for larger main cannon was that the turret tracked more slowly, or in most cases did not track at all.
Now we cannot just take full turret traversal away from the Enforcer Tank, I doubt most HAV pilots would support that idea, but what could be looked at is the idea that the Enforcer should be considered a "Protected Gun System" and should in theory to simulate its larger gun and designation as Anti Tank Platform be reliant, or encourage its pilots to fit weapons systems modules.
For Example-
Heat Sinks (Laser Weapons)
Gyrostabilisers (Projectile Weapons)
Flux Stabilisation Fields (Hyrbid Weapons)
Loading Bay Co-ordinators (Missile Weapons)
Tracking Computers (High Slot Active Tracking Modules)
Tracking Enhancers (Low Slot Passive Tracking Modules)
Torque Modules
Ammunition Modules
Etc
There are a number of ways to encourage this kind of gameplay.
One if to make such modules rather cheap to fit in comparison to eHP modules and Repair Modules thereby making them useful.
Another means is to give the Enforcer less fitting allocations meaning that less eHP and Repair modules can be fitted, while some will be required a limited number of these kinds of fittings prevents eHP stacking and then damage module stacking for abuse.
Turret Tracking Penalties on the Enforcer Hull as a Role wide penalty to encourage the use of tracking modules and or less ammunition carried on the hull. Coupled with fair hull turning capabilities this should make for trade offs when considering precise target acquisition.
There are more of less artificial means of placing the vehicle in the role but I feel in some respects they are fair and almost necessary to prevent pilots from being the exploitative creatures we are.
A real world parallel is the Jagdtiger which was a heavily armoured and fixed angle German Tank Destroyer equipped with a 128mm Gun (40mm large in calibre than the standard German 88mm Artillery piece).
An EVE side comparison could be something like the "BattleCruiser Platforms" which is a pseudo class of battle cruiser comprised of ships that gain fitting bonuses to Large (battleship class) Turrets with all the benefits those entail such as range and fire power but are usually considered paper thin in terms of eHP. The penalties however for using these turrets are capacitor consumption and slow tracking meaning they suffer when trying to engage much smaller vessels. The vessels also lack the ability in most cases to field drones.
Usually these kinds of ships are used for Sniping (like Tank Destroyers) and are fitted to improve range, tracking, and DPS as much as possible.
Additionally considering the Large Blaster Turret in relation to this class of Hull I fervently believe that either
- The Gallente AND Caldari should have a bonus that applies to BOTH Railguns AND Blasters as both are Hyrbid Turrets
- No Enforcer should receive buffs to Missiles as DPS is already too great
- No Hull should suffer arbitrary tracking penalties that are not part of the turrets profile unless it is a class/hull wide modifier
- An Enforcer should have moderate capacity to turn in place regardless of racial profile. All Anti Tank Vehicles would share this design feature regardless of who was designing it.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
CommanderBolt
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
2819
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:08:00 -
[107] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team.
Exactly and it sucks that it is this way.
It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them.
This is wrong and needs fixing.
"Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones"
"Guns for show, Knives for a pro"
MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15966
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:27:00 -
[108] - Quote
CommanderBolt wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing.
Vehicle locks would solve this issue.
However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair.
Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks.....
But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in.
Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
705
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 14:54:00 -
[109] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Jadd Hatchen wrote:This would be a good path forward if the following weren't needed first:
- Create racial parity for small turrets. -Assuming this is even a possibility right now given available resources
- Create racial parity for LAVs. -Placeholders are good, I agree
- Create specialized LAVs -Specialized LAVs are in the same boat as Specialized HAVs. You can't say one is more important than the other.
- Create racial parity for dropships. -Again, Placeholders are good.
- Create specialized dropships/flying vehicles. -Same deal as specialized HAVs. All Specialized vehicles are equally important
- Create 4 racial pilot dropsuits -Already have a preliminary design, check Post #2, True posted a link to the community document. While I want these, I don't feel they are a requirement before specialized vehicles.
- Create racial parity for large turrets. -Same deal with the small turrets
- Create racial parity for HAVs. -Placeholders are still good
- Fix vehicle locking system. -Agreed
- Create racial HAV command units (that would provide leadership bonuses to dropsuits in the field) -This goes with my general concept for "Large Scale Support Functions" and this would be considered a specialized HAV/LAV/Dropship so...same deal as before.
- Create MTACS: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MTAC-Lol you're funny.
Hey, I'm not allowed to be funny? Oh crap, did my funny license expire again?
|
Jadd Hatchen
KILL-EM-QUICK
706
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 15:37:00 -
[110] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:CommanderBolt wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them."
Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank.
On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it.
This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one! |
|
|
Cody Sietz
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
4240
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 15:44:00 -
[111] - Quote
Are the vehicles being developed with the pilot suit in mind?
Would it be impossible to add pilot suits in a coming update? Just recolor some light frame suits and add vehicle bonuses(maybe have a ground pilot suit and a air pilot suit so the bonuses are easier to balance)
"I do agree with you there though. shudders"
-Arkena Wyrnspire
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
471
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 16:04:00 -
[112] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Again, what role should HAV's fill on the battlefield?
If it's just slaughtering infantry, we will never reach a point where both vehicle pilots and infantry are satisfied.
if tanks cant sh*t on infantry then why have them in the game? And why should tank destroyers even bother to show up if the marauder is just cruising around killing a random militia noob on the side of the map?
Let Vayu be fast accurate blaster tanks that have massive bonuses to blaster range, dispersion and damage. Talking about almost 0 dispersion and 150-180m blaster ranges that make them nightmares to infantry. They fail hard at countering rails and handheld AV can make quick work of them from high ground. Vayu can also flank and use its dps & range to punch through shield tanks quickly while Sagaris struggles to react if caught off guard. -800 hull armor.
Flachion sounds good as Rattati put it. Bonus to rail range & damage, aims nicely, lower top speed and accelerates slightly slower. Vulnerable up close and vulnerable to handheld AV. Sh*t on by ADS. -500 hull shield.
Marauders just stick around for a long time. Not easily intimidated by handheld AV and are the reason tank destroyers exist. Marauders don't receive bonuses to turrets in any way but have more HP on their hulls. Surya is slow and can repair under fire like a mofo. Sagaris is the more maneuverable marauder, but less maneuverable than a MBT. Give them the chrome stats in terms of hull strength and number of slots. Also pricey.
We must accept the fact this will be a long term project. Quicker these reach the hands of players, quicker we can see how they play out.
& justice for all
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
471
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 16:09:00 -
[113] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:True Adamance wrote:CommanderBolt wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them."
Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one!
instead of packing 3 ppl in one tank, just have the 2 noobs call in sicas. LOL end of small turret discussion.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15972
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 17:59:00 -
[114] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen wrote:True Adamance wrote:CommanderBolt wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^there are problems with fitting small turrets. 1) they take away from fitting more tank 2) small turrets have always been kind of glitchy 3) people afk in vehicles or are otherwise useless 4) there's no way to boot people out or lock vehicles.
Hell, I've still had this problem recently when I was trying to resupply I managed to get my tank stuck, I hopped out to recall and a blue stole my tank, which led to 7 and a half minutes of the blue being useless smacking back and forth into walls, and ignoring mails sent mid match.
I do have vehicles with small turrets fit, but they're only called out when I have dedicated guns on voice comms, because I hate getting trolled by my own team. Exactly and it sucks that it is this way. It should be a REAL and viable option to add small turrets. I remember back in the day there were small turrets used all the time on tanks. I like the fact that we can pick and choose now however like you said, adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them. This is wrong and needs fixing. Vehicle locks would solve this issue. However at one time those turrets were mandatory...... this is a trait bearing of the ONLY TIME EVER tanks were relatively balanced and fair. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to fit good small turrets but I think that every tank needs to have these modules/weapons fitted. It could also serve as a means of preventing abuse of dual tanks..... But then again the idea of an HAV rebalance is to get people enjoying customising these tanks and talking shop, swapping and comparing fits, and making their tank a tool they are personally invested in. Still it irks to be to think that players are rolling around in tanks with modules unfitted to improve their personal abilities and not to benefit the team or tank utility. @ Commander Bolt the statement "adding small turrets takes too much away from your fit to actually have them."
Is wholly untrue for Shield HAV. They have more than enough fitting capacity to fit a full racial tank and prototype Large and Small Turrets. The only thing a Shield HAV gives up is its ability to armour tank. On the small turret discussion... HAV pilots need to understand that adding more guns (even small ones) means more DPS on the enemy tank. If a totally hardened tank with only one main turret goes toe-to-toe with a not so hardened tank that has 3 guns shooting at it, then it will still die faster no matter how many tanking modules you have on it. This is a change in mindset and philosophy that the average HAV pilot needs to understand. The ultimate tank killer in the game is one with three turrets, not one!
Yes we do realise that..... it is only after all common sense....
But no the ultimate tank killer is any tank with an Xt-201
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2536
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 18:50:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear Players, We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them. So kind of good news and bad news. All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working. In short The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay. Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking Main Battle Tank - HAV Marauder - Same (with tweaks) Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks) I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting. Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors.
Rattati, should I link to my thread, or will it be no problem for you to find it multiple times if need be?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2537
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 19:00:00 -
[116] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:You will get a lot of opinion on this one and I certainly appreciate this thread of engaging the vehicle community. Do you have an idea on how many slots you are looking at returning to. That would definitely help us present more informed feed back and suggestions. I am convinced we can work to a 5/2 or 2/5 Marauder model if some of our current modules are rebalanced, regen stats are looked at, and some old modules are brought back..... But again I'd rather be able to make suggestions based on what is achievable and not beyond current capabilities. Firstly I wholly believe Pokey Dravon is on the right track with this https://docs.google.com/a/laserplumbing.co.nz/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing
I looked at his doc, it should be thrown out. It's terrible, and nerfing vehicles hard straight out the box.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2537
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 19:03:00 -
[117] - Quote
Canaan Knute wrote:How will these vehicles fare against AV?
Due to what seems like great options, vehicles ought to be able to shrug off AV again to beat the hell out of each other again.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
244
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 19:06:00 -
[118] - Quote
1. Mauraders/Enforcers - Same slot layout as Gunlogi/Madrugars? Really? Why should i skill into them? I can do the same job without skilling into these new tanks
1a. Old Enforcers - They had milita stats and got beat by the basic tanks - Having the same slot layout will cause this problem again
2. Sidegrades - Its tiercide except no tiercide for infantry while my protosuit gets more of everything you can think of over the basic - I dont like it and defo wont like it if its a x8 skillbook yet i get nothing worthwhile in return like more slots at a minimum
3. AV will cry - They do it often so what is the supposed AV vs V supposed to be like because if a Falchion can OHK a Vayu then AV is going to cream it before it leaves the redline to deal with Marauder
4. Paper/Rock/Scissors - If this is for vehicles then AV is going to screw up the triangle in a big way, they already hammer normal HAVs now but they will hammer the Enforcer even harder and if they can hammer the Marauder then they will cry for an AV buff again and it will whack everything that isnt a Marauder even harder thus the cycle continues
5. Enforcers - aka Tank Destroyers - Destroyers in WOT generally have poor armor at the back and sides but angled armor at the front with the ability to bounce shells along with a high alpha turret, some have high mobility and next to no armor - In DUST we can bounce anything so resistances we rely on, also spotting is a WOT mechanic and again if we can see it we can shoot it so how is it not going to get wrecked coming out of the redline?
Wishlist
6. Capacitors - Still needed, they are New Eden and with Capacitors so much more can be added for both sides and balancing is easier
7. Skills and skill bonuses - Need them back also from chrome days
8. Modules - Again no variety in fits
9. Pilot suits?
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
244
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 19:09:00 -
[119] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.
So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots.
1. Terrible idea
2. My Amarr logi is not pre fit
3. Why should my HAV come pre fit? I dont pre fit your assault suit
4. Do you want basic HAVs to destroy the new tanks? i used to do that with my Madrugar and kill Vayus often
5. Why are you in this thread you dont use vehicles? |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2542
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 19:13:00 -
[120] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:
Enforcer: 10% reduction to damage mod CPU/PG
Caldari Enforcer: +2 to missile magazine size
Gallente Enforcer: 7.5% reduction to blaster dispersion.
If that were the case, nobody would use the Enforcers. Again
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
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....
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2574
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 07:48:00 -
[181] - Quote
Zeke Dunevent wrote: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?????
No, because that would be overpowered to infantry, and they'd want AV buffed to compensate.
Essentially wanting to carry weapons that could deal good damage to an MCC.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 08:53:00 -
[182] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
what?
how are you calculating damage reduction?
when i did the math i had one hardener at 40%
the second hardener at 34.8%
so ill round it up to 75% damage reduction.
missiles at 415 direct damage reduced by 75% is 103.75. multiply by 12 missiles and you get 1245 damage. then you reduce it again by 15% because of missile damage profile, and youre only doing 1058.25 damage.
you still will have 1592 shields left after the first volley, and you havent even touched the shield booster yet.
without any modules at all. you effective shield HP against missiles is actually about 3118. the two hardeners put you around 16,306 eHP against missiles. and adding the booster pushes it further, to 28,304 eHP against missiles.
ive never died to missiles with two hardeners on unless i had under 1k shields going into the fight. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 09:03:00 -
[183] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Al the destroyer wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Along with some module rebalancing, I think the Marauders should get a 5/2 slot layout. Enforcers get a 4/3. Please won't make them have the same spot layout as std, there would be absolutely no fun or usefulness in that this would make buffing AV sharply a necessity. I was right when I said they were making HAVs variants rather than a three-step tier. This is better. I think they should have a different slot layout. A super tank should be just that super. I don't think we would need to buff AV at all. It makes no sense to have different tanks with the same slot layout. Make them cost more isk accordingly. AV should not be able to take one of these "super" tanks out easily it would take teamwork. Again IMO you should make these tanks special by giving them unique slot layouts. Otherwise the tanks we have are enough. teamwork for "one" tank. what happens when there's 6 of them? we dont have enough players per team for that. we could use team "bandwitdh" for vehicles to keep from having 6 marauders on the field at once. You're right. I guess it's impossible for the same 2-3 people in AV to switch targets after they've killed one tank.
thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone
ive seen this happen with ADS too |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16045
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 09:56:00 -
[184] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone
ive seen this happen with ADS too
But then that's not a matter of OP vehicle its team work in the same way infantry work to keep one another alive, secure points, and achieve a goal.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:00:00 -
[185] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
thats assuming alot. if those tanks are working together, then theyll be cycling each other out as one takes damage. you wont kill any of them. youll damage one until he backs up and is replaced by a fresh tank. meanwhile the tanks are still shooting at everyone
ive seen this happen with ADS too
But then that's not a matter of OP vehicle its team work in the same way infantry work to keep one another alive, secure points, and achieve a goal.
its a matter of theres only 16 people per team and if 16 of them must switch to av to fight 6 guys in tanks, then it leaves 10 guys on the tanks team free to do whatever they like
its clone efficiency. 6 guys in tanks forcing 16 av to try and kill them. not saying 16 guys cant kill 6 tanks without a problem, but when have you ever seen 16 guys running av? on top of that 10 assaults would have no trouble dealing with a team of av guys.
im not saying tanks are OP. im saying that when theres a limited number of slots per team available clone for clone... 16 vs 6 is imbalanced.
but then we can always say, well then those 16 av guys should get 6 tanks to counter them. now we have small as a closet maps with 12 tanks on them with 20 guys left over wondering why scotty the matchmaker screwed them all so hard.
every scenario must be looked at. just because it doesnt happen often does not mean you can skip over it when you design and balance the game.
no map in dust can reasonably support 12 tanks. the maps are just too small and poorly designed for vehicle use. this is another area that should be noted to the devs. |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:25:00 -
[186] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote: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?
decreased dispersion for better accuracy at range while rapid firing |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 11:39:00 -
[187] - Quote
just watched a guy in a gunnlogi with double hardeners (maybe triple) take down three madrugars while being focused fired on.
his shields didnt move
some one mentioned eHP stacking makes any and all passive tanks inferior. only way i see passive tanking working is if passive tanks are built around having huge raw HP pools to outlast hardener durations.
id make passive tanks have huge HP pools, with slow regen
make active tanks with low HP pools with high resistances. short module durations and high regen.
so basically passive tanks would be good in 1v1 fights and can stay on field longer, while active tanks would be good in larger tank battles but shorter time on field.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
753
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 12:08:00 -
[188] - 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.
thats easy to balance. if the modules directly effects HP or resists the fitting costs will be alot higher. anything else gets super cheap fitting costs.
an example:
5/3 high/low
cpu = 250
pg = 500
cpu/pg
extender costs 50/150- high slot
scanner costs 50/25 - high slot
tracking computer 15/25 - high slot
heat sink 20/25 - high slot
overdrive 30/50 - low slot
damage mod 75/50 - low slot
ammo cache 0/0 - low slot
3 extenders cost 150/450 so you have 100 cpu and 50 pg left with 2 high slots and 3 low slots left. obviously you need to dump an extender if you want to use the other 5 slots on the tank, or fill whats left will cheap fitting mods. you could fill your 2 leftover high slots with a scanner and tracking computer and it'd leave you with 35 cpu and 0 pg. and since the ammo cache cost 0 pg you could put it on too.
what you cant do is fit 5 extenders lol. if you added fitting mods then maybe you could get 3 extenders on with enough pg for some other stuff, but youre losing slots to make it work.
the other way could fit the same tank would be to go for only two extenders, leaving you 150 cpu and 200 pg. now you can fit the scanner, tracking computer, and heat sink in you 3 left over high slots, and the damage mod, overdrive, and ammo cache in your lows.
less HP overall but a more useful and complete vehicle. the point is to make HP mods too resource intensive to fit. so if you did see a vehicle with high HP you'd know right away its lacking all kinds of things most likely |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
254
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 13:33:00 -
[189] - Quote
1. The titles given to the HAVs, will they give an idea as to what we should expect?
1a. Cruiser - Militia HAV - Lowest slot layout
1b. Battlecruiser - Basic HAV - Increased slot layout, better HP
1c. Battleship - Marauders - Increased slot layout, best HP
1d. Destroyer - Enforcers - In EVE they have less slots than a cruiser but more missile/turret hardpoints, does this mean it possible may have 2 main turrets? but lower HP |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4023
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:44:00 -
[190] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
what?
how are you calculating damage reduction?
You misunderstand, I was responding to a previous suggestion that Caldari Enforcer should get +2 to missile magazine capacity/lvl which would increase the incoming damage from 12 missiles to 22. I think our damage resist calcs are the same, I was just using a considerably higher incoming damage due to the +10 to magazine size.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4023
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:53:00 -
[191] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: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
Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry.
Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things.
I will agree that small Blasters need some love though.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 16:00:00 -
[192] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: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 Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry. Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things. I will agree that small Blasters need some love though.
While I agree, why are small rails considered AV then? Why are small missiles a hybrid of av and ai? In fact, the only small turret that is only for killing small things is the blaster.....
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
4023
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 16:14:00 -
[193] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: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 Large Turrets should never be anti-infantry. Small turrets should be anti infantry. Large Turrets to kill large thing, Small Turrets to kill small things. I will agree that small Blasters need some love though. While I agree, why are small rails considered AV then? Why are small missiles a hybrid of av and ai? In fact, the only small turret that is only for killing small things is the blaster.....
Dude Small Rails wreck infantry with their damage levels and fire rate. They are the closest to AV of the small turrets, but I still consider them Anti-Personnel. All turrets are a hybrid of AV and AP, its just a matter of scale. You can use Large Turrets to kill infantry, just not very efficiently, just like you can use small turrets to kill vehicles, but not nearly as efficiently.
It's kind of like the Plasma Cannon, its an AV weapon that can be used for anti-infantry, but it's difficult to do. Same with a Forge Gun, it's an AV weapon but can be used to kill infantry given the right circumstances.
I'd probably rate them as such
Anti-Vehicle <-------------> Anti-Personnel
Large Railgun | Large Missiles | Large Blaster | Small Rails | Small Missiles | Small Blaster
Large Rail/Missiles is debatable since missiles **** the **** out of many vehicles, but I'd consider them a bit easier to get Infantry kills with. But again I could see those reversed.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
254
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 16:20:00 -
[194] - Quote
1. Small turrets do not have the range to be anti infantry let alone if infantry render at longer distances
2. Top small turret is not independent from the large turret ie if large turret moves small moves with it
3. Zoom is poor
4. Bottom turret is pretty bad in general
5. Blasters are worse than a HMG and require more luck on getting a kill than aim - Dot was perfectly fine, its red you hit
6. Large blaster in chrome and after uprising was AV aswell as AI and worked well with the correct modules |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2576
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 17:50:00 -
[195] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:just watched a guy in a gunnlogi with double hardeners (maybe triple) take down three madrugars while being focused fired on.
his shields didnt move
some one mentioned eHP stacking makes any and all passive tanks inferior. only way i see passive tanking working is if passive tanks are built around having huge raw HP pools to outlast hardener durations.
id make passive tanks have huge HP pools, with slow regen
make active tanks with low HP pools with high resistances. short module durations and high regen.
so basically passive tanks would be good in 1v1 fights and can stay on field longer, while active tanks would be good in larger tank battles but shorter time on field.
Not possible
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 17:56:00 -
[196] - Quote
{Part 1/2}
[Primary Roles]
LAV/DS- Recon / Shuttle
LLAV- Infantry Support
MAV- Armored Troop Transport
HAV- Anti-Vehicle
[Insallation Turrets]
Anti-vehicle
[Large Turrets]
Anti-vehicle
[Small Turrets]
Anti-infantry
[Already here, but needs improvement]
Vehicles that the support infantry by scanning; need more active scanners.
Vehicles that support support/shuttle by fitting mCRUs; need more mCRUs.
ADS that serves as an anti-infantry and anti-role; pythons need to be a bit better at being AV (missile variants) and incubi need to be a bit better at being AI (blaster issues).
Other modules that need to be added:
- Power diagnostic systems - increase PG while boosting decreasing shield recharge delay
- Vehicle reactive plates
- Passive hardeners
- Nanofiber plating - reduces armor HP for extra mobility
- Damage controll units - increase damage resistance when active
- Torque Modules
- Infantry and vehicle remote repair modules
- Infantry and vehicle resuply modules
[Whats missing]
LLAVs that support infantry by repairing and supplying ammo.
MAVs.
Support HAVs.
Glass cannon HAV for taking out other vehicles quicker.
Heavier HAVs for surviving long enough to take out more vehicles.
Without support vehicles/modules, there not much of a reason for there to be regular HAVs or any other anti-vehicle roles except for taking out assault dropships.
More vehicle turret upgrade modules for high and low slots:
- Heat Sinks
- Passive reload speed modules
- Turret rotation modules
- Torque Modules
- RoF modules
Tweaks to basic vehicles:
Baloch/Methana/Gorgon/Grimsnes/Soma/Madrugar:
Base armor repair rate: 25 hp/s
Onikuma/Saga/Viper/Myron/Sica/Gunnlogi:
Base armor repair rate: 15 hp/s
For new specializations:
True Adamance wrote:...
- No Hull should suffer arbitrary tracking penalties that are not part of the turrets profile unless it is a class/hull wide modifier
- An Enforcer should have moderate capacity to turn in place regardless of racial profile. All Anti Tank Vehicles would share this design feature regardless of who was designing it.
Also Rattati, even if the bonus in the spreadsheet was intended to fix inherent weakness, why put a weakness for a role that is countered by that role's skill bonus? It seams pointless.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 17:56:00 -
[197] - Quote
{Part 2/2}
Add the Black Ops HAV as the support HAV.
Short description: Heavily armored infantry, vehicle, and installation support platform.
-25% turret damage (flat)
-x% PG/CPU of fitting active scanners and vehicle remote repairers per level
+1 built-in mCRU
Less total PG/CPU compared to basic tanks
Kubera (Gallente): x% bonus towards __ for remote vehicle armor repair modules per level.
Changed base stats compared to basic:
Scan profile: 35db to hide from STD scanners
Base armor repair rate: -20% (20 hp/s)
Base shield recharge rate: -20% (76.8 hp/s)
Base price: 130,000 ISK
Chakram (Caldari): x% bonus towards __ for remote vehicle shield repair modules per level.
Changed base stats compared to basic:
Scan profile: 35db to hide from STD scanners
Base armor repair rate: -20% (12 hp/s)
Base shield recharge rate: -20% (134.4 hp/s)
Base price: 130,000 ISK
Marauder HAVs: +2% to base shield and armor HP
-x% penalaty to turret rotation speed (flat)
-x% penalaty torque (flat)
Surya (Gallente): 1% increase armor damage resistance and 2% increase in armor recharge rate per level
Base armor repair rate: +20% (30 hp/s)
Base price: 130,000 ISK
Sagaris (Caldari): 1% increase in shield damage resistance and 2% increase in shield recharge rate per level
Base price: 130,000 ISK
Enforcer HAVs: +2% increased turret damage & +x% increase in turret rotation speed
smaller -x% penalaty torque than Marauders (flat)
Faster forward speed and acceleration
Less total PG/CPU compared to basic tanks
Vayu (Gallente): Damage and fitting bonus to blasters and railguns
Base armor repair rate: -20% (20 hp/s)
Base shield recharge rate: -20% (76.8 hp/s)
Base price: 130,000 ISK
Falchion (Caldari): Damage and fitting bonus to missiles and railguns
Base armor repair rate: -20% (12 hp/s)
Base shield recharge rate: -20% (134.4 hp/s)
Base price: 130,000 ISK
[Other good ideas]:
The Gallente tank has 76.9% of it's total HP, armor which is pretty good since it's supposed to armor tank. If you look at the Gunnlogi, it has 63.9% of it's total HP as shields which is pretty rediculous since caldari vehicles should be almsot exclusively shield tanking; making all caldari vehicles have at least 80% of their HP as shields would remedy this (3320 shields 830 armor). If racial placeholder vehicles get added later on, Minmatar vehicles should have around 50% of their HP as shields, and Amarr vehicles should have at least 80% of their HP as armor.
Also to make Caldari tanks have a harder time at fitting armor modules and help Gallente tanks fit armor, all shield modules should cost 1 less PG and 4 to 5 more CPU, armor hardeners should cost around 30 less CPU and 7 more PG, and armor plates should cost around 20 less CPU and 5 more PG.
Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
...
I agree with that tanks don't have enough slots; basic tanks should have a 4/2 (Caldari) and 2/4 (Gallente) layout and I think it would be best to give specialized tanks less PG/CPU and a bonus to fitting stuff for their specialization instead of how an ADS has less slots than a basic DS. Also increasing the slot layout would mostly benefit Gallente tanks which are currently underpowered.
Breakin Stuff wrote:...
You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily ...
This would be cool and add to why would a team want a tank in the 1st place. If that can't be done, let turret installations able to damage MCC.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Dimitri Rascolovitch
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
285
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:16:00 -
[198] - Quote
An idea i have, that could make ds and lavs more effective could be to remove small turret slots on all havs, and make them more powerful, especially against vehicles.
Something like larger mags with more dps and rof. Kind of like the concept video in dust where the LAV rollsvup and insta pops a careless tank
This could make the turret on the lavs actually viable, and would give people more reason to fit guns onto their ads
Bring back the Marauders, Enforcers, Logistic, and Scout LAVS and Dropships
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16051
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:51:00 -
[199] - Quote
Dimitri Rascolovitch wrote:An idea i have, that could make ds and lavs more effective could be to remove small turret slots on all havs, and make them more powerful, especially against vehicles.
Something like larger mags with more dps and rof. Kind of like the concept video in dust where the LAV rollsvup and insta pops a careless tank
This could make the turret on the lavs actually viable, and would give people more reason to fit guns onto their ads
You mean Medium Turrets?
Yeah kind of want those too but there is no reason to remove the Small Turrets from HAV.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Dimitri Rascolovitch
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
285
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:10:00 -
[200] - Quote
i guess? i'm not a tanker true, you know this, but it doesnt help that we never hear about things like "medium turrets"
as an infantryman we will need to figure out how to balance out av around the idea of said new tanks
Bring back the Marauders, Enforcers, Logistic, and Scout LAVS and Dropships
|
|
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:11:00 -
[201] - 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.
Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Dimitri Rascolovitch
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
285
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:15:00 -
[202] - 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.
which tiger tank are you referencing here rattati the Porsche tiger,the tiger H1, the kingtiger(P) or the kingtiger(H)
Bring back the Marauders, Enforcers, Logistic, and Scout LAVS and Dropships
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16051
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:23:00 -
[203] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. The titles given to the HAVs, will they give an idea as to what we should expect?
1a. Cruiser - Militia HAV - Lowest slot layout
1b. Battlecruiser - Basic HAV - Increased slot layout, better HP
1c. Battleship - Marauders - Increased slot layout, best HP
1d. Destroyer - Enforcers - In EVE they have less slots than a cruiser but more missile/turret hardpoints, does this mean it possible may have 2 main turrets? but lower HP
They are not the best example of what I think Rattati means....mainly because I don't think he's an EVE player.....but then again I might be wrong.
I could be something more akin to......
MLT and Standard HAV - Cruiser ( smaller more ubiquitous hulls)
Examples - Omen, Moa, Stabber, Vexor
Marauder HAV - Combat Battle Cruiser (Typically higher eHP hulls with either passive resistances or rep bonuses)
Examples- Prophecy, Drake, Brutix, Cyclone
Enforcer HAV- Attack Battle Cruiser ( lower eHP but can fit Battleship Sized Turrets)
Examples - Oracle, Talos, Naga, Typhoon
*"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
16051
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:26:00 -
[204] - Quote
Dimitri Rascolovitch wrote: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. which tiger tank are you referencing here rattati the Porsche tiger,the tiger H1, the kingtiger(P) or the kingtiger(H)
Assuming that I've been the only one on this forum to reference the Tiger Tank in the last couple of weeks...... The PzKpfw VI Ausf. H.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Dimitri Rascolovitch
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
285
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:42:00 -
[205] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Dimitri Rascolovitch wrote: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. which tiger tank are you referencing here rattati the Porsche tiger,the tiger H1, the kingtiger(P) or the kingtiger(H) Assuming that I've been the only one on this forum to reference the Tiger Tank in the last couple of weeks...... The PzKpfw VI Ausf. H.
true open up the spreadsheet, rattati is referencing a tiger tank in it when mentioning the new havs
Bring back the Marauders, Enforcers, Logistic, and Scout LAVS and Dropships
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:44:00 -
[206] - 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.
CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16051
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 20:53:00 -
[207] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote: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. CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys.
You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances.
*"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
4029
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:11:00 -
[208] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec.
Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:18:00 -
[209] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Some constructive Critiscm of the Tank fitting philopshy as per your spreadsheet.
For the Falchion:
- Slow Turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Fast Turret tracking
-Slow Forward Speed
This is pretty much the epitome of the Redline RailTank. Without the HP buffer to at least survive an infantry ambush, or the speed to get away through an ambush, these guys will only be safe within the redline, trying to snipe tanks and other infantry then roll backwards. Which double and triple modded tanks already do, yet the slow turret tracking speed helps to counter this somewhat. It ougt to more closley follow in the Vayu below.
Maurader
- Normal Turn Speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Slow turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed
This is a good philosophy for a hard hitting tank, makes it tough to engage head on but gives other faster tanks a fighting chance.
Vayu
- Fast turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Slow Turret Tracking
- Fast Forward SpeedSide grade to MBT
This is more what i envision a tank destroyer to be. Very fast, low hp but hit and run
Maruader
- Slow turn speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Normal Turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed
I envision this pretty much aas a beefier maddy.
Well I wouldn't want slow tracking to a point where you cannot even tack a heavy running by in front of you but it should be at most 15% slower. Also, turret proficiency need to start working.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:21:00 -
[210] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq.
I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
|
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:23:00 -
[211] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote: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. CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys. You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances.
Yeah, but people had militia starter fits and I had a Scattered ION CANNON! Anyway, that is false, they had two hardeners active (mine did), it also had passive resistance from the fact that it was a Marauder and it had the best heavy shield repair possible. Well, actually, it had all the best shield modules possible.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4029
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 21:27:00 -
[212] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books.
So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:14:00 -
[213] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books. So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol
Except this is not just one suit, this is a crap ton of fixes and variants like logi LAV's, Marauders, Logi Drop ships, Enforcers and with a bunch of changes.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4030
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:19:00 -
[214] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Are we getting a repec? Please, it's only fair. When you introduced new suits in 1.8 you gave everyone a respec and since the whole system is being reworked I demand a FREE respec. Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq. I'm pretty sure if CCP added in another special medium frame, special light frame and a special heavy frame, people would scream respec. Especially discussing the fact that this "build on" is going to potentially cost millions and millions of sp. I understand if it was minor fixes tweaks ect, but come on, they are releasing new variants/ skill books. So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol Except this is not just one suit, this is a crap ton of fixes and variants like logi LAV's, Marauders, Logi Drop ships, Enforcers and with a bunch of changes.
Which would require you to have the skills trained you already have trained lol. Say they release Caldari Enforcers. It requires Caldari HAV 3. Why do I need a respec to get the SP I've already spent on Caldari HAV, just so I can re-spend it on Caldari HAV?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16052
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:23:00 -
[215] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote: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. CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys. You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances. Yeah, but people had militia starter fits and I had a Scattered ION CANNON! Anyway, that is false, they had two hardeners active (mine did), it also had passive resistance from the fact that it was a Marauder and it had the best heavy shield repair possible. Well, actually, it had all the best shield modules possible.
We'll never get the old Sagaris back the way it was.
I have had a look into the statistics of the thing and normally you'd not be able to fit a Scattered Ion Cannon and a Heavy Clarity Ward Shield Booster, plus two Surge Hardners, and two Extenders to reach that 7000 Cap......
WITHOUT
Maximum Fitting Values, and Low Slot Power Diagnostics. Grid Extenders......
AND
after all of that just your gun and hull was 1,750,000 ISK with another 350,000 worth of module ISK, and 100,000 ISK for your turrets.
NOT including the
SP it took into core skill to use efficiently the Racial Marauders skill being a x12 skill, Racial HAV an 8x Skill, and the increased number of useful core skills.
If I am not mistaken and you were not able to fit low slot damage modules your blaster would have done 180.1 damage per shot and a total DPS of almost 1400.
*"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
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:27:00 -
[216] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Which would require you to have the skills trained you already have trained lol. Say they release Caldari Enforcers. It requires Caldari HAV 3. Why do I need a respec to get the SP I've already spent on Caldari HAV, just so I can re-spend it on Caldari HAV?
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
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
4031
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:29:00 -
[217] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back"
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1322
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:01:00 -
[218] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back"
It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16053
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:12:00 -
[219] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles.
At this point that argument is rather..... moot.
More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread.
*"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
152
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:24:00 -
[220] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles. At this point that argument is rather..... moot. More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread.
I think I'll make a thread that takes all of the best ideas of the thread and puts them together without having ten pages to go through. Lot easier to read.
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
16055
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:28:00 -
[221] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Well pokey, you are going off the assumption that they won't fundamentally change the vehicle skill tree, just add new skills. He has a point in that if they change what some of the vehicle skills do, a respec may be warranted. Especially since you can just buy them now. Although, I find it unlikely that they will change the skills at all (even though I want them too) so a respec is probably not needed
Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back" It's more like, I skilled into pythons to 5 and incubus 5 and put a lot of SP in vehicle skills that I don't need however with new stuff coming out, I would like a respec so I can take the SP out of the stuff that is useless and put it in where it should have been if they didn't remove vehicles. At this point that argument is rather..... moot. More importantly I'd like to hear what Rattati thinks of the current suggestions and if he has any of his own conclusions drawn from this thread. I think I'll make a thread that takes all of the best ideas of the thread and puts them together without having ten pages to go through. Lot easier to read.
Leave that to Rattati. If he wants to clear this thread up then we should compile the best ideas and translate them. Let's not start making dozens of threads and dividing our suggestions.
*"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
16055
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:38:00 -
[222] - Quote
I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Traits: Generalist's Hull
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Traits: Generalist Hull
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).
*"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
4032
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 23:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16057
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:01:00 -
[224] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill.
Also you will probably note the counter intuitive base HP allocations for enforcers. As I mentioned before that's because I want to give them a fair fighting chance in combat with their limitied capability to fit plates, reppers, hardeners.
Also updated the design philosophies which are a combination of how I feel they should be, what tanks were like when they had roles (before the concept of MBT), and dramatic flair.
*"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
153
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:04:00 -
[225] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Traits: Generalist's Hull
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Traits: Generalist Hull
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).
What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea.
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
16059
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:16:00 -
[226] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea.
I personally don't (though I accept that you and Pokey Dravon do and noting that the above numbers are all just and opinion designed to be kicked around here). I see no value in it on a "protected gun system" which is arguably what a Tank Destroyer is in modern military terms (I guess).
Design wise I am working off a more EVE like model of slot lay out and allocations...not to mention statistics in some places. One of those core ideals I am working under is that most modules that directly increase weapon damage or effectiveness are in the LOW SLOTS where they should always have been and at one time were.
Under this ideal it makes more sense to have at least 4 on-rack (is that the correct term) modules which makes for better balance.
Caldari in this case have access to High Slot Utility Modules necessary to function their vehicle's turret while not hugely compromising the little bit of racial tank they can and will need to fit while being able to fit damage modules in their low slots.
Gallente gain the ability to stack damage affecting modules in their low slots but must not compromise the small racial tank the hull gets while being able to stack utility modules in their off rack slots.
Ideally design wise each tank would have the capability to fit 2 or so slots for some eHP protection while the unfitted 2 highs and 2 lows not assigned to eHP can be filled with whatever weapons utility modules a player feels is most appropriate for their playstyle.
In summary and after sooooooo much waffling on the idea behind the Enforcer is high damage out put and low tank. I feel this can be achieved in a very balanced manner.
*"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
4037
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:20:00 -
[227] - Quote
I guess my question is then...will people actually want to devote 2/3 of their slots to combat utility?
EDIT: Again I apologize if I'm just not understanding, work + holidays = very fried brain. But to me the most intuitive setup is you devote all of your main-rack to defense, and then your off-rack to utility. Your proposal doesn't seem to follow that logic and I'm confused as to why.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1326
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:24:00 -
[228] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Traits: Generalist's Hull
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Traits: Generalist Hull
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: Slower Acceleration, Reduced Top Speed, Increased PG and CPU Allotment.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Traits: More Powerful Main Gun, Slower Turret Tracking, Low PG and CPU allotment to discourage eHP tanking, Moderate Torque.
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea.
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16063
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 00:45:00 -
[229] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of
Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank
E.G
-A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets
-A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets
-A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets
Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit).
However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values).
In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 01:05:00 -
[230] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:{Part 2/2}Add the
[Black Ops] HAV as the support HAV.Short description: Heavily armored infantry, vehicle, and installation support platform. -25% turret damage (flat) -x% PG/CPU of fitting active scanners and vehicle remote repairers per level +1 built-in mCRU Less total PG/CPU compared to basic tanks Kubera (Gallente): x% bonus towards __ for remote vehicle armor repair modules per level. Changed base stats compared to basic: Scan profile: 35db to hide from STD scanners Base armor repair rate: -20% (20 hp/s) Base shield recharge rate: -20% (76.8 hp/s) Base price: 130,000 ISK Chakram (Caldari): x% bonus towards __ for remote vehicle shield repair modules per level. Changed base stats compared to basic: Scan profile: 35db to hide from STD scanners Base armor repair rate: -20% (12 hp/s) Base shield recharge rate: -20% (134.4 hp/s) Base price: 130,000 ISK [Marauder] HAVs: +2% to base shield and armor HP -x% penalty to turret rotation speed (flat) -x% penalty torque (flat) Surya (Gallente): 1% increase armor damage resistance and 2% increase in armor recharge rate per level Base armor repair rate: +20% (30 hp/s) Base price: 130,000 ISK Sagaris (Caldari): 1% increase in shield damage resistance and 2% increase in shield recharge rate per level Base price: 130,000 ISK [Enforcer] HAVs: +2% increased turret damage & +x% increase in turret rotation speed smaller -x% torque penalty torque than Marauders (flat) Faster forward speed and acceleration Less total PG/CPU compared to basic tanks Vayu (Gallente): Damage and fitting bonus to blasters and railguns Base armor repair rate: -20% (20 hp/s) Base shield recharge rate: -20% (76.8 hp/s) Base price: 130,000 ISK Falchion (Caldari): Damage and fitting bonus to missiles and railguns Base armor repair rate: -20% (12 hp/s) Base shield recharge rate: -20% (134.4 hp/s) Base price: 130,000 ISK [Other good ideas]:The Gallente tank has 76.9% of it's total HP as armor which is pretty good since Gallente is an armor tanking race, but If you look at the Gunnlogi, it has 63.9% of it's total HP as shields which is pretty ridiculous since Caldari vehicles should be almost exclusively shield tanking; making all Caldari vehicles have around 80% of their HP as shields would remedy this (3320 shields 830 armor). If racial placeholder vehicles get added later on, Minmatar vehicles should have around 50% of their HP as shields, and Amarr vehicles should have at least 80% of their HP as armor. Also to make Caldari tanks have a harder time at fitting armor modules and help Gallente tanks fit armor, all shield modules should cost 1 less PG and 4 to 5 more CPU, armor hardeners should cost around 30 less CPU and 7 more PG, and armor plates should cost around 20 less CPU and 5 more PG. Cat Merc wrote:I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.
... I agree with that tanks don't have enough slots; basic tanks should have a 4/2 (Caldari) and 2/4 (Gallente) layout and I think it would be best to give specialized tanks less PG/CPU and a bonus to fitting stuff for their specialization instead of how an ADS has less slots than a basic DS. Also increasing the slot layout would mostly benefit Gallente tanks which are currently underpowered. Breakin Stuff wrote:...
You could allow HAVs to disable null cannons temporarily ... This would be cool and add to why would a team want a tank in the 1st place. If that can't be done, let turret installations able to damage MCC.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
|
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 01:06:00 -
[231] - Quote
Can someone comment on what I wrote on post #196 & #197
Sir Dukey wrote:CCP, can you make it so when we point to a Sagaris, it says PRO instead of UHAV or Sagaris. It was my dream since I started playing two years ago. My dream to drive a Beast mode Sgaris with 7000+ shields that could tank hits from 5 guys.
It would say STD and not PRO since these specialized tanks would would be standard tanks.
True Adamance wrote:Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
....
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
...
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
...
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
...
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
...
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
...
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).
While I support increasing the slot layout up 1 module, I don't support giving an extra module on top of that just for specializations. It's not much of a sidegrade even with the downsides you listed if it gets extra slots.
Specializations shouldn't have part of their HP shifted from one side to another (changing the ratio of shields to armor) like how you have the Gunlogi compared to the Sagaris and Falchion, and the Falchion is supposed to the glass cannon, so it should not have more base eHP to start with compared to a generalist tank. Think of it this way: if a generalist tank doesn't stack HP mods and the glass cannon doesn't stack HP also, which should have the highest base HP?
Also I want to say this again:
Quote:The Gallente tank has 76.9% of it's total HP as armor which is pretty good since Gallente is an armor tanking race, but If you look at the Gunnlogi, it has 63.9% of it's total HP as shields which is pretty ridiculous since Caldari vehicles should be almost exclusively shield tanking; making all Caldari vehicles have around 80% of their HP as shields would remedy this (3320 shields 830 armor). If racial placeholder vehicles get added later on, Minmatar vehicles should have around 50% of their HP as shields, and Amarr vehicles should have at least 80% of their HP as armor.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16072
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 01:33:00 -
[232] - Quote
Now on to your post.
I like the concept of Black Ops and Logi Vehicles and I suppose at this stage we have to accept that if we want them they will have to be either in LAV or HAV form.
Personally I'd love to see bother in the MAV as specialisations.
Stats seem fine to be especially considering we could be using Medium Turrets rather than applying negative modifiers to existing assets....something I am simply not a fan off unless its tastefully done.
ISK Prices are far too low for any specialist vehicle IMO. MLT HAV should cost 97,500, Standard Hulls 200,000, and Enforcer/Marauders at least 757,000. This to discourage spam and at least have us place some damn value on our tanks.
RE: Your Marauder bonuses as I mentioned at the start of the post that is subject to change. Depending on eHP calculations for the Sagaris and bonuses for the hull it will change.
RE: You Enforcer Changes. I wholly believe that Enforcer's turret tracking should go in the opposite direction. The Larger the cannon your have on a tank the slower it traverses, this is especially true for things in New Eden as we already have examples of more powerful turrets traversing more slowly.
E.g- Dual Light Pulse Lasers traverse more quickly than Small Focused Pulse Lasers, which traverse faster than Dual Medium Pulse Lasers, whic Traverse Faster than Mega Pulse Lasers, etc....
..... and I feel this would and should be negated if you chose to through the fitting of weapons upgrade modules which should be core to the design of Enforcers.
Pokey has the base suggestions for the Amarr and Minmatar HAV in his post.
800 Shields 4000 Armour for the Amarr
2600 Shields 1500 Armour for the Minmatar
The could be broken down as
Disciple: 800/4000 (Cruiser)
Malison: 580/4150 (Marauder)
Bendiction: 690/ 4325 (Enforcer)
or some such allocation.
Remember again I am assuming this model under the old shield regen stats..... armour tanks will always essentially be tanking in their armour and shield HAV will either be passively regen tanking or actively booster tanking.
Not this bullshit passive 168rep/sec we have now.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 01:58:00 -
[233] - Quote
Going to edit shield recharge values on my post.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16073
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 02:05:00 -
[234] - Quote
Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
*"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
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:11:00 -
[235] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses.
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
16081
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:14:00 -
[236] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses.
That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists.
It may be that we cannot have bother....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands.
*"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
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:29:00 -
[237] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses. That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists. It may be that we cannot have both....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands. Some of the currently suggested ideas include. - Racial Benefits to their respective tanking modules Caldari - Shield resists Amarr- Armour resists Gallente - Armour repairs Minmatar- Shield boosters - Reduced cool downs on defensive modules - Increased duration on defensive modules - Passive Resistances - Static Base Shield or Armour increases
Is it really in his hands? He's asked us on how to do it, so it's kinda in our hands. Also,new idea... What if marauders get fitting bonuses towards racial defensive mods, and either shield or armor regen on the racial skill books, then the marauder skill bonus could be defensive module duration and cool down. Thus, we can have the extra slot without giving bonuses that would be OP. Again, shield tanks would have to be looked at so they aren't too good but this doesn't seem like a bad idea too me.
Btw, how was your sandwich?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Buwaro Draemon
WarRavens
Capital Punishment.
476
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:33:00 -
[238] - Quote
Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:not sure if I like the idea of the falch insta poping the vayu/surya.
please don't give any of the caldarian tank's a rail bonus. we don't need bonused double complex modded railguns. or at least keep railgun bonus to minimal ammounts
missiles at least punish the user for missing their targets with slow reloads and having to line/track targets.
blasters.................does anything else need to be said.
while your doing tank changes.
PLEASE REDUCE THE LARGE BLASTER DISPERION. AV on roof tops is ridiculos. at least railguns and missiles have a chance of kicking them off of a roof top. the blaster how ever is basically defencless and cant counter such a tatic.
dont give the blaster pin point accuracy but at least give us less dispersion or the longer the blaster is fired the more that dispersion is appernet.
and dispersion makes it a horrible pain to kill bunny hoping av users. takeing or sitting to long to kill a LONE av user until buddies come to help him is a death sentence. as it is right now blaster fitted tanks are just harmless beasts that cherrys feed off for points.
at the very least give the gallente tanks some sort of bonus to reduce dispersion.
The Falchion of before had the bonus for the Large Missile Turret and not the Rail Gun.
Side effects of playing Dust:
Emotional trauma, Anger Management issues, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Depression
|
The-Errorist
929
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:38:00 -
[239] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
...
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Also I rather have the reps be at first underpowered than increase it 'till it's balanced. How does these stats look?
7 cycles
Armor: 370 hp/cycle
Shield: 316 hp/cycle
Cooldown for STD/ADV/PRO: 70/60/50 and it should work more like the cloakfield, so if you don't use all of the cycles, you won't experience the full cooldown time.
True Adamance wrote:Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP. In my post I said that specializations should have the same slot layout as basic tanks and have less PG/CPU compared to them. Also would you really think 5% resistance only to shields and 10% more HP is OP? I also removed the small other bonus I had towards repair rate.
True Adamance wrote:Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
Yeah, I see your point, but I don't know if making turning speed slower to necessitate the existence/resurgence of tracking modules is good. Again I don't really feel strongly one way or another on that so I guess that would be ok.
Also yes, that feedback was way more constructive and I edited my post to have less HP for Enforcers (forgot to add it) and I edited the segments about shield recharge:
If the Gallente use 1/3 of their slots for armor repair, it should be better than Caldari's base repair like it is for dropsuits; Gunnlogi should have around 120 hp/s base repair.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16083
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:43:00 -
[240] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Let me give some more constructive feed back.
Logisitics and Support Vehicles
- I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles but in their absence and accepting they may never eventuate these could be tastefully done on the HAV or LAV platform.
-Your stats are fair I think, though I dislike the idea of reducing the effectiveness of existing assets over the introduction of mid tier assets....but again that's besides the point.
- One thing we have to consider, and you may or may not know about it, is when you introduce/reintroduce remote reps you have to be very careful they aren't too powerful. In EVE most people consider logi the bane of fleet fighting because reps from an organised lgo chain are...... insanely good meaning if you call out that you are primary early you essentially cannot be killed as the enemy cannot break your logi.
- Reintroduction of remote reps cannot be too powerful like they were at one point if I am not mistaken......and should not be too weak they have no effect in combat.
Other than that I love it.
Marauders Bonuses. Your suggestions are the kinds of bonuses I would drop that extra module slot for as passive shield resists with the additional slot would be OP.
Enforcers.
Fair and valid suggestions since the focus of the hull is its gun and I can see why you opted for faster tracking. I hope you can also see why I have suggested slower tracking.
It's mainly because any tank that has a large turret tends to track slower due to the weight of the cannon. While in Dust we don't have such higher sizes of cannon I think it might do the Enforcer Class a world of good in terms of balancing to have a slower tracking speed in exchange for potentially much higher DPS and Alpha.
I think the unanimous suggestions has been 10% at Racial Enforcer V. Plus damage modules, etc. You cannot really offer a much better vehicle as not only would you be more than powerful for your role in Vehicle vs Vehicle Combat but also have no reason to ever fit things like Tracking Computers and Enhancers/Metastasis Adjusters which are usually seen on kiting/sniping ships in EVE to enhancer tracking power.
I hope this feed back is more constructive. Dat Subway was sooooooo good.
I would rather have the module slot. Make marauders get a small bonus to resistance to armour and shields per level, like 1-2%. Then the racial bonus could be small Hp and regen bonuses for their respective racial tank, plus the extra slot to make them the real tanky tanks. Customization and variety>>>>>>>> bonuses. That is certainly how I feel about the matter, however we have to consider with 5/2 and 2/5 lay outs the maximum eHP values of the Marauders especially with passive skill based bonuses like passive resists. It may be that we cannot have both....but as you say that is in Rattati's hands. Some of the currently suggested ideas include. - Racial Benefits to their respective tanking modules Caldari - Shield resists Amarr- Armour resists Gallente - Armour repairs Minmatar- Shield boosters - Reduced cool downs on defensive modules - Increased duration on defensive modules - Passive Resistances - Static Base Shield or Armour increases Is it really in his hands? He's asked us on how to do it, so it's kinda in our hands. Also,new idea... What if marauders get fitting bonuses towards racial defensive mods, and either shield or armor regen on the racial skill books, then the marauder skill bonus could be defensive module duration and cool down. Thus, we can have the extra slot without giving bonuses that would be OP. Again, shield tanks would have to be looked at so they aren't too good but this doesn't seem like a bad idea too me. Btw, how was your sandwich?
It was a very good sandwich.
In terms of fitting modules...... I don't know...... seems appropriate.....but underwhelming if you know what I mean....and regen wise? Regen is a sore spot for me right now.
Just for my sake so I can understand what you want propose to me a ........
Role Bonus ( the bonus that either each Marauder has or the bonus that the Marauder's skill affects on the Sagaris vs Surya)
and the
Hull Bonus (The bonus unique to the hull perhaps affected by the Caldari/Gallente HAV skill)
*"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
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:56:00 -
[241] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
It was a very good sandwich.
In terms of fitting modules...... I don't know...... seems appropriate.....but underwhelming if you know what I mean....and regen wise? Regen is a sore spot for me right now.
Just for my sake so I can understand what you want propose to me a ........
Role Bonus ( the bonus that either each Marauder has or the bonus that the Marauder's skill affects on the Sagaris vs Surya)
and the
Hull Bonus (The bonus unique to the hull perhaps affected by the Caldari/Gallente HAV skill)
K, the hull bonus would be the regen and module fitting bonus, and the role bonus would be the duration and cool down. Indirectly causing the tank to have much greater defensive capabilities but mostly through it having a fifth slot. You could say the extra slot IS the role bonus in a way.
Tl:dr of all my posts: I want that extra slot while being balanced. Badly
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1331
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 03:58:00 -
[242] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades.
I was thinking we could add in a built in module like LLAV's had and LOGI dropships had.
Enforcer built in example modules with no cost to slots- (not Particularly powerful)
-heat sink (10%)
-turret rotation mod
-ect.
Marauder built in with no expense to slots-
-Siege- Tank gets 15-20% passive shield/armor hardener for 30 secs, cool down 1 minute depending on whether it is Sagaris or Surya.
-ect.
I don't know, just think it's cool. teammates will be noted when siege module is activated. Like a distress signal.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 07:54:00 -
[243] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades. I was thinking we could add in a built in module like LLAV's had and LOGI dropships had. Enforcer built in example modules with no cost to slots- (not Particularly powerful) -heat sink (10-20%) -turret rotation mod -ect. Marauder built in with no expense to slots- -Siege- Tank gets 15-20% passive shield/armor hardener for 30 secs, cool down 1 minute depending on whether it is Sagaris or Surya. -ect. I don't know, just think it's cool. teammates will be noted when siege module is activated. Like a distress signal. Why- because they will help the role without making them permanent and OP. You would agree and I would too if Marauders with 5/2 layout have passive 20% resistances but with built in modules they can for a limited time. This creates a whole new dynamic play style. Marauders would engage when siege modules are ready as back up. When not recharged, it might not be such a good idea to engage say an Enforcer tank. The modules would be their to give a little extra out of the performance of your tank. Now what worries me are multiple hardeners. A Sagaris driving around with 3 hardeners and two heavy complex shield extenders along with a siege module ready to go. I would limit hardeners to two, I would also make it so when siege module is active, all previously active modules be shut off.
Seige module would have to be better than a hardener or something.
And uh, who took a duke in this thread?
Choo Choo
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16106
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 10:37:00 -
[244] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades. I was thinking we could add in a built in module like LLAV's had and LOGI dropships had. Enforcer built in example modules with no cost to slots- (not Particularly powerful) -heat sink (10-20%) -turret rotation mod -ect. Marauder built in with no expense to slots- -Siege- Tank gets 15-20% passive shield/armor hardener for 30 secs, cool down 1 minute depending on whether it is Sagaris or Surya. -ect. I don't know, just think it's cool. teammates will be noted when siege module is activated. Like a distress signal. Why- because they will help the role without making them permanent and OP. You would agree and I would too if Marauders with 5/2 layout have passive 20% resistances but with built in modules they can for a limited time. This creates a whole new dynamic play style. Marauders would engage when siege modules are ready as back up. When not recharged, it might not be such a good idea to engage say an Enforcer tank. The modules would be their to give a little extra out of the performance of your tank. Now what worries me are multiple hardeners. A Sagaris driving around with 3 hardeners and two heavy complex shield extenders along with a siege module ready to go. I would limit hardeners to two, I would also make it so when siege module is active, all previously active modules be shut off. Seige module would have to be better than a hardener or something. And uh, who took a duke in this thread? Also, if the std blaster is not more accurate than a mlt blaster, it needs slightly less dispersion increase per shot, it's stupidly inaccurate. The sagris won't be able to kill crap, as missiles and rails are terrible for AI.
First off lets work on what we have not to balance HAV aka modules we fit to our own tanks. That way we know at a fundamental level the modules at least work.
Regarding the Large Blaster...... there is a lot of work that can be done on that.
I wholly believe the large blaster could do with a per shot damage buff to the Scattered Blaster Variant levels mainly to improve the over all turret DPS which would still be very low. That or the blaster could be wholly redesigned.
The thing about the old Marauder tanks that most people who AV now think they understand is that a maxxed out HAV pilot had usually 150.1 damage per shot with a 30% damage boost without modules. Couple that with Low Slot damage mods and you have a 200+ damage per shot weapon and well over 1400 DPS.
Arguably that is where the blasters DPS should be vs the Rail gun..... but that's a whole different topic.
A Siege Module if introduce would have to be its own module. Basically what they do is improve all resistances by a set amount, damage by a set amount, and rep rates by a set amount but have a strict and unalterable duration and cool down where the Marauder cannot move at all.
In Dust something like this would be too OP and also crippling to a tank. If a Siege Module were in the game it would have to be something like an Improved Damage Control Unit.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 11:22:00 -
[245] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard.
I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank E.G -A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets -A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets -A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit). However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values). In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades. I was thinking we could add in a built in module like LLAV's had and LOGI dropships had. Enforcer built in example modules with no cost to slots- (not Particularly powerful) -heat sink (10-20%) -turret rotation mod -ect. Marauder built in with no expense to slots- -Siege- Tank gets 15-20% passive shield/armor hardener for 30 secs, cool down 1 minute depending on whether it is Sagaris or Surya. -ect. I don't know, just think it's cool. teammates will be noted when siege module is activated. Like a distress signal. Why- because they will help the role without making them permanent and OP. You would agree and I would too if Marauders with 5/2 layout have passive 20% resistances but with built in modules they can for a limited time. This creates a whole new dynamic play style. Marauders would engage when siege modules are ready as back up. When not recharged, it might not be such a good idea to engage say an Enforcer tank. The modules would be their to give a little extra out of the performance of your tank. Now what worries me are multiple hardeners. A Sagaris driving around with 3 hardeners and two heavy complex shield extenders along with a siege module ready to go. I would limit hardeners to two, I would also make it so when siege module is active, all previously active modules be shut off. Seige module would have to be better than a hardener or something. And uh, who took a duke in this thread? Also, if the std blaster is not more accurate than a mlt blaster, it needs slightly less dispersion increase per shot, it's stupidly inaccurate. The sagris won't be able to kill crap, as missiles and rails are terrible for AI. First off lets work on what we have not to balance HAV aka modules we fit to our own tanks. That way we know at a fundamental level the modules at least work. Regarding the Large Blaster...... there is a lot of work that can be done on that. I wholly believe the large blaster could do with a per shot damage buff to the Scattered Blaster Variant levels mainly to improve the over all turret DPS which would still be very low. That or the blaster could be wholly redesigned. The thing about the old Marauder tanks that most people who AV now think they understand is that a maxxed out HAV pilot had usually 150.1 damage per shot with a 30% damage boost without modules. Couple that with Low Slot damage mods and you have a 200+ damage per shot weapon and well over 1400 DPS. Arguably that is where the blasters DPS should be vs the Rail gun..... but that's a whole different topic. A Siege Module if introduce would have to be its own module. Basically what they do is improve all resistances by a set amount, damage by a set amount, and rep rates by a set amount but have a strict and unalterable duration and cool down where the Marauder cannot move at all. In Dust something like this would be too OP and also crippling to a tank. If a Siege Module were in the game it would have to be something like an Improved Damage Control Unit.
I guess.
maybe slight armor regen too on the seige mod?
But, the blaster needs a small accuracy buff, good luck killing forge gunners, it's even worse by walls, I use a mlt one for now as I never got large turret operation, although I do have xt small missiles.
Choo Choo
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4043
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:43:00 -
[246] - Quote
While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 15:52:00 -
[247] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have
2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen
3. Agree |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:02:00 -
[248] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have
2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen
3. Agree
1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well.
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
478
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:03:00 -
[249] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar 1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have 2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen 3. Agree
1. yes!
2. bring the plates, n lay off the shield regen dude
3 yes!
4. More skills that aren't worthless.
& justice for all
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2583
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:07:00 -
[250] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
Why reduce base HP only to have to use a module to make up for what we had?
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
From what I understand about EVE lore, Caldari shields constantly regenerate with no stopping no matter how much damage is taken, and the Gallente prefer reps over max armor such as the Amarr do. Could of course have a short delay before the regen restarts for shields when they're depleted.
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
They both need to have their CPU, PG, armor and shield skill back on par with infantry, as well as a little more base CPU and PG overall.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
478
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:08:00 -
[251] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have
2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen
3. Agree
1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well. 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) 3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs.
@3. Hardeners are the cheap modules. If you use shield extenders or booster you wont have enough PG for plates.
& justice for all
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
154
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:11:00 -
[252] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
Why reduce base HP only to have to use a module to make up for what we had?
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
From what I understand about EVE lore, Caldari shields constantly regenerate with no stopping no matter how much damage is taken, and the Gallente prefer reps over max armor such as the Amarr do. Could of course have a short delay before the regen restarts for shields when they're depleted.
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
They both need to have their CPU, PG, armor and shield skill back on par with infantry, as well as a little more base CPU and PG overall.
@ #1, so we can have more variety in our fittings. 4 slots with ok base stats is better than 3 slots with good base stats. I'm tired of seeing about 4 different tank fittings on the field. Adding in old mods + another slot goes a lot towards personalizing tanks.
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
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:16:00 -
[253] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:@3. Hardeners are the cheap modules. If you use shield extenders or booster you wont have enough PG for plates.
While that may be true, the fitting options for the Madrugar are still far more limited. Not to mention that if memory serve the average eHP on a 2 Hardener 1 Extender fit is not much different than a 1 hardener 2 extender fit, and since effective recharge is better with more hardeners, the two extender fit is arguably inferior...especially since the 2 hardener fit can also fit plates.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
263
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:24:00 -
[254] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have
2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen
3. Agree
1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well. 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) 3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs.
2. Cap stable requires the capacitor which is much more needed - It is the core of balance
2a. While shield regs reduce the delay cannot forget that shield extenders do increase the passive rate of regen
3. The Gunlogi can put on all PROTO modules and turrets but its low slots will be used for CPU/PG expansion mods which are also proto but are needed to fit the tank or turrets or both - Its not ideal but better than the madrugar which can barely fit on everything enchanced but nowhere able to fit full proto and fill all slot spaces - Proto sentinal on the otherhand can fit everything proto on it
3a. The variety of modules which were removed from both tanks has lead to this, in my gunlogi i could fit PDS/DCU with nanofibres or dmg mods which happened to be passive - Madrugar on the flip side had heat sinks and scanners/nitros - if there are options to fit then they will be used because they were in chrome and uprising |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:52:00 -
[255] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
Why reduce base HP only to have to use a module to make up for what we had?
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
From what I understand about EVE lore, Caldari shields constantly regenerate with no stopping no matter how much damage is taken, and the Gallente prefer reps over max armor such as the Amarr do. Could of course have a short delay before the regen restarts for shields when they're depleted.
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
They both need to have their CPU, PG, armor and shield skill back on par with infantry, as well as a little more base CPU and PG overall.
1. This is a push to make the modules on the vehicle matter more than the hull itself. In particular its a nerf to Militia vehicles as a whole who enjoy relatively high eHP without fitting good/any modules. This is particularly evident in LAVs as well. Vehicle hulls should be relatively weak when unfit and their strength should be largely based off the strength what they put in their slots.
Additionally it offers more options for fitting by allowing for more slots and this more flexibility if how you want to tweak and fit your vehicle. Ideally you should be able to maintain the same defensive power as you do now with the 3/2 system, but if you choose to forgo a defensive slot for a utility one, the impact is far less.
2. Its difficult to make a direct comparison to EVE. For one shields in EVE don't regen at a constant rate, their regen rate is based directly off how much shield HP they have. That is to say there is no "HP/s" regen rate, there is a "Time to fully recharge" Adding more HP doesn't change how long it takes to fully recharge and thus the rate effectively increases. In addition the rate at which shields recharge is not constant. at 1% shields regen is extremely slow, at 50% shields it is at its peach recharge rate, and at 99% is is extremely slow. Basically think of it like a bell curve. In other words, if you passive tank a shield ship, it takes an extremely long time to naturally recharge back to 100% shields, you'll tend to float around 50-70% because thats when your tank is at its strongest. It also means that if your shields drop below 50%, your tank gets weaker the more damage you take, because your recharge rate will decrease the closer to 0% shields you become.
So while no shield delay may appealing, do understand that the constant-passive regen of shields in EVE is not without additional downsides that you don't experience in Dust.
3. Well skills aside, the Gunnlogi can easily fit a much higher meta level fit than a Madrugar can, I think this difference needs to be fixed first.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Kaze Eyrou
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1139
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:57:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Main Battle Tank - HAV
Marauder - Same (with tweaks)
Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks)
TIL CCP will be changing to Madrugar's name to Marauder, confusing future tankers.
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Learning Coalition Mentor // Bug Vaporizer
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:01:00 -
[257] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
2. Cap stable requires the capacitor which is much more needed - It is the core of balance
2a. While shield regs reduce the delay cannot forget that shield extenders do increase the passive rate of regen
3. The Gunlogi can put on all PROTO modules and turrets but its low slots will be used for CPU/PG expansion mods which are also proto but are needed to fit the tank or turrets or both - Its not ideal but better than the madrugar which can barely fit on everything enchanced but nowhere able to fit full proto and fill all slot spaces - Proto sentinal on the otherhand can fit everything proto on it
3a. The variety of modules which were removed from both tanks has lead to this, in my gunlogi i could fit PDS/DCU with nanofibres or dmg mods which happened to be passive - Madrugar on the flip side had heat sinks and scanners/nitros - if there are options to fit then they will be used because they were in chrome and uprising
2. I say "cap stable" in quotes as to mean, armor reps that run constantly and don't need to be cycled like a normal active rep. Call it a passive fit if you prefer.
2a. Not in Dust? Unless I've gone totally insane, I'm fairly certain there is currently no way to increase the natural rep rate of shields in Dust (Boosters obviously increase effective rep rate, but you get what I mean.) In EVE, sure, extenders increase regen rate, effectively.
3. You can actually fit a Standard Large Turret, 2 Complex Hardeners and 1 Complex Shield Extender without the need for any PG/CPU upgrade modules, and have enough change leftover to put on utility, plates, ect. (Though the plate *might* require a PG upgrade in the second low slot...I forget offhand). Madrugar can fit 1 Standard Large Turret, 1 Complex Repper, 1 Complex Plate, and 1 Complex Hardener and at that point its pretty much capped out on CPU. It cant fit anything in the highs or any small turrets. At the very least the Madrugar needs more resources to work with.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
263
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:35:00 -
[258] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
2. Cap stable requires the capacitor which is much more needed - It is the core of balance
2a. While shield regs reduce the delay cannot forget that shield extenders do increase the passive rate of regen
3. The Gunlogi can put on all PROTO modules and turrets but its low slots will be used for CPU/PG expansion mods which are also proto but are needed to fit the tank or turrets or both - Its not ideal but better than the madrugar which can barely fit on everything enchanced but nowhere able to fit full proto and fill all slot spaces - Proto sentinal on the otherhand can fit everything proto on it
3a. The variety of modules which were removed from both tanks has lead to this, in my gunlogi i could fit PDS/DCU with nanofibres or dmg mods which happened to be passive - Madrugar on the flip side had heat sinks and scanners/nitros - if there are options to fit then they will be used because they were in chrome and uprising
2. I say "cap stable" in quotes as to mean, armor reps that run constantly and don't need to be cycled like a normal active rep. Call it a passive fit if you prefer. 2a. Not in Dust? Unless I've gone totally insane, I'm fairly certain there is currently no way to increase the natural rep rate of shields in Dust (Boosters obviously increase effective rep rate, but you get what I mean.) In EVE, sure, extenders increase regen rate, effectively. 3. You can actually fit a Standard Large Turret, 2 Complex Hardeners and 1 Complex Shield Extender without the need for any PG/CPU upgrade modules, and have enough change leftover to put on utility, plates, ect. (Though the plate *might* require a PG upgrade in the second low slot...I forget offhand). Madrugar can fit 1 Standard Large Turret, 1 Complex Repper, 1 Complex Plate, and 1 Complex Hardener and at that point its pretty much capped out on CPU. It cant fit anything in the highs or any small turrets. At the very least the Madrugar needs more resources to work with. EDIT: Ok so I checked it out, assuming Protofits is correct...for a tanky, OK DPS Gunnlogi you can fit 1 Complex Heavy Shield Extender 2 Complex Shield Hardeners 1 Enhanced 120mm Armor Plate 1 Complex Ammo Cache 1 Standard Large Railgun For a Madrugar 1 Complex 120mm Armor Plate 1 Complex Heavy Armor Repairer 1 Complex Armor Hardener *Nothing in the High Slots* 1 Standard Large Blaster So even without PG/CPU modules, the Gunnlogi is capable of fitting an additional Enhanced HP module over the Madrugar. The Ammo Cache is kinda mute point because its 0CPU/0PG, but again nothing like that exists in the high slots so the Madrugar kinda gets boned on that too. Thing is the PG on the Madrugar fit is still going strong, its the CPU thats severely limiting. I'd really love if I could fit my Madrugar with the above fit with enough CPU to handle a Fuel Injector and a Scanner, or hell even a damage mod.
2a. EVE aka New Eden - Whats in New Eden should be in DUST
3. Standard - Not proto
3a. Your fit is not all proto - My sentinal at proto doesnt have that problem and it doesnt need PG/CPU modules either, it can tank and increase its dmg for its proto weapons
3b. Madrugar sucks when you have 2 slots you effectively cannot use unless you want to gimp yourself
3c. This essentially has been caused by the removal of skills with useful skill bonuses and lack of variety in modules hence dual tanking gunlogis, also having vehicles with such a low amount of PG/CPU is just terrible and it even happened with Enforcers which had milita stats - It doesnt help in EVE i have T1 then 4 other variety of modules then T2 followed by faction/officer and deadspace modules which all have diff stats and that included fitting requirements
3d. Tiercide or adv/proto hulls - It needs to be sorted once and for all because either way i want proto modules on everything and should be able to fit it like i can my infantry suits with all proto |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:59:00 -
[259] - Quote
2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
156
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:07:00 -
[260] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.
Increase PG cost of plates while reducing cup costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved
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
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:19:00 -
[261] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved
Would also like to factor in 180mm Plates. I'd kinda consider them the standard Madrugar plate which would cost more PG, so you don't want to increase the cost on plates *too* much. Would a PG reduction on the Gunnlogi be more appropriate to discourage plate use without a PG enhancer? Perhaps a mix of both?
Could also increase PG of Madrugar is the Plate increase is too expensive for it to handle.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16111
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:34:00 -
[262] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well.
*"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
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:38:00 -
[263] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well.
That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2585
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:40:00 -
[264] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.
No, but it would make fitting whatever we want on it a hell of a lot easier.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16111
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:40:00 -
[265] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table.
I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2585
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:42:00 -
[266] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved
The Madrugar doesn't have enough PG to fit what you want on it. Why would you further gimp the armor tank by increasing the PG cost of plates even more?
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
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:47:00 -
[267] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all?
Fair enough but do you think it should maintain the same HP/s if the delay was removed?
And Spkr, I agree that an overall increase to resources may be in order (especially if the 4th slot is added) but I think we both agree that the Madrugar needs a bit more of a buff than the Gunnlogi at this time.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
157
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 18:57:00 -
[268] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved The Madrugar doesn't have enough PG to fit what you want on it. Why would you further gimp the armor tank by increasing the PG cost of plates even more?
I was on the understanding that the Madrugar needed more CPU, not PG. I'm sorry, I don't use them
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
16111
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:00:00 -
[269] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well. That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all? Fair enough but do you think it should maintain the same HP/s if the delay was removed? And Spkr, I agree that an overall increase to resources may be in order (especially if the 4th slot is added) but I think we both agree that the Madrugar needs a bit more of a buff than the Gunnlogi at this time.
NEVER.
No vehicle deserves a passive 168 regen per second for not having to fit anything......especially if new tanks are going to have 4+ slots and old modules are coming back.
For a tank they should be down below 100 (even when buffed by modules) so that damage applied to a Shield HAV last longer on the hull like it does for an armour tank.
*"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
4044
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:01:00 -
[270] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind. Increase PG cost of plates while reducing CPU costs, along with a Madrugar CPU buff and I think problem is solved The Madrugar doesn't have enough PG to fit what you want on it. Why would you further gimp the armor tank by increasing the PG cost of plates even more? I was on the understanding that the Madrugar needed more CPU, not PG. I'm sorry, I don't use them
Well it really depends on what you're fitting. Blasters are very PG intensive so higher leveled ones are going to require more PG. I would say that in general the Madrugar needs both PG and CPU, though CPU to a larger degree.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
267
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:02:00 -
[271] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.
3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.
2a.*Facepalm* - Well they should
3. Anyone can see the difference before fitting
3a. Be best to put in useful skills and skill bonuses and do theory fits with all skills to level 5 then create a fit for each vehicle |
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:50:00 -
[272] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
Theres honestly no reason to have shield delay mechanics when Constant passive regen ala EVE already worked and worked well.
That's fine, as long as it actually mimics EVE mechanics. I get the impression that the HP/s regen is hard coded in there. They would have to code all of the other intricacies of shield recharge from EVE, which is fine if they actually do it. However I doubt something like that is on the table. I know the Shield Regn mechanics you refer to but do you really consider that necessary. Surely something closer to which lays the foundations is superior to something that...... doesn't represent Shield mechanics at all? Fair enough but do you think it should maintain the same HP/s if the delay was removed? And Spkr, I agree that an overall increase to resources may be in order (especially if the 4th slot is added) but I think we both agree that the Madrugar needs a bit more of a buff than the Gunnlogi at this time. NEVER. No vehicle deserves a passive 168 regen per second for not having to fit anything......especially if new tanks are going to have 4+ slots and old modules are coming back. For a tank they should be down below 100 (even when buffed by modules) so that damage applied to a Shield HAV last longer on the hull like it does for an armour tank.
168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep...
Choo Choo
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:51:00 -
[273] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar
#1 for the marauders? Hell no...
Choo Choo
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4045
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:59:00 -
[274] - Quote
wrote:
168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep...
Actually if you break it down, even with a delay, the Gunnlogi will regenerate to its peak eHP significantly faster than a Madrugar. There are of course many factors, but this spreadsheet breaks down the total regen over time for both HAVs.
But if you read the context, we're talking about if the delay was removed, what the appropriate regen rate would be.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing
duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no...
You should continue reading and realize that you should have continued reading.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16115
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:11:00 -
[275] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:
168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep...
It's not slow at all. It's essentially what makes Shield HAV OP as hell.
They are able to rep at a prolific pace (3x the old statistics) for not having to fit a module meaning that any HAV pilot worth their salt can manage this overly powerful passive shield regeneration over the course of 20 seconds to have nullified almost all AV damage again them.
The reason tanks back in the day were good and balanced and arguably more skill intensive was because damage applied to a tank then was longer lasting and required the use of modules or multiple modules to repair.
No Tank, not shield, not armour deserves a meaningful regeneration without having to fit modules.
If you look at a Shield HAV vs an Armour HAV currently in any circumstance a Shield HAV will win. Hands down it is superior...so your assertion it is unfair that a Shield HAV has a down side in CQC in brawling........like (shock horror) Caldari tech would is moot.
Armour HAV, armour everything in New Eden has equivalent or more HP/eHP than shield variants. The reason for this is that armour itself does not regenerate, regeneration power being a huge factor of any conflict where TTK is measured in tens of seconds or minutes.
Now for the longest time since 1.7 Shield HAV has dominated in roles they should not be as powerful in annexing the Armour HAV from tactical and competitive use.
Armour Tanks, Gallente Tech, Gallente Tanks are designed to brawl up close and have the edge in CQC fights using powerful active reps to cover for their lack of any passive regeneration.
Shield Tanks, Caldari Tech, Caldari Tanks are designed to kite out at longer ranges and have the edge in ranged combat through superior access to damage modules (LOW SLOT MODULES) and slow natural regen alongside powerful spikes of Shield Boosts.
Now in the scenario you are discussion I am assuming you are talking about a passive tanked Gunnlogi, the kind that stacks Extenders and a Hardener..... THATS WHAT A PASSIVE TANK IS!
You guys do understand what passive and active tanks are the hall mark traits of them are?
Moreover the Blaster is the only HAV turret designed to take down shields. Your assertion that Shield HAV need a crutch or some advantage vs the ONLY large turret designed to take them down is moot.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1333
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:19:00 -
[276] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. I hope thats for the standard HAVs we have
2. All modules from chrome should be brough back, active armor reppers and nerf passive, constant passive shield regen needs to come back along with the modules to boost passive regen
3. Agree
1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well. 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem) 3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs.
3. The problem isn't the Gunnlogi being too powerful, it's the Gunnlogi being able to put on PG extenders, CPU extenders which give it a lot of fitting power whereas the Madrugar doesn't get that luxury. Also, the Madrugar CPU is despicable and too low.
The choice of low slot modules is very very limited whereas in high slots, Madrugars have the luxury of putting on Damage mods and Fuel injectors and Scanners (fitting problems aside), the only thing Gunnlogi/shield tanks have are Armor plates, Armor reps, Armor hardeners, and worthless stupid ammo modules.
This however is not going to change unless we introduce modules to put on lows that somehow benefit/ make the overall shield tank stronger. As of now, I often find a lot of AV weapons getting through to my Shields on my Gunnlogi and that extra 3000 armor I have laying around helps with the surviveabilty. Whereas the Madrugars can constantly keep repping though AV, Gunnlogi doesn't have that option. It's either trust your life to a shield booster ( Which don't even work half the time) or Put on a hardeners. Now I must say, putting on two hardeners on a Gunnlogi (complex hardeners because ADV and STD are sh*t) and a complex shield extender(only one worth using) requires the use of those two low slot modules toward CPU/PG upgrades.
I often just put on a damage mod. And rather put on a plate than put on a extra shield hardener and sacrifice that 1500 or so HP.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1333
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:32:00 -
[277] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can't rep...
It's not slow at all. It's essentially what makes Shield HAV OP as hell. They are able to rep at a prolific pace (3x the old statistics) for not having to fit a module meaning that any HAV pilot worth their salt can manage this overly powerful passive shield regeneration over the course of 20 seconds to have nullified almost all AV damage again them. The reason tanks back in the day were good and balanced and arguably more skill intensive was because damage applied to a tank then was longer lasting and required the use of modules or multiple modules to repair. No Tank, not shield, not armour deserves a meaningful regeneration without having to fit modules. If you look at a Shield HAV vs an Armour HAV currently in any circumstance a Shield HAV will win. Hands down it is superior...so your assertion it is unfair that a Shield HAV has a down side in CQC in brawling........like (shock horror) Caldari tech would is moot. Armour HAV, armour everything in New Eden has equivalent or more HP/eHP than shield variants. The reason for this is that armour itself does not regenerate, regeneration power being a huge factor of any conflict where TTK is measured in tens of seconds or minutes. Now for the longest time since 1.7 Shield HAV has dominated in roles they should not be as powerful in annexing the Armour HAV from tactical and competitive use. Armour Tanks, Gallente Tech, Gallente Tanks are designed to brawl up close and have the edge in CQC fights using powerful active reps to cover for their lack of any passive regeneration. Shield Tanks, Caldari Tech, Caldari Tanks are designed to kite out at longer ranges and have the edge in ranged combat through superior access to damage modules (LOW SLOT MODULES) and slow natural regen alongside powerful spikes of Shield Boosts. Now in the scenario you are discussion I am assuming you are talking about a passive tanked Gunnlogi, the kind that stacks Extenders and a Hardener..... THATS WHAT A PASSIVE TANK IS! You guys do understand what passive and active tanks are the hall mark traits of them are? Moreover the Blaster is the only HAV turret designed to take down shields. Your assertion that Shield HAV need a crutch or some advantage vs the ONLY large turret designed to take them down is moot.
Actually, a railgun and a missile turret are just as viable at killing shield tanks than armor tanks (missile might be a little worse but it still kills). Also, Armor tanks can get over 200 passive reps easily and still maintain more HP than a shield tanker unless shield tanker armor tanks.
If I was to change shield passive reps, I would change it to-
Standard Gunnlogi- 55 shield reps per second
Enforcer- 65 shield reps per second
Marauder- 85 shield reps per sec.
The old shield rep per second was terrible repping like .3% of my total tanks worth of EHP every second. I would like to more close to one to 3% assuming you had about a 6000 shield tank.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1333
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:36:00 -
[278] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).
Wow, where did you get these stats?
A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense.
I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16115
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:37:00 -
[279] - Quote
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/62328-Inferno-1-2-Brawling-tormentor.html
Here is an example of the Corp Tormentor. It is a passive tank with 4,750 + HP base and 6,250 eHP with the Damage Control Active. These values are with my current skills and as the comments point out this fit can have almost 7,500 eHP.
This is an example of a passive tank.
Traits
-High Static Armour/Shield Values
-Strong Resistances
-Little to no Repair or Regeneration capabilities.
-Higher Total eHP's
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/67948-Tormentor-Scorch-Scram-Range-Kite.html
This is an example of the same ship but Active Tanked.
It has significantly less eHP before the activation of its repair unit which bumps up eHP to totals of armour 6,000-6,500.
Traits
-Low Static Shield and Armour Values
-Moderate Resistances as with less HP convey less benefits
-Powerful Repair and Regeneration Modules
-Lower Total eHP's but better capacity to manage crises.
No tank should have both
-High eHP caps
-Strong Resistances
-Strong Passive Regeneration
-The ability to fit Strong Active Regeneration as well
That's taking the best of both worlds and spitting on balance.
Again these are examples of where our vehicle modules came from. If a meaningful balance can be achieved using these modules on hulls with similar HP and module values as us then it can be done here. But 168 rep values is almost as powerful as a Shield Boosters pulse.
*"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
16116
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:39:00 -
[280] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense.
Less Base EHP.... almost like oh I don't know.....they used to. Also considering they have 1 extra module slot than the other variations their eHP is able to be much higher.
Gunnlogi (Old Hull) - Shields 3250 Armour 1250
Sagaris (Old Hull) - Shields 3120 Armour 1000
Checks and balances mate. That 200 HP the marauder looses over another hull is almost immediately made up for 2-3x over by that other module slot.
Also for the enforcers since they would not be able to fit as many eHP modules due to their low PG and CPU allotment would have a fair base hull value to make them competitive.
*"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
157
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:40:00 -
[281] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield.
The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1333
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:46:00 -
[282] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield. The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats
Nahh bro, it doesn't make sense. It's like giving the heavy suit less base HP than the Assault but with more assault. It wouldn't feel like a heavy. Anyway, I only added about 400 base HP which is only about 300 more than the base tank.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16116
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:47:00 -
[283] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield. The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats
That's it!
Yup spot on.
The power of the HAV should never lie in its hull.
Not the overly powerful Shield reps or the bonuses. It is about the fitting of your vehicle.
As I mentioned in that design/suggestion/proposal
Cruiser HAV - Standard allotments of PG and CPU with moderate slot lay outs of customisability to role and or need.
Design Ideal - Light or Medium Cruiser Tanks of WW2
Marauder HAV- Higher CPU and PG allotments with slightly large slot lay outs for increased eHP (but slighty lesser hull values to balance out the effectiveness of that extra module slot.)
Design Ideal: Heavy Infantry Tanks of WW2
Enforcer HAV - Lowest PG and CPU allotment to slightly more PG and CPU to allow eHP modules a little bit more effectiveness on the hull while trying to encourage weapons enhancement modules.
Design Ideal: Modern "Protected Gun System" or Tank Destroyers of WW2
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1333
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 20:48:00 -
[284] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. Less Base EHP.... almost like oh I don't know.....they used to. Also considering they have 1 extra module slot than the other variations their eHP is able to be much higher. Gunnlogi (Old Hull) - Shields 3250 Armour 1250 Sagaris (Old Hull) - Shields 3120 Armour 1000 Checks and balances mate. That 200 HP the marauder looses over another hull is almost immediately made up for 2-3x over by that other module slot. Also for the enforcers since they would not be able to fit as many eHP modules due to their low PG and CPU allotment would have a fair base hull value to make them competitive.
well, I guess it makes sense then.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16116
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:05:00 -
[285] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.
Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.
Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather
Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85
Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34
However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.
I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)
Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.
Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones). Wow, where did you get these stats? A Sagaris having less base hp than a Gunnlogi and an enforcer- are you out of your mind? That doesn't make sense. I would make sagaris 3325 shield, 1225 armor. Surya I would do 3650 armor, 1225 shield. The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats Nahh bro, it doesn't make sense. It's like giving the heavy suit less base HP than the Assault but with more assault. It wouldn't feel like a heavy. Anyway, I only added about 400 base HP which is only about 300 more than the base tank.
Think of it like this.
An Amarr Medium Frame has 190 Shields and 245 Armour and 4 low slots
An Amarr Assault has has 160 Shields and 225 Armour and 5 low slots a well as suit bonuses.
If put the same fitting in both suits the Assault still has one slot left over to boost its eHP. It will theoretically always be equivalent to or better than the standard variant. However it's additional benefits are kept in check with reasonable respect for balance vs the standard suit so that while the Assault is more powerful it is manageable for the standard suit.
In terms of vehicles.
Passive Tanked Madrugar
Damage Control
Heat Sink
180mm Polycrystalline Plating (+2750 Armour)
2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane (+16.75% Armour resistances (20.1% at Armour Adaption V))
1x Complex Light Repper
Static HP- 1125 Shields 6150 Armour
eHP- 1226.25 Shields 9058 Armour
Passive Tanked so very little armour rep.
Passive Tanked Surya
Damage Control
Heat Sink
180mm Polycrystalline Plating (+2750 Armour)
3x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane (+16.75% Armour resistances (20.1% at Armour Adaption V))
1x Complex Light Repper
Static HP- 1000 Shields 6310 Armour
eHP- 1090 Shields 10782 Armour
Passive Tanked so very little armour rep.
Differences are 1724.4 Armour eHP more than enough to qualify as better than the Maddy.
Now I went conservatively and applied the Damage Control to the base hull values only rather than the total plus plate..... that only serves to widen the gap between the Surya and Madrugar with the Surya simply being better.
*"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
16117
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:24:00 -
[286] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
well, I guess it makes sense then. I'm for it. If this will bring back chromosome like tanking, I'm all for it. Or at least chromosome memories.
I want what you want from HAV. I want them powerful and viable to use but at the same time requiring skill to use effectively. But HAV need to have checks and balances.
If we are too powerful people complain, when they complain CCP takes action and tanks are back to being crap.
Now I think the player base can tolerate HAV with 10,000 eHP if they lack regen power and mobility. I think they can tolerate HAV having the most powerful AV weapons if the hulls we use them on are low on the eHP scale, and I think that they can tolerate the current tanks we have now with some changes that benefit tanks as a whole but slightly reduce eHP of Shield HAV and increase armour HAV.
When I make suggestions I tend to use the old HAV stats from Chromosome and Uprising alonside EVE precedents/ modules from the Destroyer and Frigate sized ships (which are great as they have really similar HP values, same module slots, same gun numbers, etc).
The Hall marks of that time were
-an Immersive and Expansive SP tree for tank and vehicle users separated in racial skills
-ISK intensive role
-SP intensive role
-Fitting intensive role (Fittings were crucial to tank use)
-Armour HAV were slow, stand and deliver, high HP tanks with powerful active reps
-Shield HAv were slightly faster, kting, tanks with slow but constant passive regeneration that could be modified in tandem with high HP or used powerful reps in conjunction with passive regen.
I'd like to see this again as I feel almost every HAV pilot I've talked to feels the game was more enjoyable for them back then. LAVers the same, and Dropship pilots often the same.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2587
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 21:41:00 -
[287] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no...
What are you talking about, duster?
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
4047
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:06:00 -
[288] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no... What are you talking about, duster?
I have no idea. Im guessing he didnt read like....the next post which says "Yeah, I mean that for Standard HAVs"
I think in general we're all probably being a little more hostile than we should be, myself included. Lets all take a deep breath, relax, and get back to the subject at hand in a polite and constructive manner ^_^
Lets outline a couple of the key points I think most of us agree on.
1. Increase Slot layout for standard HAVs to 4/2 and 2/4 paired with a decrease in base HP to put less emphasis on the hull and more emphasis on the modules themselves
2. At the least bring back PG/CPU boosting skills to compensate for the additional fitted module. (Will this overbuff dropships?)
3. Madrugar needs an additional increase to resources, mostly in CPU but PG as well.
4. Reintroduce 180mm Armor Plates as the "standard" fitting for a Madrugar to push its eHP higher to offset the Gunnlogi's strong HP regen.
5. Reintroduce Active Armor Reps
6. Potentially remove delay from Shield recharge, lower recharge rate, allow it to recharge under fire. (Will this be confusing for players because it breaks convention from how Dropsuit Defenses work?)
6a. Allow players to fit a Recharge to increase passive regen by a low-moderate amount constantly
6b. Allow players to fit a Booster to increase regen rate greatly for a limited time with a cooldown
I'd like to get an actual document set up in the next couple days with a solid outline.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16122
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:25:00 -
[289] - Quote
*breathes in.......
*breathes out
*"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
133
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:53:00 -
[290] - Quote
Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses)
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
4048
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:20:00 -
[291] - Quote
I agree True, current shield regen rate on an armor vehicle would be....insane if it was repping constantly against incoming fire. It would basically be negating the first 100dps of incoming damage constantly. That being said, if you want to go with this direction you have to be VERY careful with exactly how much passive regen is possible on a shield vehicle. Everyone knows how much of a pain in the ass it was to kill triple rep-maddys pre-nerf. Now imagine a similar situation, but now the vehicle has additional buffer and is hardening at 40-80% nearly constantly because it doesn't have to fit any modules to get that passive regen. Remember what I said about effective rep rate? You have to take resistance into account when looking at regen rates. If something reps at 168 HP/s but its resists 50% of the incoming damage, it's really repping at 252 eHP a second.
The fact that it basically has a built in passive armor repair (but for shields obviously), the value HAS to be kept very low, that way it forces people who want higher regen to actually fit modules designed to do so. Again, focus needs to be on the MODULES, not the HULL. I just want to be clear to those of you who have not played EVE...passive shield recharge naturally is EXTREMELY slow. We're talking 5-10 minutes to recharge completely unassisted on a battleship. Now yes, the pace of EVE is much slower than Dust so you can't make regen THAT slow, but at the same time, unfitted, it should be taking you a noticeable amount of time to regen all of your HP. So like....168HP/s like it has now is completely out of the question. Toss a hardener on there and you'll be nearly immune to most AV for the duration of the hardener. Cycle a couple of them and now you're unkillable...so yeah...it's gotta be a low value unless fit with module designed to buff the regen.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16124
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:24:00 -
[292] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses)
I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module.....
A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted)
A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two minutes.
Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules.
Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff.
*"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
133
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:31:00 -
[293] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff.
I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back
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
16124
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:33:00 -
[294] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back
Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers.
*"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
133
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 23:39:00 -
[295] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers. Again the above suggestion of between 100 seconds and 150 seconds is only when a tank is solely relying on passive shield recharge. It is significantly lower if you are being Logi'd (remote shield transporter) or using a Booster yourself.
oh I meant I was leaning towards the 100-120ish range instead of including all the way up to 150...(although I do acknowledge that 150 may be more reasonable)
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
16131
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 02:01:00 -
[296] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Adamance, what do you think a good regeneration time on a Gunnlogi should be? (I've been working on some fitting numbers to go with my bonuses) I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module..... A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted) A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes. Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source. @ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper. Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules. Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff. I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers. Again the above suggestion of between 100 seconds and 150 seconds is only when a tank is solely relying on passive shield recharge. It is significantly lower if you are being Logi'd (remote shield transporter) or using a Booster yourself. oh I meant I was leaning towards the 100-120ish range instead of including all the way up to 150...(although I do acknowledge that 150 may be more reasonable)
The more total EHP you stack the longer it will take you to regenerate it all.
*"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
133
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 02:15:00 -
[297] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I think on a passive tanked Shield HAV (this is an HAV without an Active Repair Module.....
A Regen Modded Tank could have a 100 second to full (from fully depleted)
A non Regen Modded HAV could be in excess of two and a half minutes.
Bearing in mind an Armour tank will never regenerate its HP unless assisted by a rep module or an outside source.
@ a Supply depot this is at a rate of 100 HP per second
Under friendly repairs that is maybe 150 per second but requires another player or you to leave your vehicle
Under an Active Repper that is 414 per pulse 5x for a 30 second duration and a 30 second cool down unmodified and assuming the old Efficienct Heavy Active Repper.
Remember these are passive benefits that only shield HAV have, they do not have to fit a module to get their primary HP tank to regenerate, this is a constant passive status that is not interrupted, and this is a statistic that will work in conjunction with with active regenerative modules.
Even lowered to the old values a Shield HAV will not only have greater regenerative power but an additional constant repair value while under fire amounting to what is effectively a small damage resistance buff.
I know it's a shield tanking only benefit, I was thinking somewhere in that ballpark to recharge, but on the lower end to maintain dust pacing, and then put a flat regen bonus on shield extenders to maintain the recharge time artificially...with the hopeful re-introduction of high buffer plates, and a rebalance of the fitting values, it will hopefully balance out in the end with the shear amount of armor that armor based HAVs could back Reread above post I amended it with the basic old HAV numbers. Again the above suggestion of between 100 seconds and 150 seconds is only when a tank is solely relying on passive shield recharge. It is significantly lower if you are being Logi'd (remote shield transporter) or using a Booster yourself. oh I meant I was leaning towards the 100-120ish range instead of including all the way up to 150...(although I do acknowledge that 150 may be more reasonable) The more total EHP you stack the longer it will take you to regenerate it all.
I want to try to make it more like it is on the starships, where the hull has a recharge time and adding buffer doesn't change the time to recharge
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
166
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 02:26:00 -
[298] - Quote
In the year twenty and twelve (lol) CCP said "Let there be DUST". Thus was created the MCC. And it was good.
Lo and behold, CCP said "Let there be space guns". And it was good.
And CCP said, "Let there be tanks, and dropships, and all manner of LAV to roam the wilderness." And it was good.
And man was blessed with all manner of modules, and turret choices. So that no two men drove the same tank. And it was good.
And lo, from the heavens fell a suit that had a tank ready the second he hit the ground, and CCP blessed him with the power to hunt other tanks and reap the bounty of tears that he did sow. And it was good.
And to the heavens he did offer his praises in the form of burnt offerings. And CCP was pleased.
And upon the plains did roam the suits, and tanks, and dropships, and all manner of LAV. And the fruit of this garden was for all men to share. And for a time this did carry on, and was enough.
Yet lo.
Into the garden did slither a serpent.
And he spoke unto the ears of man "Has thou really a need to struggle? Didst thou seek a more relaxed experience? Eat of the fruit from the tree of instant gratification, and see how your gods might be manipulated."
And some men did eat, and come to think that the plains should belong to man, and man alone.
They burnt golden offerings to make the gods hear their pleas. And lo, the gods could hear nothing else.
Those that did not eat, knew not of the cries to the heavens. And continue to roam they did until even through the red mists, it was as if written in the skies.
And lo, CCP did cast out the beasts that burdened man. And did strip them of their robes, and did place upon them a lasting mark (unless you respec) that would forever warn others of their choices.
And for generations the beasts did wander the darkness on foot, and bruise the heel, and scathe the shin, and did learn well the ways of man.
Yet lo.
The beasts remembered their time on the plains fondly, and harbored no ill towards their gods. To roam again, thus was their only wish.
And to their gods they did offer gold at last. The flesh of man shall be ignored until into a corner the beasts are placed.
"Upon each other shall we feast, for we can now walk as men. And men shall not know us as beasts. And should a beast sup upon the flesh of man, all will see, and upon this beast we shall set."
TL;DR
As an OG tanker forced into an infantry role due to the complete lack of fun in vehicle op, if these variants were to return, I would return to my original purpose. Tank-killer. As would many others. Thus forcing me to create a budget for dust.
"Tossin uplinks and runnin fer my life" ~ Gunny blownapart
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 07:56:00 -
[299] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.
1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar #1 for the marauders? Hell no... What are you talking about, duster? I have no idea. Im guessing he didnt read like....the next post which says "Yeah, I mean that for Standard HAVs" I think in general we're all probably being a little more hostile than we should be, myself included. Lets all take a deep breath, relax, and get back to the subject at hand in a polite and constructive manner ^_^ Lets outline a couple of the key points I think most of us agree on. 1. Increase Slot layout for standard HAVs to 4/2 and 2/4 paired with a decrease in base HP to put less emphasis on the hull and more emphasis on the modules themselves 2. At the least bring back PG/CPU boosting skills to compensate for the additional fitted module. (Will this overbuff dropships?) 3. Madrugar needs an additional increase to resources, mostly in CPU but PG as well. 4. Reintroduce 180mm Armor Plates as the "standard" fitting for a Madrugar to push its eHP higher to offset the Gunnlogi's strong HP regen. 5. Reintroduce Active Armor Reps 6. Potentially remove delay from Shield recharge, lower recharge rate, allow it to recharge under fire. (Will this be confusing for players because it breaks convention from how Dropsuit Defenses work?) 6a. Allow players to fit a Recharge to increase passive regen by a low-moderate amount constantly 6b. Allow players to fit a Booster to increase regen rate greatly for a limited time with a cooldown I'd like to get an actual document set up in the next couple days with a solid outline.
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
Choo Choo
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16140
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 08:17:00 -
[300] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots.....
Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 08:57:00 -
[301] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts?
My thoughts on what exactly?
marauders? Tanks? Slots?
Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets?
Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy.
Even when bursting.
Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate.
Choo Choo
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16145
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 10:04:00 -
[302] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate.
Yeah I think I proved that to some guys today. Accidentally rolled into a Raillogi and a Railgar.....and successfully did a figure 8 around them on a cliff side to kill the Maddy and escape.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 10:52:00 -
[303] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate. Yeah I think I proved that to some guys today. Accidentally rolled into a Raillogi and a Railgar.....and successfully did a figure 8 around them on a cliff side to kill the Maddy and escape.
Erm, my brain is tired so, proved what exactly?
And could you please tell me if the STD blaster is more accurate than MLT? I don't have any skills in large blasters yet because I don't see the point going from mlt to std.
Choo Choo
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
269
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 11:27:00 -
[304] - Quote
1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout
2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4049
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:41:00 -
[305] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
158
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 15:58:00 -
[306] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout
2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
As I've said before,
Standard HAV 4/2
Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3
Marauder HAV 5/2
Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:11:00 -
[307] - Quote
Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is.
I mean basically what happened with the "rework":
Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued.
Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit.
Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate.
Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless.
Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness.
And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily *some* of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
159
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:20:00 -
[308] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Indeed. I'm totally fine with hulls being non-tiered, but if that's the case the modules have to have a strong impact in determining how good a fit is.
I mean basically what happened with the "rework":
Removed many of the bonuses associate with skills, so SP investment was heavily devalued.
Removed difference in many of the modules, so immediate combat effectiveness was uniform regardless of fit.
Removed fitting slots, so base HP and attributes had to be buffed to compensate.
Fitting no longer mattered, so spending SP to unlock "higher" modules was pointless.
Damage mods were buffer to a stupid level of effectiveness.
And what did we get? 6+ Double Damage Modded, armor tanked Sicas fit with militia modules and a railgun in every match and being more successful than "properly" fit, high SP vehicles. Luckily *some* of those issues were improved a little bit but yeah.....it's messed up.
I think if mlt tanks got a 2/1 layout with these changes than mlt tanks would actually suck like they're supposed to.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:25:00 -
[309] - Quote
Standard at 4/2 and Militia at 2/1? Probably *too* much of a difference then. MLT tanks should suck, but not be totally a point Pinata Regardless I don't think Militia vehicles is really a thing we need to be thinking about at this point. They'll be based off of the STD vehicles so lets get those worked out first.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2588
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:09:00 -
[310] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
[/quote]
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine.
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.
2588
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:15:00 -
[311] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour
We already had the Enforcers with MLT fitting. If they're brought back the same as Uprising 1.0, they'll be useless. Seems like they'd be taken out by a Sica in 3 rounds, which should not happen. They were true paper tanks, completely useless, wrecked by the Madrugar and Gunnlogi, and competent pilots in the MLT tanks using those for the lols in taking out an Enforcer with one.
And you put the same slot layout for an armor tank as the shield tank.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:23:00 -
[312] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine.
Do Marauders really need 2 slots more than a Standard HAV? Even the old ones only had +1
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2588
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:25:00 -
[313] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine.
Do Marauders really need 2 slots more than a Standard HAV? Even the old ones only had +1
That's when infantry didn't have vehicles by the balls. They have vehicles in the palm of their hands now, and we're trying to take that away from them.
Don't nerf them straight out the box.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:27:00 -
[314] - Quote
*sigh*
Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2591
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:31:00 -
[315] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:*sigh*
Assume that Standard HAVs perform properly against infantry for a moment. Do the Marauders need 2 slots on top of that?
Assume? They already perform poorly against infantry.
I had some sap whose tank I bested, who then proceeded to take out an assault suit and get me to less than 900 armor in just 3 volleys.
If AV is going to stay as is, then yeah, Marauders need all those slots so they don't get taken out by infantry so easily.
As I've said, AV should be a deterrent. Because video game.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:33:00 -
[316] - Quote
...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:34:00 -
[317] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. [/quote]
Correction: I admittedi don't use Madrugars. Read into posts a bit, I never said anything about gunnies, or Pythons, which I use extensively. Have you read my sig?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2592
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:48:00 -
[318] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that?
AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same.
But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:49:00 -
[319] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers.
Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:52:00 -
[320] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable.
We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3)
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:56:00 -
[321] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable.
It is more reasonable.
Just give us the cpu and pg to fit those slots unlike the madrugar armor plate fit.
Oh and maybe a base 10% DR on the hull.
And a small accuracy buff on large blasters, thise are stupidity inaccurate against decent opposition.
Choo Choo
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:02:00 -
[322] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
We've been saying 5/2 since about 8 pages ago... But I disagree with enforcers getting an extra mod for their tank, I would rather it be the same as std(4/2) or have it gain an extra off rack mod(4/3)
Spkr4theDead wrote:
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine.
Maybe he just made a typo then.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
273
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:17:00 -
[323] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots.
3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
273
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:19:00 -
[324] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Marauders/Enforcers - 5/3 layout
2. Passive Hardeners - They were great, lower PG/CPU requirements but did a decent job
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways 5/3 is probably too much. As I've said before, Standard HAV 4/2 Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3 Marauder HAV 5/2 Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well.
1. 5/3 - If Caldari is 5/3 then Amarr will be 5/3 also due to polar opposites of tanking, shield/armor now that means Minmatar could be 4/4 like it is for assault suits and Gallente is the same 5/3 or even 5/4 |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:20:00 -
[325] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it
That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2595
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:35:00 -
[326] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable.
With the bolded stipulation.
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
4050
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:41:00 -
[327] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:...
Lets assume hypothetically that Standard HAVs were buffed in such a way that they performed properly against AV. Under that assumption, do Marauders need 2 additional slots on top of that? AV should be brought down, and tanks could be kept the same. But they need 4 HP slots and 2 secondaries. Marauders 5 HP slots/2 secondaries and same with Enforcers. Ok, you were going with 5/3 before, which seemed like too much of an upgrade over the Standard 4/2. I think 5/2 is much more reasonable. With the bolded stipulation.
Well what I was trying to get at is simply looking specifically at Standard HAVs vs Marauder HAVs. If Marauders needed 5/3 to survive against AV, Standards obviously would be totally screwed. That would be bad. We have to balance the HAVs against one another first before balancing them against outside elements...that's the point I was trying to make.
Yes the balance against AV needs to be adjusted at well, but that's outside the current phase of this design.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1334
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:13:00 -
[328] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate.
15% less damage is unreasonable suggestion. Do we penalize sentinels with damage reduction because they have more HP and resistances over the normal heavy suits.. NO.. Then why marauders? Where is this logic coming from. You can't just simply take a weapon and reduce it's damage.
For example- if you take a M16 from a soldiers hands and put it in the hand of a Terrorist, no matter what- that gun will still do the same amount of damage as it did in soldiers hands, it will travel same speed. ect.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1334
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:16:00 -
[329] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting. LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book. So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed.
Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2661
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:17:00 -
[330] - Quote
I'M BACK
With that out of the way, I'd like to say three things:
1: Pokey has said mostly what I would have, therefore, my opinion is his. Same for the kitty.
2: The only thing I haven't seen mentioned, at least not much is balance between logistic vehicles. Simply put, if each has about equal strengths in what I call the logistic triangle (logistic actions that vehicles can do, which is ferrying infantry, repping things, and rearming things), then not all three will be used as much as the other, but rather which one is the most efficient at doing them all at once. Therefore, I say that there should be three logistic vehicles, and each should get bonuses for only 1 area of the triangle And since we already got models of them, LLV's can get repping (the special infantry rep, but instead of it being like a vehicle rep which was broken, a nanohive-like bubble around the LLV) and LDS's can get the transport (the CRU on it should be not the same as the regular one, but active, having a much faster spawn rate), and when MAV's come, a LMV should be introduced (and it should get a mobile Supply depot).
3: Along with some old modules (I want my heat sinks back dammit  ), new ones, maybe even a new section of addons for vehilces needs to be added for deployables like vehicle nanohives.
That is all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:20:00 -
[331] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate. 15% less damage is unreasonable suggestion. Do we penalize sentinels with damage reduction because they have more HP and resistances over the normal heavy suits.. NO.. Then why marauders? Where is this logic coming from. You can't just simply take a weapon and reduce it's damage. For example- if you take a M16 from a soldiers hands and put it in the hand of a Terrorist, no matter what- that gun will still do the same amount of damage as it did in soldiers hands, it will travel same speed. ect.
Less power going to the turret?
Just saying if there has to a penalty, I mean people might say why use the std hav's?
Choo Choo
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
160
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:20:00 -
[332] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots. 3. It just makes it madatory to put on a HP module - Right now on my current gunlogi fit it has no extenders on it That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting. LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book. So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed. Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors.
The whole point of changing the slot layout and base hp is so you ARENT forced to tank....... If you want to build a tank around utility, you can with these ideas. If you want hp, you can put on hp mods, but you don't have to. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your arguing about.....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Bam Nutshot
Kaalmayoti Warzone Control
48
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:22:00 -
[333] - Quote
^ Scrub alert
Keep nerfing tanks Don't litsen to what he says i wan't tanks so nerfed i can one shot them with a python missile
For the State!
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1334
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:22:00 -
[334] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:
So would the marauders have 5/2 and 2/5?
And what would thier base hp be?
They could be depending on whether or not we here can come with a way to abuse 5 slots..... Old values aren't too bad. What were your thoughts? My thoughts on what exactly? marauders? Tanks? Slots? Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets? Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy. Even when bursting. Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate. 15% less damage is unreasonable suggestion. Do we penalize sentinels with damage reduction because they have more HP and resistances over the normal heavy suits.. NO.. Then why marauders? Where is this logic coming from. You can't just simply take a weapon and reduce it's damage. For example- if you take a M16 from a soldiers hands and put it in the hand of a Terrorist, no matter what- that gun will still do the same amount of damage as it did in soldiers hands, it will travel same speed. ect. Less power going to the turret? Just saying if there has to a penalty, I mean people might say why use the std hav's?
Well, why use heavy frames over sentinels? Why use light frames over scouts? Why use medium frames over Assaults? Same reason, because the STD HAV is there for you to get a taste of vehicles, if you want to go hard core you go for the specialized ones.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1334
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:28:00 -
[335] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
The whole point of changing the slot layout and base hp is so you ARENT forced to tank....... If you want to build a tank around utility, you can with these ideas. If you want hp, you can put on hp mods, but you don't have to. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your arguing about.....
Look, there is no point in choosing anything but tank ever. There is no point in anything because anything other than tank is not viable. When you see a gunnlogi- you most of the time (at least the successful ones) are running all tank modules. Not once do you ever see a Gunnlogi drive up with a freaking scanner and a dam fuel injector.
Nerfing base HP doesn't do anything. If that was your plan you are wrong.
Also, your LAV statement was bull crap, LAV's have about the same base HP of a sentinel and about one to two swarms worth of base HP. If you think lowering base HP but giving more slots is gonna make people choose other modules, they wont.
"A tank without tank is not a viable tank"
What I can see happening is keeping base HP or maybe even increasing it, and giving more slots. Let CPU/PG be the determining factor.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4051
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:39:00 -
[336] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors.
I think you're missing what I'm going for here. I'll use your analogy if it makes it less confusing.
So currently the Gallente Sentinel has a 2/3 slot layout. A Complex armor plate is what, 135? So lets say I reduce the Gallente's Base Armor by 135, and give it a 4th low slot.
So what you can do now is stick an armor plate back into that 4th slot, raising its HP by 135 (yes I know there are skill bonuses and whatnot that wont line up perfectly but bear with me) back up to what it was before the change.
OR
If you dont care about that extra HP, you could put something else in there, like a Kinkat or another Armor Repairer.
I think we all agree that the current slot layout for HAVs is overly limited and lacks much room for creativity. So by adding a slot and reducing the base HP by similar value, you give people more fitting flexibility, but you also allow people who preferred the old way to simply fill that additional slot with an HP mod to counteract the decrease in base HP. I'd probably balance it against an Enhanced HP module, so fitting Enhanced would give you similar HP values, Complex would be a net increase.
Does that make sense? As I've said before Work + Holidays leaves me a little fried.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1250
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:46:00 -
[337] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear Players,
We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now.
Actually, you are finishing the job, not just bringing variety to tanking. Been well over a year since they stripped that that variety away, with promises that you guys would finish vehicles at a later date. Had I know that "later date" would be nearly 2 years down the road, I would have stopped playing then.
Too little too late for me I'm afraid, should have been a priority after they broke vehicles to begin with. GL, check my old postings for tips and pointers on the matter, if any are still around. I wrote quite a bit on this matter already, IE my sig is a great idea for turret variety.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1335
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:55:00 -
[338] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:Heavies have high HP, this allows them to choose modules other than extenders and plates. Why shouldn't this be same for HAV. Why must tanks be forced to tank, why not have scanners or CRU's or fuel injectors. I think you're missing what I'm going for here. I'll use your analogy if it makes it less confusing. So currently the Gallente Sentinel has a 2/3 slot layout. A Complex armor plate is what, 135? So lets say I reduce the Gallente's Base Armor by 135, and give it a 4th low slot. So what you can do now is stick an armor plate back into that 4th slot, raising its HP by 135 (yes I know there are skill bonuses and whatnot that wont line up perfectly but bear with me) back up to what it was before the change. OR If you dont care about that extra HP, you could put something else in there, like a Kinkat or another Armor Repairer. I think we all agree that the current slot layout for HAVs is overly limited and lacks much room for creativity. So by adding a slot and reducing the base HP by similar value, you give people more fitting flexibility, but you also allow people who preferred the old way to simply fill that additional slot with an HP mod to counteract the decrease in base HP. I'd probably balance it against an Enhanced HP module, so fitting Enhanced would give you similar HP values, Complex would be a net increase. Does that make sense? As I've said before Work + Holidays leaves me a little fried.
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
What you fail to understand is no matter what you do, anything but tanking makes a tank enviable.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4052
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:07:00 -
[339] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
Look, there is no point in choosing anything but tank ever. There is no point in anything because anything other than tank is not viable. When you see a gunnlogi- you most of the time (at least the successful ones) are running all tank modules. Not once do you ever see a Gunnlogi drive up with a freaking scanner and a dam fuel injector.
I use Damage mods on my Gunnlogi's frequently. Back in the day I would often forgo main-rack defenses in exchange for specific utility if the situation dictated it. I used to have 5-10 different fits for each vehicle, all a little different and most not dedicated to 100% tank.
Let me present it to you in reverse. As you know, all dropsuits within a role and race have the same base HP, regardless of tier. So assume for a moment that a Standard Amarr Sentinel has 1000 base armor, and no slots. Advanced has 1000 base armor and 1 low, and Prototype has 1000 base armor and 2 lows. Now if you fit those lows with complex armor plates, you end up with a bit over 1300 armor.
Not only is this very boring in terms of fitting, but the difference between running an unfit standard suit, and running a fully fit Proto suit, is ~300 HP. So for the cost of a very cheap suit and no modules, you only gain 300 HP for the cost of a Proto suit and 2 additional modules. That's not a huge incentive to run more expensive stuff is it? Big benefit for nearly no cost.
So by my logic what would make sense is say "Hey, lets lower the base HP but offer up more slots so that at proto full fit you still get ~1300 armor, but an unfit standard suit, or even a standard suit with crappy modules, is significantly less effective than a proto suit. So you end up with a progression exactly like we have now for the Sentinels.
So for someone like you who prioritizes defenses over everything else, no its not going to offer much in terms of flexibility because you'll just fill it with HP anyways. That's fine. What it DOES do however is force you to spend the ISK on better modules to get a larger benefit, rather than relying on a substantial amount of base HP that just comes built in with the price of the hull.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4052
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:10:00 -
[340] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1335
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:11:00 -
[341] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all?
Yes I would. No joke.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4052
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:13:00 -
[342] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all? Yes I would. No joke.
Well that's a pretty fundamental difference in opinion.
Then I guess this conversation is over because I would never support anything like that.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2661
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:19:00 -
[343] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
well, why don't we just give all suits 0 ehp but a bunch of slots.
It just doesn't make sense. There is no point in how much base HP you take away slots you give, in the end, it will always go toward a tank modules unless you are trying to run around with at roll fit.
Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all? Yes I would. No joke.
What in the absolute ****?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
168
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:19:00 -
[344] - Quote
This discussion is moot without module variety.
All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... *yawn* (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail)
Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same.
An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy.
Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster.
Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m.
Missile vs missile is just sad to watch.
Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in.
Give us some teeth, or just take them all out.
27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better 
"Tossin uplinks and runnin fer my life" ~ Gunny blownapart
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4052
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:25:00 -
[345] - Quote
Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... *yawn* (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better
Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =(
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
6722
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:32:00 -
[346] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill.
This.
Also, after reading through the whole thread, I like Pokey and True's ideas. Particularly about removing HP and adding the extra mod so that more variety can exist.
I also think it would be interesting if HAVs could have some sort of transport capacity. Essentially making LAVs a more risky option in terms of solo/small group transport, particularly keeping in mind that BPO LAVs sound like they are on their way, with Dropships being somewhat safer/faster/greater capacity, and HAVs being a slower and safer option.
I apologize if that last bit was a little out of the scope of discussion.
Thunderbolt. verb and noun.
"James thunderbolted in his pants."
"I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1335
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:46:00 -
[347] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot layouts are dismal, and 2. I'm tired of unfit LAVs being a pain in the ass to kill. This. Also, after reading through the whole thread, I like Pokey and True's ideas. Particularly about removing HP and adding the extra mod so that more variety can exist. I also think it would be interesting if HAVs could have some sort of transport capacity. Essentially making LAVs a more risky option in terms of solo/small group transport, particularly keeping in mind that BPO LAVs sound like they are on their way, with Dropships being somewhat safer/faster/greater capacity, and HAVs being a slower and safer option. I apologize if that last bit was a little out of the scope of discussion.
The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16170
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:20:00 -
[348] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
3. Problem is if you make the hull base HP too low it just means you will have to use a slot for a HP module anyways
5/3 is probably too much.
You admitted you don't use vehicles.
5/3 and 3/5 is just fine. [/quote]
They are too much mate.
*"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
16170
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:22:00 -
[349] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... *yawn* (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =(
Teach me how to create a google doc and I'll have a list of modules, stats, etc that were in the game, skills, etc all the goodies up within the day.
*"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
4061
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:11:00 -
[350] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote: This discussion is moot without module variety. All variants will be either hardened or bricked.... *yawn* (and of course the Scrublogi with dmg mods on his mlt rail) Max effort I could drum up maybe 4 fits, but they would all feel the same. An Enforcer without coolant mods is just a rail sica, a marauder without RoF mods is just a triple rep maddy. Blaster vs blaster is boring because both run same blaster. Rail vs rail is a joke at 300m. Missile vs missile is just sad to watch. Our vehicles are so watered down it will take more than reworking old hulls back in. Give us some teeth, or just take them all out. 27 focused mil sp into tanks... respec is looking better and better Totally agree. There is a list of modules that would do excellent if reintroduced. I miss my Nanofiber Speed fits =( Teach me how to create a google doc and I'll have a list of modules, stats, etc that were in the game, skills, etc all the goodies up within the day.
Do you have a google account? Gmail? Anything?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/
Log in, click the (+) in the lower right to open up a new sheet. Fill out the spreadsheet with informational goodness.
When you're done look at the upper right for [SHARE] open that propt, look for the link "Create Share Link" and copy it back here. You can get me on skype too if you need help, name is leowen.dravon
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2664
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:15:00 -
[351] - Quote
Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Zindorak
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
1424
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 03:18:00 -
[352] - Quote
*slides ads's aside*
oooOoooOooo im interested
Pokemon master and Tekken Lord
Give me da iskiez
Gk0 Scout yay :)
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16171
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 03:29:00 -
[353] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more.
Personally I can only see it as a bettering of what we have.....which is mildly because the idea was mine..... but also because currently the large blaster is inappropriate as a tank turret.
Firstly it isn't one.
Secondly it does not fulfil the primarily role of the main gun of a tank.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
DUST Fiend
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
15518
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 10:13:00 -
[354] - Quote
I dont like the sound of a long range tank that insta pops tanks. As a dropship pilot that just sounds like ill be getting one shot by redline tanks again :/
As if two shot isnt bad enough
Flight Academy coming soon(tm) to my YouTube
WoD 514
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
273
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:04:00 -
[355] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.
1. This
2. So far everything is trying to make it like it was in the past but somehow worse and yes im looking at ppl who want specalized HAVs to be 4/2 so then do we get another tank which has a 5/3?
3. Even Uprising 1.0 days the HAV vs HAV battles were fun between the STD HAVs, FG were in a good place aswell the only true AV problems were the broken AV nades and SL and the Enforcers had militia stats
4. Chrome was fun for the Marauders and Missile turrets which actually had splash damage |
75MPH LandShark
MarketHammer Directorate
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:04:00 -
[356] - Quote
The one thing I would like to note is,
when the vehicle respec happened, and the other tanks where pulled. You also pulled the speed mods. The tanks where initially faster so this wasn't an issue, now they have been slowed down and nerfed to the point where they seem slower then before the vehicle re spec. In both movement speed and turn ratio speed, Can we at least get the speed mods back?
The other thing that was pulled was the vehicle support system.
I was solely a Limbus driver and supported tanks with the Limbus. That was taken away too.
There is a nice array to support drop suits, healing nano hives, repair tool, but nothing for a tank or LAV support, you can't keep up on foot with a repair item, and repair nano hives do not effect/heal them,
Is it possible when/if they bring in more vehicle items that we can bring back vehicle support. It made the game much more fun and interesting with the Limbus supporting the tank.
I realize I was maybe the 1-5% that actually utilized the Limbus as a support vehicle instead of a "murder taxi". However I had a long list of players who would swear by my support in combat.
Please don't discount or disregard vehicle support when considering re adding/introducing new tank types.
And please bring back speed modules, it doesn't unbalance anything as one has to sacrifice armor, repair and shields to place a speed module. Just like scouts fast and soft. Heavy can take a punch but can't run from anything.
Even if you have to pay for the Limbus like a BPO item, I would happily pay for that to get vehicle support back into the game. I still don't fully understand why it was first nerfed and then removed completely. |
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:07:00 -
[357] - Quote
75MPH LandShark wrote:
The one thing I would like to note is,
when the vehicle respec happened, and the other tanks where pulled. You also pulled the speed mods. The tanks where initially faster so this wasn't an issue, now they have been slowed down and nerfed to the point where they seem slower then before the vehicle re spec. In both movement speed and turn ratio speed, Can we at least get the speed mods back?
The other thing that was pulled was the vehicle support system.
I was solely a Limbus driver and supported tanks with the Limbus. That was taken away too.
There is a nice array to support drop suits, healing nano hives, repair tool, but nothing for a tank or LAV support, you can't keep up on foot with a repair item, and repair nano hives do not effect/heal them,
Is it possible when/if they bring in more vehicle items that we can bring back vehicle support. It made the game much more fun and interesting with the Limbus supporting the tank.
I realize I was maybe the 1-5% that actually utilized the Limbus as a support vehicle instead of a "murder taxi". However I had a long list of players who would swear by my support in combat.
Please don't discount or disregard vehicle support when considering re adding/introducing new tank types.
And please bring back speed modules, it doesn't unbalance anything as one has to sacrifice armor, repair and shields to place a speed module. Just like scouts fast and soft. Heavy can take a punch but can't run from anything.
Even if you have to pay for the Limbus like a BPO item, I would happily pay for that to get vehicle support back into the game. I still don't fully understand why it was first nerfed and then removed completely.
Oh the times we had when you would shield boost my Falchion and I could take on 2 tanks and a proto assault forge at once...
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
75MPH LandShark
MarketHammer Directorate
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:09:00 -
[358] - Quote
Those where indeed the days my friend |
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:44:00 -
[359] - Quote
Does anyone haveba video of the old marauders and whatbwere thier bonuses?
Choo Choo
|
Vordred Knight
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
573
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:47:00 -
[360] - Quote
Why can't the Gallente Marauders have a bonus to reps?
Don't Do Drugs while playing Eve
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:50:00 -
[361] - Quote
Vordred Knight wrote:Why can't the Gallente Marauders have a bonus to reps?
Who said they couldn't? We're just trying to find the most balanced bonuses while retaining a good slot count
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:56:00 -
[362] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh, yea, shotgun blaster > PLC blaster. PLC blaster in my mind would be used like a rail..... only it would suck more. Personally I can only see it as a bettering of what we have.....which is mildly because the idea was mine..... but also because currently the large blaster is inappropriate as a tank turret. Firstly it isn't one. Secondly it does not fulfil the primarily role of the main gun of a tank.
That matters why? My statement still stands, shotty blaster would end up being better than a PLC blaster, as a PLC blaster would end up being used like a short range rail, which could be done through tracking computers if they were brung back, so pointless
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:57:00 -
[363] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.
1. This 2. So far everything is trying to make it like it was in the past but somehow worse and yes im looking at ppl who want specalized HAVs to be 4/2 so then do we get another tank which has a 5/3? 3. Even Uprising 1.0 days the HAV vs HAV battles were fun between the STD HAVs, FG were in a good place aswell the only true AV problems were the broken AV nades and SL and the Enforcers had militia stats 4. Chrome was fun for the Marauders and Missile turrets which actually had splash damage
Why do you number everything?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:03:00 -
[364] - Quote
Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:59:00 -
[365] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
All the good missile tankers do semi auto anyway, but the thing I want the most for my Falchion fit when they come back is some long range missiles. Maybe bring a long range burst turret like we had before?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2665
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 20:08:00 -
[366] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. All the good missile tankers do semi auto anyway, but the thing I want the most for my Falchion fit when they come back is some long range missiles. Maybe bring a long range burst turret like we had before?
Having it be full auto in CQ makes it just better, but limiting it to semi auto would hurt it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2597
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 21:02:00 -
[367] - Quote
Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger)
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16175
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:29:00 -
[368] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails.
Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
*"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
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:39:00 -
[369] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but modern Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while modern Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths)
Note: I said Largely...not entirely
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:53:00 -
[370] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Go to the Gal FW store. Now tell me, where's my Gal rails.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:55:00 -
[371] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely
Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 01:57:00 -
[372] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger)
Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 02:07:00 -
[373] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One.
Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 02:32:00 -
[374] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Oh another thing, rockets should be put in (a more balanced version of current "missiles", and yes, I think ganking someone in under 10 seconds in the biggest current controllable thing is not balanced), and actual missiles should be put in. More of the higher alpha, higher range ability (maybe raise the velocity, add a small amount of passive tracking?), lower ROF (I'd say even semi auto).
And where's my Gallente rails. Technically all railguns are Gallentean. Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One. Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system
You said largely, which is just wrong, because it's more half and half for Gallente.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 03:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno.
It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16175
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:03:00 -
[376] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods.
*"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
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:04:00 -
[377] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Technically all railguns are Gallentean.
Technically...Railguns and Blasters both originated back when the Caldari People where part of the Gallente Federation making the technology in New Eden a Gallente Invention (although I haven't seen it mentioned if the Amarr went through a Magnetic Acceleration weaponry phase or not), but "modern" Rail Technology is largely designed by the Caldari while "modern" Blasters are largely designed by the Gallente but even still, remain completely interchangeable (I guess the reasoning in lorre would be Legacy Purposes?) but Caldari bonuses tend to emphasize the Range for Rails, while Gallente tend to emphasize tracking on Blasters (Amplifying the weapon system's strengths) Note: I said Largely...not entirely Not entirely true, many Gallente ships uses rails vastly over blasters. Myrmidon with rails imo beats the **** out of a blaster one, and CCP lore wise shows this off in Templar One. Please note the note...also note that I said they remain completely interchangeable (Baltec Megathron uses Rails and a Blaster Rokh...well that's obvious) just they get bonuses primarily focuses on the strengths of their "racially favored" weapon system You said largely, which is just wrong, because it's more half and half for Gallente.
I was referring to the development of the turret weapons themselves, who's designs pretty clearly follow the racial design patterns (and lorre-wise where largely developed (operative word here, developed, not built) by the Caldari State)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:28:00 -
[378] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger.
....................
Do you understand what my above statement said?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:43:00 -
[379] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods.
They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks.
A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16176
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:54:00 -
[380] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks. A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
Weapons mods/ Damage modules are low slot modules though not high slot modules.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:03:00 -
[381] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said?
Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16177
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:08:00 -
[382] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. You could also adjust the spool time and RoF through damage mods. They were trash, never should've needed them. They took up precious low slots in armor tanks. A glass Soma was able to trash everything in no more than 3 rail rounds. That was ridiculous. But needing a module to reduce spool time is just silly.
Reducing Spooltime is directly increasing RoF...... that's essentially what all modules in EVE do for damage. Why would you not want to drecrease the time between shot.
Oddly enough no one who plays Dust appreciates how fast our tanks fire especially the railguns.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 06:08:00 -
[383] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Reducing Spooltime is directly increasing RoF...... that's essentially what all modules in EVE do for damage. Why would you not want to drecrease the time between shot.
Oddly enough no one who plays Dust appreciates how fast our tanks fire especially the railguns.
Railguns fire ridiculously slow.
That's not what those modules do in Dust.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 06:09:00 -
[384] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Rattati, any updated information on all this? Even just little stuff such as potential passive bonuses, or current turret adjustments.
(such as getting the railgun back to what it used to be. I'll take the reduced range, but needs shorter spool time and quicker firing time when holding the trigger) Depends on what you mean by "What it used to be". The state of it during Uprising up to 1.7 was actually pretty decent. Before that, or 1.7 forward? lolno. It had quicker spool and firing time when holding the trigger. .................... Do you understand what my above statement said? Good enough damage, 0/0 shield/armor (there's nothing neutral, and armor gets shafted badly), and spool/refire/overheat before 1.8. I really would like to be able to fire more than 3 rounds while holding the trigger before it overheats.
heatsinks, both active and passive
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2599
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 07:43:00 -
[385] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
heatsinks, both active and passive
I was and still am a fan of the active heatsinks, passive not so much. I'd rather have to activate it and get more out of it, than have it always be there but not get a lot out of it.
If they make it so we only get one more round out the rail with a heatsink active, then they're not worth it anyway.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16181
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 09:39:00 -
[386] - Quote
Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 20:37:00 -
[387] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair.
My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16193
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:14:00 -
[388] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank).
The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal.
You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:17:00 -
[389] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain.
You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16193
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:36:00 -
[390] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain. You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said.
Later iterations of the Sherman could deal with them adequately especially those that mounted the 105mm Howitzer, most with lesser armaments like the 76mm gun were fodder for the tiger as a result of the innovations in armour plating Henschel and Porsche made during the conflicts.
The only downside to early Sherman tanks was the misconception based of misinterpreted reports by Brittish Gunnery teams that a small calibre 6 Pdr gun could knock out a Tiger.....which it could.....at short range against the thinly armoured 62mm plates, as such the original Sherman's were built with the 75mm gun and assumed to be superior to the Tiger.
The result was that many of the lighter German tanks that were also fitting 7.5cm KwK 40 cannons like the Panzer IV, StuG III, and Marder III could engage and destroy Sherman's from a distance. The first Sherman's equipped with 76mm guns were fielded in early 1944..... at the time very late in the war.
Also if I remember correctly an 88mm Gun (the standard Tiger armament) was almost always powerful enough to penetrate Sherman armour at range which meant hit from those guns were devastating to the crewmen inside.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2666
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:47:00 -
[391] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Been reading up about the Tiger Tank of WW2 and in some cases the Heavy Tanks are described as "Break-Through Tanks".
They were slow, with powerful main guns, and thick frontal armour that was designed to engage frontline enemy tanks and punch through enemy defences.
However since the tank itself was not very mobile and had bad horse power to weight ratios these kinds of tanks could be out flanked by smaller, faster tanks, and anti tank infantry which was why given the increased financial costs of producing them they were not deploy into combat alone and were always escorted either by another command of vehicles or a small infantry division of roughly 20-30 men.
That's sounds like a fair role of the Marauder tanks to me. A tough tank to crack with the potential for high HP, but slow making it susceptible to being out manoeuvred by smaller/ More generalist hulls and AV units.
But of course that is a very glaring weakness and so the eHP to Movement Attribute off sets would have to be fair. My Gramps was in the navy, and had a friend that drove a Sherman, and his friend told me about how easy it was to flank Tigers. I picture doing that a lot (well, that's if they make it to where having rails and missiles is a death sentence to a blaster tank). The only downside was if a Tiger caught you in the open..... and or was supported by other lighter tanks you were facing the thickest armour and one of the largest guns in the european theatre...... but flanking makes sense since the 88mm canon had such slow turret traversal. You'd never want to face the angled forward 102mm welded armour plating when you know that there is less angled 62mm plating on the side and rear of the tank. Trouble I have with the H1 is roughly the same. If a T-34 or a IS-2 gets in close outside say a 60 degree angle I'd have to deal with two armour penetrations before I can bring my own gun to bear. I had two Grandfathers in the Second World War. One a Naval Officer out in the North Sea and the other a Chaplain. You don't even need a commie tank to deal with a Tiger. AS I said, a Sherman could deal with them for the reasons you said. Later iterations of the Sherman could deal with them adequately especially those that mounted the 105mm Howitzer, most with lesser armaments like the 76mm gun were fodder for the tiger as a result of the innovations in armour plating Henschel and Porsche made during the conflicts. The only downside to early Sherman tanks was the misconception based of misinterpreted reports by Brittish Gunnery teams that a small calibre 6 Pdr gun could knock out a Tiger.....which it could.....at short range against the thinly armoured 62mm plates, as such the original Sherman's were built with the 75mm gun and assumed to be superior to the Tiger. The result was that many of the lighter German tanks that were also fitting 7.5cm KwK 40 cannons like the Panzer IV, StuG III, and Marder III could engage and destroy Sherman's from a distance. The first Sherman's equipped with 76mm guns were fielded in early 1944..... at the time very late in the war. Also if I remember correctly an 88mm Gun (the standard Tiger armament) was almost always powerful enough to penetrate Sherman armour at range which meant hit from those guns were devastating to the crewmen inside.
All true, but those requirements were:
You had to find and hit the sherman
You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you
my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16194
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 22:06:00 -
[392] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
All true, but those requirements were:
You had to find and hit the sherman
You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you
my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one.
Power to weight ratio on the Sherman's was very good. But by comparison the Sherman was a lighter tank almost 15 tonnes the Tiger's junior.
Much better comparison due to its similarly sized main gun and armour plating. Unlike the 44,000 Shermans that were produce only something like 1300 Tigers were ever made.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5921
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 13:02:00 -
[393] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
All true, but those requirements were:
You had to find and hit the sherman
You had to keep the Sherman from getting anywhere near you
my gramps friend told me that those two things were easily avoidable, well, until they got their barrel shot off by one.
Power to weight ratio on the Sherman's was very good. But by comparison the Sherman was a lighter tank almost 15 tonnes the Tiger's junior. Much better comparison would be the Panther...which was considered at the time inferior to the Sherman despite due to its similarly sized main gun and armour plating. Unlike the 44,000 Shermans that were produce only something like 1300 Tigers were ever made.
Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles.
Tank history nerd.
But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well?
It is a concern.
However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1190
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 13:12:00 -
[394] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls.
To be honest, I think large turrets should just be revamped in general. None of them operate reasonably like a large turret would: they should essentially be scaled down versions of EVE small turrets, because that is pretty much what they are.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5921
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 15:01:00 -
[395] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls. To be honest, I think large turrets should just be revamped in general. None of them operate reasonably like a large turret would: they should essentially be scaled down versions of EVE small turrets, because that is pretty much what they are.
No they should behave like cannons.
Not upscaled breach AR or bolt pistols.
Having turrets that behave like machineguns isn't really beneficial to the balanxe of turrets being primarily AV.
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
4068
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 16:13:00 -
[396] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles.
Tank history nerd.
But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well?
It is a concern.
However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls.
In terms of AV, since I think both HAVs and LAVs will be changing is to ask "How does AV perform against Dropships in the current iteration". If it is performing properly against Basic and Assault dropships, then don't change AV. If it is under or overperforming, then I would buff/nerf AV accordingly and then rebuild the HAVs and LAVs around those AV values. I unfortunately know very little about dropships and how they currently perform against AV so I can't comment much further on that.
You raise good points that the Marauder would likely need to be the AP HAV. Perhaps it's role bonus should be +% Tracking Speed & Damage of Small Turrets, and then it's racial bonuses be specific to boosting that race's tanking style? As Mr. Adamance pointed out, it would need to have downsides to offset the advantage of bolstered defenses, and in particular mirror the sort of advantages the Enforcer has. Reduction to mobility and effectiveness of large turrets is probably the pillars that should be focused on.
What sort of mobility downsides do you guys see being appropriate?
Acceleration?
Torque?
Top Speed?
Hull Rotation?
What sort of Large Turret downsides do you see as appropriate?
Damage?
Tracking Speed?
Reload Speed?
Magazine Size?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2670
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 17:58:00 -
[397] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Now I know why you're obsessed with vehicles.
Tank history nerd.
But back on topic is the HAV revamp going to come with a balance pass on countering AV as well?
It is a concern.
However I think that if enforcers are the tank destroyer types the marauders should be loaded to do splash again.
It makes no sense that there isn't an HAV rigged to suppress infantry.
With the current tanks holding the role halfwy between the two as the Main Battle Tanks I think there is a lot of room for balancing the three types of hulls.
In terms of AV, since I think both HAVs and LAVs will be changing is to ask "How does AV perform against Dropships in the current iteration". If it is performing properly against Basic and Assault dropships, then don't change AV. If it is under or overperforming, then I would buff/nerf AV accordingly and then rebuild the HAVs and LAVs around those AV values. I unfortunately know very little about dropships and how they currently perform against AV so I can't comment much further on that. You raise good points that the Marauder would likely need to be the AP HAV. Perhaps it's role bonus should be +% Tracking Speed & Damage of Small Turrets, and then it's racial bonuses be specific to boosting that race's tanking style? As Mr. Adamance pointed out, it would need to have downsides to offset the advantage of bolstered defenses, and in particular mirror the sort of advantages the Enforcer has. Reduction to mobility and effectiveness of large turrets is probably the pillars that should be focused on. What sort of mobility downsides do you guys see being appropriate? Acceleration? Torque? Top Speed? Hull Rotation? What sort of Large Turret downsides do you see as appropriate? Damage? Tracking Speed? Reload Speed? Magazine Size?
Acceleration and Top speed and hull rotation should be reduced. Large turret doesn't at that point need nerfing due to already handling worse than a regular HAV or a enforcer. Nerfing it would just be pointless, especially since it's not buffed against infantry (has to have support to even use those bonuses). The thing is made for defense clearly, not roaming, and if you nerf it's defense capabilities against say a HAV, then you're actively nerfing them.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5925
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 18:58:00 -
[398] - Quote
You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles.
If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus.
Done.
Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs.
AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging.
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
4069
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:06:00 -
[399] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles.
If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus.
Done.
Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs.
AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging.
Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5925
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:18:00 -
[400] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles.
If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus.
Done.
Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs.
AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer
I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks.
in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better.
Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink.
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
4069
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:30:00 -
[401] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles.
If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus.
Done.
Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs.
AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks. in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better. Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink.
That really depends entirely on how deeply into the Glass Cannon mentality it goes. I don't think they should be "weak" to AV, rather they shouldn't be able to hang around as long compared to a Marauder, making it difficult to deal with AV directly.
I don't particularly believe in a suit or vehicle being designed as throwaway, nor do I like the super expensive HAV model we had before. I think Specialty vehicles should cost more of course, but none of the crazy price hikes like we used to have.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
279
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:41:00 -
[402] - Quote
1. WOT cannot be compared in DUST
2. In WOT if the penetration value of the shell isnt enough to go through the armor thickness which maybe in increased by angling then damage will not be caused where as in DUST you shoot you score everytime
3. DUST has no light tanks or medium tanks
4. TD in WOT have great frontal armor which is generally angled causing shells to bounce, i cant see it in DUST that they have more resistance at the front of the HAV and weaker at the sides and the back |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16216
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:45:00 -
[403] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You dont have to nerf a heavy turret against vehicles.
If you want it to be less effective versus vehicles don't give it a turret bonus.
Done.
Nerfing HAV turrets further would eliminate the last bits of joy I have murdering HAVs.
AV right now, except in the case of the overtanked gunnlogi, feels too much like a mugging. Fair enough, though also to be fair, if you want to murder HAVs you should use an Enforcer I have a forge gun fit with over 25 million SP dedicated to butchering HAVs. I think it will suit me just fine for murdering all the tanks. in any case enforcers. glass cannons are all well and good but generally you only make a glass cannon if it's more cost-effective and you cannot afford better. Enforcers due to vulnerability to fire need to be less expensive than standard HAVs or else all they are going to be is a repeating fireball ISk sink. That really depends entirely on how deeply into the Glass Cannon mentality it goes. I don't think they should be weak to AV, rather they shouldn't be able to hang around as long compared to a Marauder, making it difficult to deal with AV directly. I don't particularly believe in a suit or vehicle being designed as throwaway, nor do I like the super expensive HAV model we had before. I think Specialty vehicles should cost more of course, but none of the crazy price hikes like we used to have.
Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field.
I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because.
*"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
4069
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:56:00 -
[404] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field.
I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because.
I think we both agree that they need to be more expensive. Standards should be a lesser expensive model. I think where we disagree is to what degree. I guess for me is that people seem to assume "I spent 3 times as much on this, so I should be 3 times harder to kill" That assumption is that the relationship is linear and I suppose my personal viewpoint is that I dont want people trying to use the ISK cost as an argument to buff the vehicles into an overpowered state.
But regardless I'm not very interested in debating over the singular detail that is ISK cost. I would rather like to move into an actual document with some groundwork numbers to work off of since this entire thread is kind of turning into a circular argument and I'd rather just push forward.
Have you had a chance to put together that list of modules you mentioned before? I know things are busy with the holidays and whatnot.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:02:00 -
[405] - Quote
Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them?
Choo Choo
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16217
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:09:00 -
[406] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them?
Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris.
Marauder Videos
Surya Gameplay
Sagaris Gameplay
Vayu Gameplay
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:11:00 -
[407] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay
Thanks, and wow 20% more damage? The hell...
Choo Choo
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16217
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:14:00 -
[408] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Honestly I'm just sitting in the camp that ever T2 side grade HAV needs to be more expensive than the standard tank. If they are not they will be spammed. eHP low or high ISK will limit their use in the field.
I loved the super expensive tank model, I actually used to care about losing a tank because it set me back economically, currently I run a 523,000 ISK tank and couldn't care less if it is destroyed. I still won't care even if a Marauder tank costs 3x as much because.
I think we both agree that they need to be more expensive. Standards should be a lesser expensive model. I think where we disagree is to what degree. I guess for me is that people seem to assume "I spent 3 times as much on this, so I should be 3 times harder to kill" That assumption is that the relationship is linear and I suppose my personal viewpoint is that I dont want people trying to use the ISK cost as an argument to buff the vehicles into an overpowered state. But regardless I'm not very interested in debating over the singular detail that is ISK cost. I would rather like to move into an actual document with some groundwork numbers to work off of since this entire thread is kind of turning into a circular argument and I'd rather just push forward. Have you had a chance to put together that list of modules you mentioned before? I know things are busy with the holidays and whatnot.
I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say.
I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks.
I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc.
*"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
16217
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:19:00 -
[409] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay Thanks, and wow 20% more damage? The hell...
Marauders with blasters used to be able to dish-out up to 180-200 damage per shot which put their DPS where it should be well within the 1400-1500 zone.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2607
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:40:00 -
[410] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Does anyone know tge old marauder skills, or have a vidro on them? Old Marauder Skills were 4% Turret Damage per level. Blasters for the Surya and Missiles for the Sagaris. Marauder Videos Surya Gameplay Sagaris Gameplay Vayu Gameplay
Back when tanks were real tanks. These days need to come back.
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
4072
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:50:00 -
[411] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say.
I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks.
I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc.
Forgive me if you got the impression that I was referring to you with the x3 comment. I know you actually want a balanced approach and are very rational about it, so I wasn't referring to you. And yes ISK can be used as a balancing mechanic, to an extent. Honestly if the old prices come back I wont lose my **** over it, but I will grumble. I think the difference in price between Standard and Specialty was too great, but again it's not a huge factor for me.
Honestly I would have no issue with the JLAV if it actually cost something considerable to pull it off, but as it stands now its akin to ramming a Battleship with a Rookie ship in EVE, both blowing up, and calling that "a valid tactic". Until they actually make it cost a considerable amount, its a BS tactic. Now people running up on foot and manually planting remotes on me? That's kinda like being knifed in the back, but you're in a vehicle instead. That much is totally legit.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16217
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 20:56:00 -
[412] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I never said "I cost 3x more I should be 3x harder to kill". However I do feel ISK is a balancing factor here despite what people say.
I think a tank should become increasingly more expensive with each little slot/percentage increase boost it gets. I also think that in some respects when you as spending that kind of ISK, SP, etc very easy, cheap, and low risk tactics like the JLAV should not present as great a threat to you as they do for lesser tanks.
I want AV and other tanks to take me down, not some idiot in a guided missile which possibly the worst mechanic in this game, hell in Battlefield biker's using C4 have to aim and drop the bombs on my tank, or exit the vehicle and detonate, etc.
Forgive me if you got the impression that I was referring to you with the x3 comment. I know you actually want a balanced approach and are very rational about it, so I wasn't referring to you. And yes ISK can be used as a balancing mechanic, to an extent. Honestly if the old prices come back I wont lose my **** over it, but I will grumble. I think the difference in price between Standard and Specialty was too great, but again it's not a huge factor for me. Honestly I would have no issue with the JLAV if it actually cost something considerable to pull it off, but as it stands now its akin to ramming a Battleship with a Rookie ship in EVE, both blowing up, and calling that "a valid tactic". Until they actually make it cost a considerable amount, its a BS tactic. Now people running up on foot and manually planting remotes on me? That's kinda like being knifed in the back, but you're in a vehicle instead. That much is totally legit.
Yup. Pretty much.
*"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
4073
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 21:35:00 -
[413] - Quote
Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with.
Assumptions:
All Skills to 5
Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules
Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules
Must fit Large Turret
Optional to fit Small Turrets
Arbitrary Example:
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - None
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Advanced Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - Basic Turrets
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Fitting
Main Turret - Proto Turret
Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
639
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:30:00 -
[414] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with.
Assumptions:
All Skills to 5
Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules
Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules
Must fit Large Turret
Optional to fit Small Turrets
Arbitrary Example:
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - None
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Advanced Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - Basic Turrets
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Fitting
Main Turret - Proto Turret
Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets
That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack.
If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16219
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:59:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ok I'm doing some preliminary numbers just so we can work off of a baseline for Basic HAVs (Marauders and Enforcers will use this as a baseline later). So I'd like to get feedback on what sort of fits people would put together. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly which modules, but more so what tier you feel each portion of the HAV would be fit with.
Assumptions:
All Skills to 5
Only Main-Rack filled with Defensive Modules
Only Off-Rack filled with Utility Modules
Must fit Large Turret
Optional to fit Small Turrets
Arbitrary Example:
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - None
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Advanced Utility
Main Turret - Advanced Turret
Small Turrets - Basic Turrets
Main Rack - Proto Defense
Off Rack - Proto Fitting
Main Turret - Proto Turret
Small Turrets - Advanced Turrets That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost.
Cap on Hardeners should really be determined by fitting requirements and not something like an arbitrary hard cap.
*"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
4075
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:13:00 -
[416] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack.
If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost.
Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can).
I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16221
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:31:00 -
[417] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:
That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack.
If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost.
Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can). I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback.
I think its more that desire to see parity between infantry and tanks.
Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess......
No tanker will pick strong small turrets/ utilities when Proto eHP mods and a strong turret can be mounted in their place.
*"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
4077
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 23:35:00 -
[418] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess......
That was my general point.
So where would you place your lot?
Main Rack: Proto
Off Rack: Proto
Main Turret: Proto
Small Turret: None/Basic?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16222
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:21:00 -
[419] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... That was my general point. So where would you place your lot? Main Rack: Proto Off Rack: Proto Main Turret: Proto Small Turret: None/Basic?
On any tank I've ever piloted I've given priority to durability and then to fire power....... given how the Gunnlogi currently works I fit mine following this archetype.
Main Rack : Proto ( I may make concessions for items like the Shield Hardener and Damage Module as all that is affected is cool down timers)
Off Rack : Proto Fitting (most likely since there are no utility modules I need or want in lows)
Main Turret: Always Proto (even on Sica)
Small Turrets: Usually Basic (but on my fits designed to a crew I always use proto)
TL;DR - I cannot think of a reason on the Gunnlogi as it is now to every need anything more than a Proto Tier Tank and a Main Gun which I can always fit. Proto fitting is usually if I want higher tier small turrets alongside a Blaster or wish to stack an armour plate.
PRO tank modules allows me to actually stay on the field for a moderate amount of time and react to anti tanks rounds, while the gun allows me to compete with and dominate lesser tanks and infantry.
On my old Madrugar from Uprising I hatd two fits one Heavy Tank and one Light Scout Tank
Ion Cannon
Basic Blasters
Prototype 180mm Plates
Prototype Hardeners
Inefficient Heavy Repper (cuz I wuz skrub den)
Prototype Heat Sink
Prototype Damage Control
LSHAV
Ion Cannon
Basic Blasters
Proto120mm Plates
Pro Passive Armour Resistance
Pro High Through-Put Damage Module
Mid Tier Repper
Mid Tier Scanner
Proto Heat Sink
The former HAV was the 6375 Main Battke Maddy you saw everywhere but not full optimised while the former was a high DPS, low EHP, fast little hellion ala the enforcer but cheaper.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Ld Collins
Titans of Phoenix
179
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:42:00 -
[420] - 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.
I say implement everything here except insta pop Vayus and give all tanks small turrets.Im curious to see what happens but I feel the rock paper scissors does not work because of the limited amount of vehicle engagements and the x factor of av. |
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
281
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:08:00 -
[421] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:
That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack.
If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost.
Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can). I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback.
1. Majority of my dropsuits are all proto
2. If i want a fully proto dropsuit then i look at reducing the nades/side arm - In vehicles this means no small turrets
3. A vehicle is alot more powerful than a dropsuit so it should be able to fit on all proto since we are on tiercide with vehicles and not expecting proto vehicles to fit all my proto stuff on it - one way or another i should be able to fit all proto on a vastly more powerful platform
4. On a dropsuit im able to fit more stuff on due to various skill books and bonuses which give me more pg/cpu or saves on PG etc |
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2318
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:16:00 -
[422] - Quote
Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
manboar thunder fist
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
326
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:52:00 -
[423] - Quote
Whaaat, these things are going to rip up ads pilots, especially those crazy long range "redline" ones. Can we have an ads variant with a lot more hp -.- and one with less but another gun?
"If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16236
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 12:51:00 -
[424] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:Whaaat, these things are going to rip up ads pilots, especially those crazy long range "redline" ones. Can we have an ads variant with a lot more hp -.- and one with less but another gun?
Like Logi DS?
Regardless this is not the thread for that discussion.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:08:00 -
[425] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... That was my general point. So where would you place your lot? Main Rack: Proto Off Rack: Proto Main Turret: Proto Small Turret: None/Basic? On any tank I've ever piloted I've given priority to durability and then to fire power....... given how the Gunnlogi currently works I fit mine following this archetype. Main Rack : Proto ( I may make concessions for items like the Shield Hardener and Damage Module as all that is affected is cool down timers) Off Rack : Proto Fitting (most likely since there are no utility modules I need or want in lows) Main Turret: Always Proto (even on Sica) Small Turrets: Usually Basic (but on my fits designed to a crew I always use proto) TL;DR - I cannot think of a reason on the Gunnlogi as it is now to every need anything more than a Proto Tier Tank and a Main Gun which I can always fit. Proto fitting is usually if I want higher tier small turrets alongside a Blaster or wish to stack an armour plate. PRO tank modules allows me to actually stay on the field for a moderate amount of time and react to anti tanks rounds, while the gun allows me to compete with and dominate lesser tanks and infantry. On my old Madrugar from Uprising I hatd two fits one Heavy Tank and one Light Scout Tank Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Prototype 180mm Plates Prototype Hardeners Inefficient Heavy Repper (cuz I wuz skrub den) Prototype Heat Sink Prototype Damage Control LSHAV Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Proto120mm Plates Pro Passive Armour Resistance Pro High Through-Put Damage Module Mid Tier Repper Mid Tier Scanner Proto Heat Sink The former HAV was the 6375 Main Battke Maddy you saw everywhere but not full optimised while the former was a high DPS, low EHP, fast little hellion ala the enforcer but cheaper.
Oh, a question I just remembered.
Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course.
Choo Choo
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4086
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:07:00 -
[426] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Oh, a question I just remembered.
Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course.
Different fitting costs and different HP/s
The name itself was just flavor text, the axed it in favor of the Basic/Enhanced/Complex progression for clarity.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4086
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:16:00 -
[427] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that.
Well....you have some merit of what you say, but I still feel like Enforcers should be a bit more zippy than what we have now. HAVs can reach pretty high speeds now, but they feel far from agile.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
duster 35000
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:35:00 -
[428] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Oh, a question I just remembered.
Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course. Different fitting costs and different HP/s The name itself was just flavor text, the axed it in favor of the Basic/Enhanced/Complex progression for clarity.
Oh, right, right, I didn't remember too much, despite me using them, thought they started repping sooner...
Choo Choo
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4087
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
Well you may be thinking of shield boosters vs armor repairers. Shield Boosters were on a shorter cycle and would generate HP at the start of the cycle but in smaller amounts. Armor Repairers would rep on a longer cycle and generate HP at the end of the cycle, but in larger amounts.
It basically meant that you needed to start repping armor early because it would be a 3 second delay before you started getting HP back.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2610
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:39:00 -
[430] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that.
Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point.
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
4087
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:42:00 -
[431] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point.
Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2610
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:58:00 -
[432] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values.
I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG.
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
4089
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:00:00 -
[433] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG.
Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
171
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:16:00 -
[434] - Quote
Bringing out the hulls with crazy base setups will only make it harder to get old mods returned.
The tanks haven't changed much, it's the lack of module and turret variety that killed vehicle op.
CCP needs to add a smiley that's blue in the face...
"Tossin uplinks and runnin fer my life" ~ Gunny blownapart
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5936
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:37:00 -
[435] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole.
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
283
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:41:00 -
[436] - Quote
1. Reset vehicles and AV to uprising levels
1a. Bring in the current levels of swarms to uprising vehicles, same with AV nades
1b. Bring in PLC
1c. Bring back all the modules and skills for vehicles
1d. Tweek from then on |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4093
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:43:00 -
[437] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
Don't lump all vehicle pilots together.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5936
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:45:00 -
[438] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
Don't lump all vehicle pilots together.
I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles."
Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly.
It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2610
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 -
[439] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Reset vehicles and AV to uprising levels
1a. Bring in the current levels of swarms to uprising vehicles, same with AV nades
1b. Bring in PLC
1c. Bring back all the modules and skills for vehicles
1d. Tweek from then on
With the core skills in line with 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
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4093
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 -
[440] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably.
Indeed. If AV can't destroy vehicles reliably then the only way to counter a vehicle is with another vehicle, which is just bad design.
I wish we had riched AV saturation in general. If AV weapons were easily accessible to infantry without having to sacrifice ton in order to do so, then you can have more people carrying AV on the field, and then individual AV weapons could be weaker. The issue is that because most suits must sacrifice substantial defense against infantry in order to use AV, that the AV has to be exceptionally strong in order to make that sacrifice worth it.
I mean look at Titanfall. Every single infantry in the game has an AV weapon at all times. The weapons themselves are not particularly great, and Titans can shrug off 1-2 without much difficulty. But if people simply swap to AV on the fly, they can quickly dispose of vehicles if they focus fire.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2610
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:15:00 -
[441] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Indeed. If AV can't destroy vehicles reliably then the only way to counter a vehicle is with another vehicle, which is just bad design. I wish we had riched AV saturation in general. If AV weapons were easily accessible to infantry without having to sacrifice ton in order to do so, then you can have more people carrying AV on the field, and then individual AV weapons could be weaker. The issue is that because most suits must sacrifice substantial defense against infantry in order to use AV, that the AV has to be exceptionally strong in order to make that sacrifice worth it. I mean look at Titanfall. Every single infantry in the game has an AV weapon at all times. The weapons themselves are not particularly great, and Titans can shrug off 1-2 without much difficulty. But if people simply swap to AV on the fly, they can quickly dispose of vehicles if they focus fire.
It's not bad design, it's working as intended.
I'm going without knowledge of EVE, but it would be like a mining ship trying to take on a ship meant for battle.
Why compare some terrible 6v6 game with Dust?
And why do you keep trying to compromise vehicles so much that they'll be useless out the box when Rattati gets some solid figures up?
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
4093
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:38:00 -
[442] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
It's not bad design, it's working as intended.
I'm going without knowledge of EVE, but it would be like a mining ship trying to take on a ship meant for battle.
Why compare some terrible 6v6 game with Dust?
And why do you keep trying to compromise vehicles so much that they'll be useless out the box when Rattati gets some solid figures up?
Well actually you can kill combat ships with some mining ships in certain situations, but regardless.
And Titanfall is a pretty meh game, but it landed AV perfectly. Singular AV weapons are a deterrent (as you want) but when used en-mass they can kill vehicles.
And I'm trying to be reasonable because I honestly believe deep down that if someone like you were in charge of designing this stuff that we would end up with a vehicle system so broken, so fundamentally overpowered, that CCP and the community would simply hack it apart with a chainsaw and what we would end up with is a bloody stump rather than the polished, clean, enjoyable system that is fair for both sides. Like I appreciate your passion, and I've tried over and over to try to find a happy medium between your ideas and my own, but I think your views are way too extreme and you seem completely unwilling to even consider changing what you think out of sheer stubbornness. And who knows maybe a lot of it is lost in translation, but the fact of the matter is that I'm clearly going to take a more conservative and careful approach to things and not something as crude as "BLARRGGG NERF AV AND REVERT EVERYTHING BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE".
So again while I appreciate your passion, it's getting a little tiresome of the negative and rough comments when I'm trying to move the conversation forward to actually put together some design concepts. I feel like half this thread is nothing but people throwing rocks at each other and repeating over and over the same concepts of their own personal opinion of how things should work, rather than trying to work together to combine the ideas into something that works and then actually moving forward, rather than moving in circles.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2324
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:39:00 -
[443] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay.
No.
Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably.
Here's the issue with AV: If all it takes is one person to kill a tank (within a single magazine no less) then what is the point of running the tank? It is nothing to hit up a supply depot and switch to AV, kill a tank, then switch back. This is the issue. AV becomes a side-thought. It's not a dedicated role, it's more of an afterthought.
Now, a part of the problem is the vehicles themselves. There is no AP vehicle (a vehicle whose primary purpose in life is to kill infantry) and there desperately needs to be. This vehicle needs to be able to be controlled by one person; the comparison of two people to use a heavy suit is an apt analogy. And the vehicle needs to be nimble, quick, and above all, relatively easy to kill. The Enforcers could perfectly fit this role. Giving the LAV driver control of his turret from the driver seat is also a solution. But without an AP vehicle, there is no reason to run an AV vehicle. It's like having a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist. If you want tanks to not be a threat to you, if you want to kill them within a single magazine... then why would I, a vehicle pilot, want to run them?
Now, there should not be a vehicle that can both resist infantry AV AND be good at killing infantry. This is what I think ground AV fear will happen. We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. Most of us DO NOT WANT THAT. We want each vehicle to have a purpose, and for the threat of ground AV to be proportional to the threat we pose to infantry. For instance, if we have Marauders as dedicated AV platforms, with bonuses to turret damage and penalties to speed, acceleration, turret rotation, etc. then yes, I want ground AV to have to team up to kill me. If I cannot fight you off, if I cannot run, then I should be able to sit there and soak it up.
Ground AV shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of vehicle combat. If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, then why should I bother hopping in a tank at all? But in some way, I should have a vehicle whose primary objective is popping you and your mates walking around on the ground. And THAT vehicle, you certainly should reliably kill on most occasions. But if ground AV is just as good as my proto AV tank, then why would I waste my ISK or SP speccing into tanks?
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:52:00 -
[444] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable.
Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
166
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:56:00 -
[445] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank.
I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5940
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:06:00 -
[446] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank,
You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off.
I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Vengeance Unbound
2325
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:50:00 -
[447] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it.
Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands.
Do not go gentle into that good night;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5942
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:03:00 -
[448] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands.
Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise.
And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door.
My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics.
It's not helpful to the topic at hand.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:41:00 -
[449] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring.
Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me.
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.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:42:00 -
[450] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise. And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door. My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics. It's not helpful to the topic at hand.
If your PRO fits are getting shred to bits by MLT suits, then I think taking out a tank is the least of your worries.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
170
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 00:46:00 -
[451] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob.
They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring. Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me.
In which case they deserve to destroy you. They pull out around 150k each to come blow your tank up, which is their SOLE purpose. If 2 or three proto forge gunners hitting you in your weak spot wouldn't kill you, then what the hell would?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2329
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:26:00 -
[452] - Quote
If they're a "sidegrade" rather than an "upgrade" why not give us racial parity among vehicles instead?
Dust514/Legion should be a(n):
[_] Arcade Lobby Shooter
[X] Sci-fi Military Sim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5949
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 12:15:00 -
[453] - Quote
Reposting this here because I believe it mostly constructive and I believe there are some relevant concerns that should be addressed.
No this is not a "HAVs need to be easy kills" rant. So save your breath. It started as a topic acknowledging the problems of Jihad Jeeps in relation to Maddies versus gunnlogis.
Critiques welcome.
Quote:The primary problem is the imbalance of Jihad Jeeps versus shields and armor.
A tanked gunnlogi who hasn't been sucking on AV fire for a little bit can survive an impact.
A madrugar with the same ISK/SP investment cannot.
I will definitely admit that this is indicative of a problem. While I would like to see the gunnlogi brough to the level of the maddy, there REALLY needs to be options for the maddies to take explosive damage and not collapse like a punk. The Gunnlogi needs to retain the ability to trump explosives as well.
I'd like to see the efficacy of standard RE's dropped by 30-50% versus HAVs only and then the Gunnlogi raw survivability dropped. The packed REs can do full damage to HAVs but their blast radius makes them less of a sure thing with JLAVs.
A major part of the problem is that the baseline tanks are not roughly equal in power and survivability. I see this as a problem.
Honestly my wishlist would be all things being equal a maddy takes 4 forge shots, a gunnlogi takes 5 at best overall tank. (I'm assuning the hardener timer has run out and it's either recharging, or you haven't activated it)
But we'd need a shield busting weapon that takes out the gunnlogi in 4 and the maddy in 5. there needs to be some kind of parity where the weapon you bring to the field to kill an HAV whether that is a Forge Gun, PLC, Heavy Rail Turret, Heavy missile Turret, Heavy Blaster Turret swarms or what have you, there is another equally effective (not identical) weapon that can do the same to the other tank.
It's possible to have an asymmetric battle if one side has the right type of tank and guns to weather the assault of the enemy and the enemy doesn't have the tank or the correct guns to do the same.
Another thing is the turrets on HAVs desperately need a rework. I think they should behave more like cannons. Not everyone agrees with me and I can respect that while still arguing.
But they need to have SOME reasonable utility versus infantry because it's the purpose of Infantry AV to fight, drive off and destroy enemy vehicles. It is NOT the job of Infantry to maker the players of HAVs feel impotent and helpless in the face of oncoming fire.
my wishlist for how many shots an HAV should take to destroy is a guideline for a non-hardener active. THe "waves of opportunity" concept is a respectable one, and if Tankers have to time their attacks just so AV should absolutely have to follow suit.
I don't think that being able to mount two or more hardeners and keeping them always up is great design space though.
Finally... variety. There isn't enough variety in fittings. Too much crap was homogenized into the base hull. What happened to people who were willing to suck up the old horribad slow tank speeds in exchange for monster tank? Oh wait, they're gone because most of the modules were made obsolete by the changes packing most of the bonuses into the base hulls.
The biggest b*tch I have heard from vehicle drivers (and running my Maddy Pilot Good Lord do I agree) is that the fittings we have for vehicles is lackluster. I blame the fact that vehicles are now hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. When tanks are fitting centric you can HAVE variety on the field. You can have glass cannons. You can have slow, overtanked demon boulders of atrocity. You can have a balanced loadout.
right now there's a cookie cutter.
Right now the gunnlogi and madrugar are the vanilla tanks with the sica and soma being the cheap seat tanks.
If the Enforcers are supposed to be the murderers of vehicles where does that lead marauders? What do they counter?
IMHO the marauder job should be suppression of infantry and support AV rather than primary AV. Make it so the gunnlogi and madrugar can fit for AV or Infantry suppression but neither does the job as well as the marauder/enforcer.
If we aren't going to pre-define a role, then give the drivers enough options that they can CREATE a role for themselves on the field.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 13:09:00 -
[454] - Quote
1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out
2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken
3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV
4. Vehicles have no variety
5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now
6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5953
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 14:26:00 -
[455] - Quote
1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out
I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.
2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken
Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.
3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV
To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.
4. Vehicles have no variety
Agreed. I made this point as well.
5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now
I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.
6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising
The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.
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
4126
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:22:00 -
[456] - Quote
Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5957
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:25:00 -
[457] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are.
note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. And it sucks versus maddies.
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
4126
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:29:00 -
[458] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields.
Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
284
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 15:36:00 -
[459] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out
I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.
2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken
Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.
3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV
To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.
4. Vehicles have no variety
Agreed. I made this point as well.
5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now
I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.
6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising
The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.
1. The Madrugar should be brought up to the Gunlogi level, would help if modules such as hardeners offered 40% accross the board
2. HAV should obey the laws of the capacitor
3. You really dont need 20mil SP to kill the current vehicles, maybe in Chrome and Uprising but not now and even so the 15mil into HAVs currently would get crushed by the same vehicles in Chrome and Uprising and 15mil SP in them days did not give you a fully fitted HAV
5. Chrome AV/V was fine for FG, SL/AV nades utterly broken un Uprising
6. AV wouldnt have to be buffed, if players are saying AV should be secondary then let it be secondary and not have the force of a 1000suns, HAV vs HAV needs to come 1st because frankly if vehicles are out to kill other vehicles then it needs to be good and fun - Frabkly its twitch and who sees who 1st where as Uprising offered alot more in HAV vs HAV
6a. Marauders are not PROTO vehicles - We are told they are sidegrades which are still tiercided because we have no ADV/PROTO vehicles still even for basic - If this is going to be the case then its still PROTO AV vs BASIC HAVs even specalised BASIC HAVs at best so BASIC has to survive against PROTO but if it doesnt then what is the point of vehicles? Everything a vehicle can do which really is limited infantry can do better everytime |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:29:00 -
[460] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out
I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.
Gunnlogi isn't overtanked, it's just the better hull with better mods and has resistance to 2 turrets and 2 forms of AV. The Madrugar is the really weak hull, having terrible PG and CPU with terrible reps because all infantry did was complain, and CCP bent over backwards to accomodate you.
2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken
Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.
But AV isn't patient, and fire at the very first opportunity. Don't shoot a shiny, that's all there is to it. I had a PC a few nights ago, with some mad forge gunner on a building and a terrible redline tanker shooting me from his redline. It's not hard to destroy a tank. I went blaster because we needed it - I still destroyed his tank: because experience.
3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV
To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.
You're counting core skills, aren't you. The forge gun is one weapon. Infantry core skills don't make a weapon better, it just allows them to fit better modules. Our core skills only make the armor repper better by itself - everything just makes our active mods last longer and cool down better. Aside from the aforementioned repper, our core skills don't make the mods better. Then there's turrets, which require level 5 in everything to get the most out of them. Infantry weapon operation decreases CPU usage by a small percentage - we don't have that for our turret operation.
5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now
I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.
I'm surprised you'd say that.
6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising
The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.
AV has consistently been buffed for well over 2 years, probably more like 3, while tanks have been nerfed that whole time. Enough with the AV buffs. Seriously, they don't need to be buffed anymore. Rattati is designing tank destroyers, and conversely, tanks with great defenses. You shouldn't be the end-all nuclear option, ever. AV was balanced around the idea of ADV tanks, which the Enforcers were not.
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.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:37:00 -
[461] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty.
You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5961
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:42:00 -
[462] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
I'm surprised you'd say that.
that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk.
It's why I mock you relentlessly.
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
4128
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:42:00 -
[463] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty. You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots.
@_@ What are you even talking about? I'm still a fan of the 4/2 and 2/4 system.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5961
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:55:00 -
[464] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are. note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields. Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty. You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots. @_@ What are you even talking about? I'm still a fan of the 4/2 and 2/4 system.
He's taking old statements out of context again and coming to his paranoid conclusions.
Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him.
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
4131
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 16:58:00 -
[465] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him.
Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane.
Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5963
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:06:00 -
[466] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable?
Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit.
Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation.
In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition.
Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5963
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:08:00 -
[467] - Quote
Oh wait, to answer your actual question, YES DAMN YOU 180mm plates would be beneficial.
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
4133
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:09:00 -
[468] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit. Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation. In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition. Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field.
So with a 2/4 layout you could be looking at something like 180mm Plate + 2 Hardeners + 1 repper for your average fit?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:10:00 -
[469] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him.
I'm this way because of how many times vehicles have been nerfed and AV has been buffed, along with removing variety for vehicles in the form of mods as well.
Infantry did the same thing we do when they were nerfing the new flavor of the weak. Flaylocks, Cal logis, TAR rifles, Gallente (master) scout, whatever, contact grenades, grenades in general, whatever. Infantry always cried about how it would be the end of Dust, nobody would play, etc. But everybody still played. Yet, look at how many pilots have completely quit the game. It's quite a lot of people that used to post regularly here, and who knows how many that didn't post on the forums.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5963
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:11:00 -
[470] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him. Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane. Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable? Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit. Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation. In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition. Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field. So with a 2/4 layout you could be looking at something like 180mm Plate + 2 Hardeners + 1 repper for your average fit?
gimmie a ballpark for the HP that would give. I'll do the kill math and give you an answer
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:11:00 -
[471] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I'm surprised you'd say that.
that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly.
When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5963
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:15:00 -
[472] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I'm surprised you'd say that.
that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison.
that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself.
takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot.
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
4133
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:18:00 -
[473] - Quote
Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise.
So
1200 Shield
6827 Armor
x2 25% Armor Hardeners
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5963
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:32:00 -
[474] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise.
So
1200 Shield
6827 Armor
x2 25% Armor Hardeners
eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40%
Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them.
I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway...
six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently.
compare that to the 8-9 that a gunnlogi can take conceivably.
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
4137
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:42:00 -
[475] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise.
So
1200 Shield
6827 Armor
x2 25% Armor Hardeners eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40% Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them. I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway... six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently.
See I don't have an issue with double stacking hardeners. Burst tanking is a common thing in New Eden so it fits here as well, imo.
So 4 shots...9-10 seconds against a non-hardened full health Maddy....gives time to get the hardener(s) up and running. I assume max skills for the forge, is that a damage modded fit?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5964
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:45:00 -
[476] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise.
So
1200 Shield
6827 Armor
x2 25% Armor Hardeners eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40% Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them. I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway... six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently. See I don't have an issue with double stacking hardeners. Burst tanking is a common thing in New Eden so it fits here as well, imo. So 4 shots...9-10 seconds against a non-hardened full health Maddy....gives time to get the hardener(s) up and running. I assume max skills for the forge, is that a damage modded fit?
that's me running prof 4 and no damage mods. Heavy damage mods are crap. Only a wiyrkomi breach has enough alpha for mods to conceivably alter TTK via shots to kill.
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
4137
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:47:00 -
[477] - Quote
Fair enough. *flips on the True Adamance signal* We need your opinion!
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:55:00 -
[478] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I'm surprised you'd say that.
that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself. takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot.
It doesn't take any thought. Get 3 forge gunners behind a tank in a LAV and that's a dead tank. No thought
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5964
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 17:59:00 -
[479] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I'm surprised you'd say that.
that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk. It's why I mock you relentlessly. When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison. that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself. takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot. It doesn't take any thought. Get 3 forge gunners behind a tank in a LAV and that's a dead tank. No thought
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
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
4139
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:04:00 -
[480] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction.
These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5964
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:05:00 -
[481] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment.
+1
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:05:00 -
[482] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
Of course it's irrelevant to you, because when we told infantry how to take out vehicles, tailored to specific vehicles, infantry always said it was too hard.
So no, I don't care what you say, and when people complain so much about something they're actually told to do to be successful, then I can't respect someone.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5964
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:06:00 -
[483] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone.
I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE.
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
4139
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:07:00 -
[484] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. +1
I will not compromise you filthy AVer. Likes have been nerfed over and over. I expect a +10 and nothing less.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5968
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:11:00 -
[485] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.
New Vehicle Module: Teamwork Scanner. If Teamwork happens within a 1km radius, hardeners increase to 100% damage reduction. These are reasonable changes. CCP please impliment. +1 I will not compromise you filthy AVer. Likes have been nerfed over and over. I expect a +10 and nothing less.
Suck it, Tank nerd.
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
4142
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:12:00 -
[486] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Suck it, Tank nerd.
Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5968
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:14:00 -
[487] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Suck it, Tank nerd. Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum.
Your marauder will be the first that I destroy to christen their return.
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
4142
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:17:00 -
[488] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Suck it, Tank nerd. Fine. Give yourself a -9 and then the +1 to me, that will be acceptable. I'm glad we can compromise, scum. Your marauder will be the first that I destroy to christen their return.
This is why we hang out.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:33:00 -
[489] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE.
I respect those that don't whine about tanks being OP, that they shouldn't be their own best counter, that AV is UP, etc.
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
4144
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:36:00 -
[490] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE. I respect those that don't whine about tanks being OP, that they shouldn't be their own best counter, that AV is UP, etc.
It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely.
But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5969
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:42:00 -
[491] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely.
But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now.
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
4147
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:44:00 -
[492] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely.
But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now.
I knew you would break and give me my +10. I'm glad we could agree on something. For the sake of science.
You monster.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5969
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:45:00 -
[493] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:
It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely.
But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
The like butan is broken. It only lets me do it once. I want to give you all of them right now. I knew you would break and give me my +10. I'm glad we could agree on something. For the sake of science. You monster.
Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK!
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
4147
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:46:00 -
[494] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK!
Here, it's in this Strongbox.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5969
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 18:49:00 -
[495] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Where's the cake you promised me, PUNK! Here, it's in this Strongbox.
i'm not falling for that trick... again...
Ok let's quit derailing the topic Pokey.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
286
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:03:00 -
[496] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE. I respect those that don't whine about tanks being OP, that they shouldn't be their own best counter, that AV is UP, etc. It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
1. Who are the 'people that matter'? infantry?
2. Where are the rest of the pilots? Mostly quit or dont believe in CCP, the vast majority of pilots i fought against in PC and the old builds are no longer around - All that is left is the 'new pilots' who think they know what it was like but really have no clue and its evident in this thread - Pity that Rattati had to ask the people because so many pilots have left and gone, all we have is fakes and infantry
3. The longer this thread goes on the less hope i actually have of seeing some damn good vehicles, all im seeing is non pilots and infantry arguing on how to gimp vehicles before they come into the game and asking to buff AV because of new vehicles that they may not be able to kill in 4shots
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5969
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:07:00 -
[497] - Quote
that's because you can't read.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2613
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 19:22:00 -
[498] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: then I can't respect someone. I have yet to see any evidence that you respect ANYONE. I respect those that don't whine about tanks being OP, that they shouldn't be their own best counter, that AV is UP, etc. It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely. But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.
So the 5-post thread I created is irrational and crazy?
Nerfing everything before Rattati gives us more information is irrational and crazy. You might as well cut off your nose if you don't like how it looks.
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
4154
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 22:09:00 -
[499] - Quote
Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool.
So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16265
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:23:00 -
[500] - Quote
Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati.
*"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
4154
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:27:00 -
[501] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati.
True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 23:56:00 -
[502] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere.
Make a thread about what you guys talk about if you do continue, I enjoy reading what you 2 have to say about this stuff.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2614
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:22:00 -
[503] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool.
So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally.
No, because you're nerfing them out the box.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DarthJT5
12th Shadow Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 00:25:00 -
[504] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool.
So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally.
No, because you're nerfing them out the box.
I don't understand how you nerf something before it exists..... doesn't it have to have to be in game with stats first?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2614
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:04:00 -
[505] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Lol Rattati doesn't know anything about vehicles. He's said so himself. There wont be "more information" because this thread has turned into a whiny cesspool.
So yeah I guess I'm "nerfing" things by giving them more slots, better HP mods, ect. Totally.
No, because you're nerfing them out the box. I don't understand how you nerf something before it exists..... doesn't it have to have to be in game with stats first?
If vehicles are nerfed before tweaks and new hulls are introduced, then they're not worth it.
Pilot suits were case in point: literally all dedicated infantry on here were crying that the placeholder passive stats were going to be OP, even though they were better tank v tank, and as such, CCP completely scrapped the pilot suit idea.
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
4154
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:17:00 -
[506] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere. Make a thread about what you guys talk about if you do continue, I enjoy reading what you 2 have to say about this stuff.
Perhaps in a bit, I need a little breather from this for a few days lol. This thread has made me really grumpy and I don't want to be a douche.
For those of you who want to have a reasonable discussion/just chat, hit me up on Skype: leowen.dravon
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16265
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 01:27:00 -
[507] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. True, do you have Skype? I'd like to continue our conversation elsewhere.
I do.
Just search Robb "Adamance" or viralensign
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1267
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 03:08:00 -
[508] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati.
It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did.
Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision.
Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16266
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 03:51:00 -
[509] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to.
The "best pilots" were all very good. But they were also only "so good" because few could challenge them on their level.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2616
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 07:00:00 -
[510] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to.
None?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5987
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 09:03:00 -
[511] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None?
Yep. He said none.
I agree with him.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
1789
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 13:16:00 -
[512] - Quote
You have made this ideological circle of life with these 3 tank types but they are never going to be used that way
All Hail Legion
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
288
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 15:23:00 -
[513] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None?
1. Barely anyone i recognize from the very 1st days of PC in Uprising except you and maybe a few others in this thread and if you could hang with the best in the old PC days you were good
2. Where are the likes of Jason Pearson/Covert Clay/Zitro/Slap/Aldin/Lecutch/Mary/Takahiro Kashuken/Mav/Anyone from GAC and many more that i will have missed out? They are not here and have been replaced by 1.7 vehicle users who have no idea what the old days were like or infantry who are afraid of having to deal with vehicles again which have some teeth
3. I will wait to see what CCP does - Easiest way is to revert back to Chrome/Uprising days and add in the new SL/AV nade numbers while vehicles get alot more variety and skills/modules and skill bonuses back but that ship has sailed but i feel its what the pilots of old would want, more variety and true sense of a playstyle worth skilling into, all they need is a sense of purpose on the battllefield but in the old PC days the pilots did to a small extent which lead to HAV v HAV fights a plenty |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2617
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 17:54:00 -
[514] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? Yep. He said none. I agree with him.
Have you gone against more than just MLT tanks? How about STD hulls with better than MLT turrets?
You literally have no idea what it's like. Get in a tank, and don't jump out when you're on fire.
Have you ever even been in a PC, with pilot harassing a team, unable to be destroyed by your team's tanks? That's a damn good pilot right there.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
5996
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 18:46:00 -
[515] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lost faith in this initiative.
Thanks for trying CCP Rattati. It's been stated. All the good pilots are long gone after waiting nearly a year for CCP to fix vehicles and they never did. Now that CCP shows interest everyone left is too bitter to come to an unanimous decision. Doesn't matter as none of the best pilots are around anymore to express their opinions and they're the ones who should be listened to. None? Yep. He said none. I agree with him. Have you gone against more than just MLT tanks? How about STD hulls with better than MLT turrets? You literally have no idea what it's like. Get in a tank, and don't jump out when you're on fire. Have you ever even been in a PC, with pilot harassing a team, unable to be destroyed by your team's tanks? That's a damn good pilot right there.
My alt is a maddy pilot. So yes I have. Keep whining.
Yes I do know what it's like. Keep whining.
Yes I have. I'm fully conversant in the million ways madrugars die in a fire.
Keep whining.
Spkr you never listen, and the fact that you're irrationally consistent comforts me.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1268
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 08:26:00 -
[516] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Have you gone against more than just MLT tanks? How about STD hulls with better than MLT turrets?
You literally have no idea what it's like. Get in a tank, and don't jump out when you're on fire.
Have you ever even been in a PC, with pilot harassing a team, unable to be destroyed by your team's tanks? That's a damn good pilot right there.
This hasn't existed in months. STD hulls with max skills and modules are the same as militia because ~balance~.
Don't kid yourself.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6000
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 08:37:00 -
[517] - Quote
This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints.
Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6001
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 08:50:00 -
[518] - Quote
Looks like I'll be spending quality time on my HAV pilot for a bit trying to get a feel for this stuff again.
Can anyone find the chromosome spreadsheets for HAVs?
I think fitting-centric HAVs is the best way to balance them.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
297
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 14:53:00 -
[519] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints.
Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless.
1. Vehicles are not like dropsuits
2. Sidegrades are what dropsuits do have but if you compare a sentinal to a basic heavy you will take the sentinal every time for the bonus
3. Vehicles are more expensive in SP and ISK, to make a basic HAV its far more expenisve than your basic dropsuit so no one is going to skill into something that is worse than what we have ie old enforcers in Uprising
4. Vehicles are tiercided - That means a BASIC HAV which it is has to have the ability to stand upto PROTO AV, old Chrome/Uprising were able to stand upto PROTO AV because we had core skills/more module variety and a better slot layout - The old pilots are still trying to get across this core message that players like you still do not understand and will never understand because you never tanked through the old days
5. Personal Vision is actually Chrome/Uprising build - It is essentially what CCP made and did right until they decided to delete it all - The return to Chrome/Uprising would be welcome by pilots, it may even bring a few of the old pilots back who have long gone and left this game whos voices and input is greatly missed and instead is replaced with infantry and new pilots who never piloted in the good ol days of Chrome/Uprising |
manboar thunder fist
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
333
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 14:54:00 -
[520] - Quote
Here's an idea:
Add in new tanks
Add in new ads variation
Add in logi lavs
Then see what needs tweaking.
"If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2623
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 16:22:00 -
[521] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints.
Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless.
The dropsuit sidegrades ARE upgrades. The commando is all around better than the basic heavy frame, assault all around better than the basic medium frame, etc. The Gunnlogi and Madrugar are our basic heavy frame, not MLT frames.
If you've never been a pilot, why are you here?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
135
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 21:00:00 -
[522] - Quote
Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far:
Assumptions:
- The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking
- The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high
- The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items
- The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades (Upgrades with drawbacks)
Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs).
The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU.
I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders.
Link
What do ya'll think?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
700
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 21:58:00 -
[523] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions:
- The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking
- The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high
- The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items
- The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades (Upgrades with drawbacks)
Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. LinkWhat do ya'll think?
Excuse me but what pills are you throwing in? Dropsuit specialisations are better in allmost every aspect then their regular frames.
-Basic light frames get no skill bonuses, no fitting bonus for cloaks. While the scout specialisation gets cloak fitting bonus and specific racial bonuses like dampening or scan bonuses etc.
-basic medium frames are like assaults except they do not get any fitting bonuses for grendaes, light weapons and sidearms. The only suit that has a drawback would be the logi but that is a complete different role.
-basic heavy frames have less HP and no resistance bonuses. Sentinel suits get race specific bonuses, resistance vs splash damage and fitting bonus for heavy weapons. Sure a basic heavy has more HP then a commando but on the other hand a commando can use 2 light weapons and can carry a nanohive.
All specialisation are either upgrades from basic frames or they fullfill a complete other role then the basics. This means they are all upgrades in all aspects.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
135
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 22:04:00 -
[524] - Quote
Bright Cloud wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions:
- The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking
- The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high
- The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items
- The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades (Upgrades with drawbacks)
Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. LinkWhat do ya'll think? Excuse me but what pills are you throwing in? Dropsuit specialisations are better in allmost every aspect then their regular frames. -Basic light frames get no skill bonuses, no fitting bonus for cloaks. While the scout specialisation gets cloak fitting bonus and specific racial bonuses like dampening or scan bonuses etc. -basic medium frames are like assaults except they do not get any fitting bonuses for grendaes, light weapons and sidearms. The only suit that has a drawback would be the logi but that is a complete different role. -basic heavy frames have less HP and no resistance bonuses. Sentinel suits get race specific bonuses, resistance vs splash damage and fitting bonus for heavy weapons. Sure a basic heavy has more HP then a commando but on the other hand a commando can use 2 light weapons and can carry a nanohive. All specialisation are either upgrades from basic frames or they fullfill a complete other role then the basics. This means they are all upgrades in all aspects.
Let me rephrase, That they are the kind of sidegrades that he's looking for, sidegrades to fulfill a specific role
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6004
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 22:52:00 -
[525] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you've never been a pilot, why are you here?
Until you learn to read, shut up.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6004
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 22:54:00 -
[526] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
302
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 00:19:00 -
[527] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16289
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 03:23:00 -
[528] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general
This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests.
((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey))
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6007
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 08:54:00 -
[529] - Quote
I imagine theyre goig to shout down any suggestion for bringing marauders and enforcers back unless they come back exactly as thet want them. Overpowered and untouchable by anything other than another HAV.
Rattati if the "established" tank drivers are going to be ungrateful, scream and accuse you of incompetence I would take it as a formal request to abandon brinking these tank classes in favor of amarr and minmatar setups using existing art assets as placeholders.
This is why we cannot have nice things.
Either that or my recommendation would be to get "that little sh*t pokey" on skype with the CPM and have a talk. He has a phenomenal grasp of what is going on here to the point where all I can reasonably contribute to the work he's been doing is eyeballing his ideas for AV/V balance so things remain difficult for AV but keeping with 1 player =1 player regardless of fitting.
He's really been the most constructive on the topic of HAV balance. And he's been enlisting player feedback on how things might work to submit a baseline to you for vehicles until the usual suspects invade his threads to scream, rant and shout him down.
Please seriously consider enlisting him to assist you in your vehicle rebalance efforts.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
135
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 09:05:00 -
[530] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I imagine theyre goig to shout down any suggestion for bringing marauders and enforcers back unless they come back exactly as thet want them. Overpowered and untouchable by anything other than another HAV.
Rattati if the "established" tank drivers are going to be ungrateful, scream and accuse you of incompetence I would take it as a formal request to abandon brinking these tank classes in favor of amarr and minmatar setups using existing art assets as placeholders.
This is why we cannot have nice things.
Either that or my recommendation would be to get "that little sh*t pokey" on skype with the CPM and have a talk. He has a phenomenal grasp of what is going on here to the point where all I can reasonably contribute to the work he's been doing is eyeballing his ideas for AV/V balance so things remain difficult for AV but keeping with 1 player =1 player regardless of fitting.
He's really been the most constructive on the topic of HAV balance. And he's been enlisting player feedback on how things might work to submit a baseline to you for vehicles until the usual suspects invade his threads to scream, rant and shout him down.
Please seriously consider enlisting him to assist you in your vehicle rebalance efforts.
You're really good at eyeballing numbers, any chance you could take a look at the spreadsheet I linked in an earlier post?
and I do agree that 1 player should kill 1 player...but what about the vehicles with 3 players inside? or a dropship transport that controls 6 ish? (Just asking, not trying to sound hostile or anything here, just legitimately curious about it)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6007
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:43:00 -
[531] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
You're really good at eyeballing numbers, any chance you could take a look at the spreadsheet I linked in an earlier post?
and I do agree that 1 player should kill 1 player...but what about the vehicles with 3 players inside? or a dropship transport that controls 6 ish? (Just asking, not trying to sound hostile or anything here, just legitimately curious about it)
Please re-link the post and I'll look.
And believe it or not a party tank with two competent turret monkeys is a nightmare to put down. It is easily exponentially harder to kill but still doable solo along the same vein that it is possible for a single man to kill 3 people in a row on foot with a rifle.
My only real complaint about a party tank is that IMHO the secondary turrets are buggy and unreliable. When they work they REALLY WORK.
Introduce a little lag and they take a dump. I would prefer that they really work more often but as with all things skill, planning and positioning should be the most powerful thing.
As far as dropships go, everyone inside can bail out so unless the wreck lands on you there's no excuse for dying when a DS gets splashed.
But currently transport dropships enjoy the same tankability as HAVs do. This is overcompensating for the fact that the maps are so constrained that there's really nowhere they can escape TO except the redline where they are useless.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
660
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:44:00 -
[532] - Quote
Wow and i thought the ADS threads went south, more than half of this seems to be crying about whether breaking stuff is a tanker or not.
Who cares? I in fact respect his opinion NOT because he agreed with pilots that the nerf was harsh, but spent good time testing it out ingame to verify the findings. Like it or not we need a dedicated rational AV player (scrub) to help balance out what we want from the tanks, and what the infantry will have to deal with.
Can we get back on subject?
If not,its seems like the Rational voices are being drowned out. Would love to continues this elsewhere. True, Pokey, Breakingstuff, other players who can have a discussion about vehicles coming back can catch me in game or on skype. Tesfa514.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:50:00 -
[533] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
You're really good at eyeballing numbers, any chance you could take a look at the spreadsheet I linked in an earlier post?
and I do agree that 1 player should kill 1 player...but what about the vehicles with 3 players inside? or a dropship transport that controls 6 ish? (Just asking, not trying to sound hostile or anything here, just legitimately curious about it)
Please re-link the post and I'll look. And believe it or not a party tank with two competent turret monkeys is a nightmare to put down. It is easily exponentially harder to kill but still doable solo along the same vein that it is possible for a single man to kill 3 people in a row on foot with a rifle. My only real complaint about a party tank is that IMHO the secondary turrets are buggy and unreliable. When they work they REALLY WORK. Introduce a little lag and they take a dump. I would prefer that they really work more often but as with all things skill, planning and positioning should be the most powerful thing. As far as dropships go, everyone inside can bail out so unless the wreck lands on you there's no excuse for dying when a DS gets splashed. But currently transport dropships enjoy the same tankability as HAVs do. This is overcompensating for the fact that the maps are so constrained that there's really nowhere they can escape TO except the redline where they are useless.
Link
I still need to try to generate fitting stats for the new mods I'm suggesting.
Ok, Good to know about what you're thinking there...(Although, I think the front turret could be better placed), but I agree that when they work, they work
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6007
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 10:52:00 -
[534] - Quote
Will hit it when I'm not at work. Pretty sure my boss will get butthurt if I go and spend my workday analyzing HAV balance.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
136
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 12:20:00 -
[535] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Will hit it when I'm not at work. Pretty sure my boss will get butthurt if I go and spend my workday analyzing HAV balance.
Edit: I do have to disagree with your assessment that the gunnlogi is in a good place. Right now as it stands it can achieve EHP values untouchable by any other vehicle in the game, outstripping the madrugar by anywhere between 50-125% depending on the fit and the pilot.
The madrugar is on the cusp. The TTK on the maddy now should be the TTK with active defenses like hardeners controlled by the pilot turned off. The gunnlogi is too easily bricked and not nearly dependent enough on its regen.
As it stands the gunnlogi is entirely too superior to all other options whether V or AV. It needs to be brought back into line and the active tank of the maddy buffed rather than the buffer tank.
Another thing that needs to be addressed is poptart heavy pilots. The vehicular homicide heavy is too powerful. The fact that this can be done negates the value of the plasma cannon, which is performing poorly overall vs. Vehicles.
There's a raft of problems with HAV balance that have predated Rattati's reign yet he gets the brunt of the blame for the disasters caused by pervious design decisions.
Honestly HAVs were balanced best overall from a V/AV perspective in chromosome beta and I want to say 1.2 for vehicle vs. Vehicle battles. Ideally my wish is for Rattati to find the old archives of how that stuff was set up and steal liberally.
I really hope they still have those files...as I cannot remember what the active armor rep rate was...or the 180mm plates. I've been tweaking the spreadsheet, but I still think we need to be closer to the Gunnlogi, from a brick tanking perspective, for the MBTs (It does need to be toned down though).
I also think that all skills should be providing at least some kind of bonus...some sort of fitting bonus would be nice on the base HAVs (to keep them the versatile middle of the ground)
and yeah...poptart heavies need to be fixed overall...(I pilot logi currently, I use the equipment to service my tank and help my team, and a nanite injector when I'm working with my squad to pick them up if the tank we're hunting guns them down with a blaster).
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6007
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 12:41:00 -
[536] - Quote
If the gunnlogis current brickiness was entirely the result of a single active hardener and when that hardener dropped it became vulnerable to fire then I would agree that it is fine.
The problem isthe base bufferof the gunnlogi gets too high to where even it's passive tank is higher than can be reasonably dealt with. Passive buffer should only withstand 3-4 shots by itself with an active hardener spiking that number anywhere from six to eight hits.
The problem starts when the average gunnlogi buffer STARTS at absorbing 5-6 hits.
That's old sagaris EHP from chrome. The marauders. And that's not taking into account that back then AV had a noticably higher rate of fire across the board.
I won't go into the problems with large turrets. They have alternately been too effective at AV (looking at you rails/missiles) or utterly ineffectual (blasters).
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
303
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 13:18:00 -
[537] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Wow and i thought the ADS threads went south, more than half of this seems to be crying about whether breaking stuff is a tanker or not.
Who cares? I in fact respect his opinion NOT because he agreed with pilots that the nerf was harsh, but spent good time testing it out ingame to verify the findings. Like it or not we need a dedicated rational AV player (scrub) to help balance out what we want from the tanks, and what the infantry will have to deal with.
Can we get back on subject?
If not,its seems like the Rational voices are being drowned out. Would love to continues this elsewhere. True, Pokey, Breakingstuff, other players who can have a discussion about vehicles coming back can catch me in game or on skype. Tesfa514.
1. This thread is about vehicles - not AV, not infantry
2. If HAV vs HAV and other vehicles are not balanced 1st between each other then its pointless
3. If the vehicles are not improvements over the BASIC HAV then its pointless
4. If we dont know what modules/skills and skill bonuses are coming back then we are working in the dark and proper theory fits cannot be made
5. The other problem is that Rattati needs to update with what CCP thinks they should bring back and placeholder numbers for slots/PG/CPU and anything else they want to bring back - This is guessing in the dark |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
303
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 13:21:00 -
[538] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey))
1. Ones man competent individual is another mans idiot - Case in point is judge who the vast majority thought was competent and has shown is anything but and now has fallen off the face of the earth |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6009
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 14:49:00 -
[539] - Quote
Why dont you get off your ass and provide numbers and feedback that is useful rather than trying to shout everyone down?
Between you and spkr the contribution hs been the rough equivalent of plugging your ears and loudly yelling NONONONONO to try and drown people out.
Secondly this attitude that only HAV drivers have any right to comment on HAV balance needs to die.
Everyon from the oldest, bitterest vet to the rankest of new newbies has every right to weigh in on any aspect of the game. This elitist "you're not X therefore you want to ruin Y thus your opinion is invalid" BS is so childish that anyone spouting it should have their game privileges removed.
Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK.
So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers.
That was why I specced heavy, maxed a forge gun and made it my mission in DUST to make every tank burn.
That is what you get when only pilots get to comment on vehicles. What happens when only AV players get to weigh in on AV and tank drivers get cut out?
You get tanks dead 514 easy mode.
Understand laser fo cused you and people of your mindset are firmly in the minority. The rest of us refuse to return to the days where HAVs were more or less unstoppable and the lot of you get to pad you K/D without fear of loss.
You don't get your godmachines back. Period.
You can help make HAVs fun and functional, or your opinions can be discarded. But thus far the primary contribution of "established HAV pilots" has been to insult the people trying to help, provided a "my way or the highway" attitude, made personal attacks and accusations against the other players and crapped all over rattati, up to and including calling him an idiot with no right to touch vehicles.
I don't think you nerds get it. He's the lead on DUST. If he decides HAVs are too problematic he CAN in fact remove them entirely.
Not exactly what I call an ideal solution.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1915
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 15:14:00 -
[540] - Quote
Hahaha just read your last post and I also remember the tankers truce which also was a direct result of the av buff and tank nerf . I remember one game ware Jason person and my self wereoO the opposing teams and we just rolled past each other right in the middle of the field it was a laugh.
Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6010
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 15:35:00 -
[541] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Hahaha just read your last post and I also remember the tankers truce which also was a direct result of the av buff and tank nerf . I remember one game ware Jason person and my self wereoO the opposing teams and we just rolled past each other right in the middle of the field it was a laugh.
And yet hilariously even with the AV buff and tank nerf for chrome there were only a small handful of AV gunners who could smash those tanks down.
I had fun killing them but very few others enjoyed what vehicles at the time added to the battlefield.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
303
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 16:12:00 -
[542] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Why dont you get off your ass and provide numbers and feedback that is useful rather than trying to shout everyone down? - I have done, but the numbers already existed in Chrome/Uprising builds
Between you and spkr the contribution hs been the rough equivalent of plugging your ears and loudly yelling NONONONONO to try and drown people out. - Like your doing
Secondly this attitude that only HAV drivers have any right to comment on HAV balance needs to die. - No
Everyon from the oldest, bitterest vet to the rankest of new newbies has every right to weigh in on any aspect of the game. This elitist "you're not X therefore you want to ruin Y thus your opinion is invalid" BS is so childish that anyone spouting it should have their game privileges removed. - Nope, infantry shouldnt have a say in vehicle matters because 99% of infantry hate vehicles and want COD
Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. - Very few pilots did that but it was fun and frankly was the only way pilots could take a stand against the OP AV buffs at the time
So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. - Good times
That was why I specced heavy, maxed a forge gun and made it my mission in DUST to make every tank burn. - Seems you want it easier aswell with some of your comments
That is what you get when only pilots get to comment on vehicles. What happens when only AV players get to weigh in on AV and tank drivers get cut out? - We end up with OP AV and consistant buffs over the last 2years of this game being out
You get tanks dead 514 easy mode. - You wanted it and asked for it and CCP delivered, now we trying to make tanks have some teeth and you are against it
Understand laser fo cused you and people of your mindset are firmly in the minority. The rest of us refuse to return to the days where HAVs were more or less unstoppable and the lot of you get to pad you K/D without fear of loss. - Pilots are in the minority, Chrome and Uprising tanks were not unstoppable that was easy AV like swarms and AV nades, HAV vs HAV was fun and balanced, now thats its been dumbed down the pilots of old has gone
You don't get your godmachines back. Period. - While you ask for paper thin HAVs which you dont use and god mode AV, gotcha
You can help make HAVs fun and functional, or your opinions can be discarded. But thus far the primary contribution of "established HAV pilots" has been to insult the people trying to help, provided a "my way or the highway" attitude, made personal attacks and accusations against the other players and crapped all over rattati, up to and including calling him an idiot with no right to touch vehicles. - Being against bad ideas and paper thin tanks is now insults, nice last part your making it up now but at least he admitted he doesnt have a clue, you should take a leaf out of his book
I don't think you nerds get it. He's the lead on DUST. If he decides HAVs are too problematic he CAN in fact remove them entirely. - That would please you and rest of the playerbase, you have already asked for it anyways many times, maybe they should remove them because infantry have never been happy with them even when they get constant nerfs
Not exactly what I call an ideal solution.
1. Ideal solution - Chrome/Uprising
1a. Basic HAV - 4/2 slot layout
1b. Marauders - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values
1c. Enforcers - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values, buffed CPU/PG
1d. All old modules/skills and skill bonuses added back in
1e. Current AV values added in
1f. Hardeners across the board standard 30%
1g. L Blasters back to dot sight, they were perfectly fine in Uprising as AV and AI, if you want small turrets to do it like S railguns then dont complain when they work and saying they should be AV instead or if its for S blasters to do it then get rid of the dispersion and give them decent range so they are useful
1h. L missiles back to Chrome - L missiles should have splash, its a missile as long as a merc so its going to have an explosion radius, current infantry ignore splash
1i. L railgun - 600m range or at least 450m
1j. Pilot suits
1k. Capacitors - The true balance to any and all vehicles
1l. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles
1m. Tiercide or not - Vehicles are tiecided, modules are not, dropsuits are not, equipment/weapons/infantry modules are not, basically if its tiercided then the BASIC hulls which they are need to stand upto PROTO AV and be able to fit PROTO mods on all slots, if you disagree then we get ADV/PROTO hulls then
2. The past was better - No one asked for 1.7 but pilots had to make do with it, main 1.7 problems were easy swarms with 3k per volley and various bugs (invisible swarms, going around 4 corners, lock on when not on target, firing when not on target etc) and 3k per AV nade and rendering so we couldnt see infantry 50m in front of us - Fix that and it was gravy but no it all got changed so pilots adapted with what we were given until it eventually got nerfed to what we have now |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6011
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 16:33:00 -
[543] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Stuff
Huh. Never expected you to make a constructive post. Will address.
1. Ideal solution - Chrome/Uprising
Agreed with Chrome for AV balance and Early Uprising for HAV vs. HAV. However I consider this unlikely as the old code from Chrome isn't archived. It's flat out gone. They don't have copies of it from what I understand. We'd need spreadsheets with all of the old chrome numbers at the very minimum to rebuild this crap and I dunno where we are going to find THAT.
1a. Basic HAV - 4/2 slot layout
1b. Marauders - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values
1c. Enforcers - 5/3 slot layout, old shield and armor values, buffed CPU/PG
The whole point of a sidegrade is so that they don't have to completely rebalance AV *again* using old chrome values for the HAVs and the current values for AV will make AV worthless (Maybe not with swarms) as far as the forge gun and PLC go. Also, the Enforcers utterly failed to live up to the "Glass cannon" thing, so if ANYTHING I'd drop them to 3/2 slots if the marauders get upticked.
1d. All old modules/skills and skill bonuses added back in
Agreed.
1e. Current AV values added in
No, this won't work. AV, despite what you all think has eaten multiple nerfs. Heavy Damage mods add HALF their old vvalues and as an example the IAFG has eaten a 20% RoF nerf since chrome, and taken a 150 damage per shot nerf as well as loss of range. Using current AV values will not balance AV/V. If we were to return to chrome Vehicles, we need to return to chrome AV. The only change I'd make to forge guns from chrome AV would be to put the Standard forge gun squarely between the Breach and Assault for Alpha damage.
1f. Hardeners across the board standard 30%
agreed to a point. There's a few broken combos involving keeping hardeners up 100% of the time.
1g. L Blasters back to dot sight, they were perfectly fine in Uprising as AV and AI, if you want small turrets to do it like S railguns then dont complain when they work and saying they should be AV instead or if its for S blasters to do it then get rid of the dispersion and give them decent range so they are useful
The nerfs to heavy turrets are one of the maybe three points of balance where I sharply disagree with Rattati on. Never mind that Splash damage from vehicle turrets was the reason splash resistance was added to sentinels.
1h. L missiles back to Chrome - L missiles should have splash, its a missile as long as a merc so its going to have an explosion radius, current infantry ignore splash
splash was reduced to why bother? It affects infantry at like half a meter.
1i. L railgun - 600m range or at least 450m
Redline camping shouldn't be a thing. It allowed people to farm kills too easily with no risk, as was addressed with the Sniper Rifle. Nevermind that range allowed HAVs to instapop any enemy vehicle drops no matter where on the field they are. Going to have to disagree with you here.
1j. Pilot suits
I'd like these yesterday, thanks.
1k. Capacitors - The true balance to any and all vehicles
Not happening any time soon. With an FPS the rule of the day should be KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. DUST already violates that six ways from sunday. Plus it's another micromanagement thing to balance out. Nevermind that without gear like vamps and neuts, Cap would cause more problems than it would solve.
1l. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles
Yeah, I want these along with a gallente and amarr heavy weapon.
1m. Tiercide or not - Vehicles are tiecided, modules are not, dropsuits are not, equipment/weapons/infantry modules are not, basically if its tiercided then the BASIC hulls which they are need to stand upto PROTO AV and be able to fit PROTO mods on all slots, if you disagree then we get ADV/PROTO hulls then
STD vehicles are balanced against proto AV right now. they HAVE to be since CCP decided they were going out on a tier removal for vehicles. MLT seem balanced vs. ADV AV. If we step the hulls UP we have to step the AV back up. It's that simple. As it stands the gunnlogi needs to be toned down and the maddy toned UP.
2. The past was better - No one asked for 1.7 but pilots had to make do with it, main 1.7 problems were easy swarms with 3k per volley and various bugs (invisible swarms, going around 4 corners, lock on when not on target, firing when not on target etc) and 3k per AV nade and rendering so we couldnt see infantry 50m in front of us - Fix that and it was gravy but no it all got changed so pilots adapted with what we were given until it eventually got nerfed to what we have now
And blaming Rattati for that crap gets us nowhere because he had no part in those design decisions. Helping him unscrew them is a better use of time.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
MetalWolf-Cell
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:14:00 -
[544] - Quote
Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
Enforcers were okay, just very squishy....and should be. They were glass cannons with High DPS. Loved the Vayu because a lot of players underestimated it's potential to do a lot of damage if left unchecked.
I Understand some tanker pilot's rage stemming from slowly becoming useless. I mean, what tanker doesn't like to be 2 or 3 shot by one guy who just happens to be bunny hopping on a roof with swarms. But at the same time, like SpKr, who is very radical and just wants tanks to be too powerful that AV is non existent. His argument that "Tanks should be the best AV" is understandable to a degree. A tank should be the best Anti Vehicle as it is designed to take out vehicles. However, Forges should be just as powerful as that is also what it is designed for.
Having only tanks be the stop to tanks is bad designed and shouldn't even be thought of. AV also has it's purpose which is ANTI-VEHICLE. Someone with proto AV should have all the rights to annihilate your tank if given the right chance, he took the time to spec into that role. At the same time, someone skilled into tanks should not be a moving tin can.
Some threads talking about AV vs HAV's makes me wonder how did it end up like this. 
Anyways, back in 1.6 Tanks were good. Sure you had invisible swarms from 400m and render issues but they were good. I liked that you had to rely on your team to keep you alive as they slaughter any AV that try to kill you. You were a powerful force that had to be kept alive. And Good tankers knew that and used it to their advantaged. They never expected to be invincible.
I feel now that HAV's are just for "If you are doing bad, pad your K/D"
They are just solo machines when they should be for supporting your team in situations Infantry needs some extra punching. I feel like tierciding them was the fault in tanks being that role now.
Hopefully Rattati listens to Breakin and Dravon, they have promising ideas. 
DUST 514/LEGION
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2629
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:30:00 -
[545] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions:
- The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking
- The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high
- The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items
- The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades, designed to fulfill the specific rolls (At least the kind of sidegrades we're looking for here)
Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. LinkWhat do ya'll think?
Are you basing that on the current CPU and PG skills remaining the same, ie useless?
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.
2629
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:33:00 -
[546] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you've never been a pilot, why are you here?
Until you learn to read, shut up.
I had an advanced understanding of English. You're not a pilot, I don't want to hear your opinion on how bad vehicles should be and how great AV should be.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2629
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:35:00 -
[547] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey))
So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:35:00 -
[548] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Here are the numbers that I've come up with thus far: Assumptions:
- The Gunnlogi is currently in a good place for tanks in terms of brick tanking
- The Gunnlogi's Base Regeneration is far too high
- The Madrugar is currently not viable because of missing fitting, and missing items
- The Dropsuit Specializations are Sidegrades, designed to fulfill the specific rolls (At least the kind of sidegrades we're looking for here)
Therefore I'm starting with the shield tanks to generate stats from, and going with a recharge time concept, and currently setting it at 60 seconds for HAVs. I generated the stats by looking at the Ratios of different stats in the given drop-suit (or listed ship) line (assuming base). I also added a shield regeneration bonus (flat, not percentage) to the shield extenders in order to maintain a 60 second recharge time for HAVs (and assumed a 30 second recharge time for LAVs). The Madrugar PGU and CPU are based on exchanging 25% CPU for 25% PGU. I am hoping that if they implement a shield recharge solution similar to what I've suggested, that it allows shield recharge % mods to apply after the flat modifications from shield extenders. LinkWhat do ya'll think? Are you basing that on the current CPU and PG skills remaining the same, ie useless?
I'm accounting for the Gunnlogi getting an overall fitting buff of 15% with a skill bonus applied (either from core or command), decreasing base levels by 10% on the gunnlogi, then having a 5% per level fitting bonus. The Maddy then takes the base fitting stats from the gunnlogi, multiplies the pgu by 1.25 then the cup by .75. (This was just a start)
Edit: this also assumes +1 primary slot
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2630
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:50:00 -
[549] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK.
So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers.
Brought about by infantry, whose incessant whining made us decide to do that.
You reap what you sow.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6013
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:52:00 -
[550] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:because you never tanked through the old days
Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. 1. This thread has numerous examples of you not knowing what you are talking about aswell as your usual posts in general This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests. ((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey)) So my near 2 years of experience should be ignored?
Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2630
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 17:57:00 -
[551] - Quote
MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it
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.
2633
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:08:00 -
[552] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Yup. because you refuse to provide anything constructive to the discussion.
I guess you're forgetting about the thread I made.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
307
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:13:00 -
[553] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Stuff
[/i]
1a. Sentinal, Scout, Assault, Logi are not sidegrades - If Enforcer goes to 3/2 for 'glass cannon' then stick with basic HAV and dont bother wasting the SP or ISK
1e. Im not going to let in 400m broken swarms doing 3k dmg per volley while staying invisible and going around 4 corners which they still do, same with AV nades doing 3k never missing per hit, FG are fine they need tweeking
1f. You can never get 100% resistance due to stacking penalties
1i. The problem is with the redline, move that back 500m and no matter what every has to come out to play and be at risk to flanking
1k. If this moves to PC expect it, micromanagement HAVs used to have anyways, this adds another layer in which you are able to get the best out of your vehicle aswell as adding new mods/skills = variety
1m. The gunlogi is fine overall but the maddy needs to be buffed to the gunlogi std, as it is i can solo any HAV with 4 IAFG shots while they are unable to defend themselves against me, thats not balanced to me
2. Where did i blame Rattati? these are facts like it or not, we nearly had balance |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:25:00 -
[554] - Quote
I suppose I should have also told you it's raining right now where I am with all the extra info I put in my last response Spkr...
but to answer your earlier question, I'm counting on a 25% total fitting bonus coming from somewhere
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6013
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:26:00 -
[555] - Quote
Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't).
I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them.
Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible.
But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed.
But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem.
And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet.
But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable.
If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure.
and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks.
Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:55:00 -
[556] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't).
I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them.
Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible.
But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed.
But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem.
And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet.
But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable.
If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure.
and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks.
Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot.
I think using the heavy frames (with minor adjustments) as a basis for is at least a little better than for the other suit sizes (as the heavy frames do have expanded fitting relative to the sentinels and commandos, which is a good way to go for a generalist thing imo...just may need to be amplified). 180mm plates and my proposed fitting numbers changes should do a lot to assist the Maddy (although I need help trying to generate fitting numbers for the bigger plates), and I like that shield hardeners provide more resistance; however, unless they get changed to have a shorter active duration (and the do need to fix the hardener display glitches) or be changed to mirror the Armor Hardeners.
On the subject of the Hardener glitches, it works both ways...sometimes they show on when they're off (or rather they don't turn off) and sometimes they show as off when they're on...it's something that needs to be fixed in this whole initiative.
To be fair to the Gunnlogi, there are only 2 anti-shield options to try to configure it against...(Fluxes and PLCs), I'll try to theory-craft numbers with something like a Forgegun that does Thermal or EM damage...and see how that would theoretically hurt the gunnlogi. (And yes, Flux strikes exist, but I don't think balancing around the OBs is a good precedent to start). Also, it doesn't help that the Gunnlogi is a Caldari Tank that CCP wants (Or rather wanted) to behave like I'd expect a Matari Tank...
In short, Maddy needs love, I don't think Gunnlogi would be OP if we had a heavy Lazer or Heavy Plasma (Or even Mjolnir Swarms...or a Flux Driver) but I will try to crunch numbers to find out...and glitches are bad and should be fixed .
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6013
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 19:00:00 -
[557] - Quote
I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
MetalWolf-Cell
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 19:09:00 -
[558] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it
Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks.
Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine.
And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role.
DUST 514/LEGION
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 19:17:00 -
[559] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now
I will give a Tech 3 cruiser, 5 subs for it, a Confessor, a Faction Frigate of their choice, and Tech 2 rigs for all of the above, to the person who can bring that forward XD (Or equivalent EVE ISK Value as determined by the average from the past couple of days, to be set as soon as I can get to a computer with the eve client on it).
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
BatKing Deltor
Delta Vanguard 6
885
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 01:53:00 -
[560] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I would kill for a spreadsheet with all of the chrome vehicle and AV stats right now
Are what your looking for?
Vehicles
Old weapon stats Including AV
Source
Lynn Beck, message to Batking Deltor - "I reject your reality and I substitute my own!"
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6026
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 02:22:00 -
[561] - Quote
Oh this is most of what I wanted. We can extrapolate from here.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 02:43:00 -
[562] - Quote
The question is, do you have a capsuleer?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6027
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 02:59:00 -
[563] - Quote
This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here.
There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower.
I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need).
But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick.
Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 03:31:00 -
[564] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here.
There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower.
I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need).
But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick.
Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please?
Why not follow like the MLT Dropsuits and increase the Sica/Soma to have the same base stats as the Maddy/Gunnlogi, just with a reduced slot layout (either the current 2/2, or maybe a 3/1 if we change to a 4/2 slot layout on the Standards?)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6029
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 04:37:00 -
[565] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:This spreadsheet, while not complete, is a start point. If rattati is willing we can extrapolate and build from here.
There are a few things I would rather not revert. Like forge splash. We don't need that back. HAVs in chromosome were notably slower.
I would beef up sicas and somas to almost-maddy/gunnlogi levels because proto AV instagibbing new HAV pilots isn't great design space (sicas could be instapopped in chrome, not a feature we need).
But I dunno if it's pointless at this point. Bluntly I wouldn't be shocked if Rattati was ready to walk away. This tgread got a bit too thick.
Can we agree to keep it civil here and crap all over each other in other threads please? Why not follow like the MLT Dropsuits and increase the Sica/Soma to have the same base stats as the Maddy/Gunnlogi, just with a reduced slot layout (either the current 2/2, or maybe a 3/1 if we change to a 4/2 slot layout on the Standards?)
That's what I'm possibly thinking.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
BatKing Deltor
Delta Vanguard 6
885
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 05:35:00 -
[566] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:The question is, do you have a capsuleer?
No sir, I do not.
Lynn Beck, message to Batking Deltor - "I reject your reality and I substitute my own!"
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 06:05:00 -
[567] - Quote
BatKing Deltor wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:The question is, do you have a capsuleer? No sir, I do not.
I'll be transferring 750 million eve isk (Approx 125 mil DUST) through Gyn Wallace's ISK Exchange, I'll get the ISK and then transfer it to you from this Dust character (Unless there is a capsule pilot you want the isk delivered to)
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
16313
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 07:33:00 -
[568] - Quote
MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role.
I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks.
Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV.
Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 10:32:00 -
[569] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason.
yep, except that reason didnt include anti infantry.
ask for medium turrets instead of OP large blaster turrets |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6032
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 13:35:00 -
[570] - Quote
You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Harkon Vysarii
Intermediate.Purgatory
473
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 13:52:00 -
[571] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:True Adamance wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:MetalWolf-Cell wrote:Bringing Marauders back with old stats will just ensue vehicle chaos again. They were extremely tough to kill and some would even withstand a orbital strike or two on top of them and they would not even move. (Wish I had the video of that)
So it's unfair that pilots knew how to fit their vehicles, and had extremely fast reaction times. Got it Not saying it was unfair, nor arguing about how they fit their tanks. Just calling what I saw. Besides, I see tanks as powerful support platforms, not as a one man killing machine. And yelling at everybody you think is going to break vehicles will not help your thoughts get in the door of dust. Some people here want to balance tanks against AV. But making AV just a minor factor will kill the role. I think the idea of helping support if fine for vehicles but not on Tanks. Perhaps more suited for MAV or LAV. Though I simply think this based off of the generally accepted definition and role of tanks in an historical sense. They mount large calibre guns for a reason. yep, except that reason didnt include anti infantry. ask for medium turrets instead of OP large blaster turrets
I've never asked for OP large blasters. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2633
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 16:15:00 -
[572] - Quote
Back when tanks used to be tanks.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
310
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 16:16:00 -
[573] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't).
I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them.
Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible.
But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed.
But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem.
And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet.
But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable.
If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure.
and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks.
Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot.
1. 4 IAFG does the job in most cases, 4 will move the HAV away if the pilot is smart enough which is a win in my book, 2 will defo kill it outright
2. Hardener animations show up for me, the booster is a quick flash but even then the booster may not work anyways and you can stop the regen with another shot even if its half way through the boost thus stopping it
3. The gunlogi is anti explosive, all AV weapons barring 2 do armor damage, add in a hardener and its 50% resistance off the bat
4. Weakspot is still there, 1 good shot on it and the shield can be gone or at least half shields and getting behind generally isnt a problem unless your on foot
5. Swarms are another matter but fire and forget needs to be removed
6. Scout vs Pilot are 2 different suits completely, 1 is for combat the other is for use with a vehicle and no anti infantry capabilities - That said they are better than basic and are used over basic everytime |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
310
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 16:17:00 -
[574] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel.
1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6034
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 17:55:00 -
[575] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. 4 IAFG does the job in most cases, 4 will move the HAV away if the pilot is smart enough which is a win in my book, 2 will defo kill it outright
I'm in it for the kill, not the consolation prize, just like most HAV pilots who aren't simply jerking off merrily farming warpoints off each other.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:18:00 -
[576] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters
its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2.
give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles.
small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops |
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1401
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:32:00 -
[577] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel.
Sadly, it's doable in an LAV as well.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2339
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:47:00 -
[578] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
310
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:52:00 -
[579] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2339
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:53:00 -
[580] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops 1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?
Small Rail Turrets
/argument
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:58:00 -
[581] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.
1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV
2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2340
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 19:31:00 -
[582] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion. 1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV 2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else
1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle).
2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created).
Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6034
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 20:35:00 -
[583] - Quote
My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.
The pilot has to pay for the HAV.
The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.
The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.
Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.
There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.
You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16326
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 22:29:00 -
[584] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.
The pilot has to pay for the HAV.
The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.
The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.
Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.
There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.
You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.
The only thing I have against mandating crews is that vehicle balance on tank equivalents in achieved in many other games without the need for crews. I know I talk a lot about the realism of tanks and such......but is would simply be no longer viable for me to play or enjoy the role of a tank if multiple people are required to even operate one.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2341
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 22:44:00 -
[585] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.
The pilot has to pay for the HAV.
The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.
The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.
Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.
There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.
You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.
Well, someone needs to pay for the HAV, who does it, IDGAF.
I have always been of the opinion that skills should be disconnected from fitting and connected directly to usage. This way, Corp Directors could purchase and fit Vehicles to be distributed to individual crews of operators.
I've already addressed your secondary reason in my proposal regarding the as-of-yet unreleased Pilot suits. The neural interface that capsuleers have with their ships are facilitated by their pod (which unless I am picturing scales wrong, is roughly the size of a LAV). If we take that connection and boil it down to just the necessaries, I think the pilot suit could be a good representation of "just the necessaries".
I never said that they should be at the mercy of whatever idiot blueberry who hops in, when have I ever opposed the inclusion of Vehicle Locks? The answer is never, in fact, I support it with likes/posts whenever it has been brought up.
I will be the first to admit that the ideas I have about vehicles are vastly different from what we have currently. People resist them because they've grown too accustomed to running around in their STARTER_FITS or Sentinels solo tanking when my ideas would allow them to do the same thing they are used to now with the minor exception of being required to be in a(n as-of-yet- unreleased) Pilot suit.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:01:00 -
[586] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.
oh no dont get me wrong. in no way do i feel tanks should be effective without support. they should be weak against infantry without their own infantry support |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:11:00 -
[587] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops 1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?
are trying to snipe them? small blaster shooting out to 100m is like asking for an ion pistol to have the same range as the plasma rifle.
that siad. i kill heavies out to somewhere between 50m and 70m. which feels good enough for defense. on a LAV its more useful as you can move around more to keep safe distance but apply damage.
most of my small blaster kills were done while on a LAV.
on a tank, the issue is that no one wants to get close enough to use small blasters because tank handling is poor. so if you get into some thick stuff you might not make it out. so everyone tries to keep distance and use the large blaster since it has more range. this range is outside of small blasters, so theyre useless as a supplement to the large blaster.
this could be fixed, by allowing tanks increased range on small turrets, but idk if its really needed |
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
768
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:18:00 -
[588] - Quote
would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2342
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:02:00 -
[589] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol
Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16330
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:28:00 -
[590] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable.
That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time.
Kind of like side arms.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2342
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:46:00 -
[591] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable. That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time. Kind of like side arms.
Sorta I guess, I pictured it more like swapping seat, though IDK why you couldn't just be third person over the main turret the whole time while cycling through each turret.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16330
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 03:33:00 -
[592] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable. That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time. Kind of like side arms. Sorta I guess, I pictured it more like swapping seat, though IDK why you couldn't just be third person over the main turret the whole time while cycling through each turret.
I already do swap seats to do this. But honestly I don't see why I should have to. Choosing not to use the Large Turret is penalty enough.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1407
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 09:17:00 -
[593] - 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.
Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6036
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 10:30:00 -
[594] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote: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. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game.
Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all. 
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:08:00 -
[595] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion. 1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV 2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else 1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle). 2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created). Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems.
1. They used to get rolfstomped by HAV drivers in the past when infantry refused to bring out AV or even skill into it, wasnt the pilots faults but infantrys, CCP answer was to nerf everything into the ground to make it easier for infantry
2. A player with 30mil SP into infantry is alot more versatile than the 30mil pilot
2a. The HAV is not a battlefield tool, its the individuals tool, it is something they skilled into to use, it costs ISK for them to use and because it costs ISK and SP they can fit it how they like it, small turrets are pointless and generally useless now and no one uses them in PC because it means you have to gimp the tank - I have not once seen a 3man HAV in a PC because it is not done and not worth it but as usual back in Chrome days i did use a 3man HAV but infantry cried that i was too powerful as usual so HAV have been nerfed - 16v16 isnt worth it to have 3ppl in 1 vehicle when 1 AV can kill it outright
3. Crew service just means you need 3ppl just so you can use what you skilled into and bought which effectively no longer makes it a viable playstyle at all because its the pilot which need to put all the SP/ISK into something that they cannot use if they are the only one on - Its such a bad idea
4. You dont use vehicles do you? |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:11:00 -
[596] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Sir Dukey wrote: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. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all.
1. Rattati hasnt replied to anything in this thread
2. The spreadsheet hasnt been updated
3. We have no idea what CCP are thinking currently
4. Other threads that Rattati has created has more than 5posts by him on various things, the only way vehicles will progress is if CCP actually try to create a discussion on there vision for vehicles |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
315
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:14:00 -
[597] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops 1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m? are trying to snipe them? small blaster shooting out to 100m is like asking for an ion pistol to have the same range as the plasma rifle. that siad. i kill heavies out to somewhere between 50m and 70m. which feels good enough for defense. on a LAV its more useful as you can move around more to keep safe distance but apply damage. most of my small blaster kills were done while on a LAV. on a tank, the issue is that no one wants to get close enough to use small blasters because tank handling is poor. so if you get into some thick stuff you might not make it out. so everyone tries to keep distance and use the large blaster since it has more range. this range is outside of small blasters, so theyre useless as a supplement to the large blaster. this could be fixed, by allowing tanks increased range on small turrets, but idk if its really needed
1. AV can be out as far as 300m, no small turret can hit that far and the only large is the rail, 175m SL user again too far for small turrets also tho small turret rendering sucks so you cannot see that far out anyways
2. For the small turrets to be useful you need to be on top of them which means never miss AV nades and easy frisbee RE while at major risk to heavy AV which can be anywhere
3. Its not worth it, my AR is more accurate and has more range |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6038
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 14:38:00 -
[598] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Sir Dukey wrote: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. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all. 1. Rattati hasnt replied to anything in this thread 2. The spreadsheet hasnt been updated 3. We have no idea what CCP are thinking currently 4. Other threads that Rattati has created has more than 5posts by him on various things, the only way vehicles will progress is if CCP actually try to create a discussion on there vision for vehicles
Don't try to justify people being self-righteous, and idiotic. It drags you to their level.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Aderek
Made in Poland...
E-R-A
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 15:55:00 -
[599] - Quote
Bigest joke is that normal weapon can damge tanks, like nova knifes ;)
For me only AV, FORGE and Swarms should damage tank/dropships.
I many times desttroy tank buy rail rifle or lav by HMG, for me, its a joke (my fried destroy tank by sniper rifle).
dust514.pl
MM proto logi
50 kk SP and growing
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
664
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 16:14:00 -
[600] - Quote
Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing.
Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul.
I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6044
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 17:44:00 -
[601] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing.
Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul.
I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though.
I can't sing enough that this is what I'm hoping for.
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
4240
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 19:05:00 -
[602] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing.
Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul.
I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though.
Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1417
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 20:12:00 -
[603] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Sir Dukey wrote: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. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all.
When everyone enters dust, at least they people I know, they all say "OMG dude the vehicles are so cool. The fittings and everything. I wanna fly that thing brooo, that tank looks so epic and strong." only to figure out how sh*tty vehicles are and switch over to infantry forever turning into infantry scrubbery. Not saying i'm not one of those guys because I totally am Infantry scrubbery.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
665
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 20:39:00 -
[604] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing.
Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul.
I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can.
You can take it easy man, its not your actual job. From what i can glean, you've got the best compilation of ideas pitched here. Once it gets a bit streamlined hopefully we can put together a new feedback thread. This one has gone slightly off the rails. no pun intended.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2343
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:24:00 -
[605] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion. 1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV 2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else 1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle). 2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created). Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems. 1. They used to get rolfstomped by HAV drivers in the past when infantry refused to bring out AV or even skill into it, wasnt the pilots faults but infantrys, CCP answer was to nerf everything into the ground to make it easier for infantry 2. A player with 30mil SP into infantry is alot more versatile than the 30mil pilot 2a. The HAV is not a battlefield tool, its the individuals tool, it is something they skilled into to use, it costs ISK for them to use and because it costs ISK and SP they can fit it how they like it, small turrets are pointless and generally useless now and no one uses them in PC because it means you have to gimp the tank - I have not once seen a 3man HAV in a PC because it is not done and not worth it but as usual back in Chrome days i did use a 3man HAV but infantry cried that i was too powerful as usual so HAV have been nerfed - 16v16 isnt worth it to have 3ppl in 1 vehicle when 1 AV can kill it outright 3. Crew service just means you need 3ppl just so you can use what you skilled into and bought which effectively no longer makes it a viable playstyle at all because its the pilot which need to put all the SP/ISK into something that they cannot use if they are the only one on - Its such a bad idea 4. You dont use vehicles do you?
1. Not my mistake, theirs.
2. This is a red herring, it is not the infantrymans fault that the "pilot" chose to hyper focus on despite knowing the limitations regarding vehicles. What is the saying? Overspecialize and you breed in weakness?
2a. You just want to hang on to the brokenness that are the vehicles we have currently don't you? So it isn't worth requiring more than 1 person for an HAV because 1 non-specified AV can kill it outright but it's ok to demand that it take more than non-specified AV to kill your solo pwnmobile? #loldoublestandardmuch?
3. There you go assuming that Crew Service wouldn't be accompanied by other changes to vehicles in general. In your haste to deride the idea you fail to consider that it might be accompanied by other changes to vehicles in general that would further increase the buff while spreading the cost.
4. Currently? No, I have no SP in vehicles currently. Does this mean that I have never had skill points in Vehicles? No. Does this mean that I never plan to reacquire skill points in Vehicles? Again, no. I have extensive experience with LAVs whether as a troop transport or as a RE delivery system, minor experience with HAV (I've used them a bit though not regularly in a long while) and little to no (very old as well) experience with dropships. I have never paid a terrible amount of attention to vehicles in Dust since we've only got half of them.
As Tefsa said, debating Crew Service is not the point of this topic. I made a statement and allowed myself to be drawn into a debate about it, for that, I apologize though this does not mean that I am swayed in opinion, just that I will refrain from diluting the true purpose of this thread with my opinions on Crew Service.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6057
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 22:20:00 -
[606] - Quote
Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
665
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 23:15:00 -
[607] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh?
Asking to call off the HAV reintroduction because of two guys you cant get along with, is counterproductive.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2343
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 23:44:00 -
[608] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh?
Yeah, loads /sarcasm
TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments)....
I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16344
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 07:02:00 -
[609] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh? Yeah, loads /sarcasm TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments).... I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).
Do it.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6068
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 08:59:00 -
[610] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:
I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).
While I vehemently disagree with you on crews that doesn't mean that I don't think your other ideas might not have a couple potential gems.
Throw em out. You might have something Rattati can use.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
324
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 13:35:00 -
[611] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh? Yeah, loads /sarcasm TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments).... I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).
1. I would reply to your other wall but since your are going to make a thread i will take it apart then
2. Cherrypicking? You mean looking at the flaws and problems of a propsed idea is now cherrypicking? Looks like anyone who disagrees with you is now cherrypicking and also has to be someone else, i think you are getting paranoid |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6069
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:03:00 -
[612] - Quote
It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.
So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
324
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:05:00 -
[613] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.
So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot.
1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6071
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:21:00 -
[614] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.
So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking
difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 18:03:00 -
[615] - Quote
Come on people, let's throw some more numbers around, make more spreadsheets. If you've got ideas, share them regardless of how you think they'll be reacted to.
I think the Marauder class HAV should have transport capacity and be extremely resilient to AV fire practically requiring a couple of dedicated footslogging AVers to take down...the tradeoff would be greatly reduced firepower and lower mobility (Put a Drake on treads). I think that the enforcer's should have the massive firepower necessary to quickly take down a Marauder, but be vulnerable to being peppered down by even small-arms fire, but have higher mobility to make up for it.
The Marauder threatens the infantry or breaks through their lines, the Enforcer cleans up the Marauders, the MBTs can fit to perform either/or something in between.
Oh, when are we gonna see a return of the BlOps tanks?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
328
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 18:14:00 -
[616] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.
So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context.
1. I also do what you just described
2. I use lists to get to the point and explain my reasons, i do this for the ADHD people who fall asleep or get distracted by a button when reading walls of texts |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6080
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 18:18:00 -
[617] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.
So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. 1. I also do what you just described 2. I use lists to get to the point and explain my reasons, i do this for the ADHD people who fall asleep or get distracted by a button when reading walls of texts
If a person't too ADHD to read a paragraph, then he's too ADHD to provide a coherent and useful opinion actionable in the game.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 20:00:00 -
[618] - Quote
Blub
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
CommanderBolt
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
2921
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:44:00 -
[619] - Quote
Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums...
Tank (Fast - Light)
- 1 Shoota' (1 occupant)
- Some armour
BIG Tank (Regular - Medium)
- 2 Shoota's (2 occupants)
- More armour
SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy)
- 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants)
- 2 Shoota's
- MEGA ARRMUR
- MEGA SHEULD
Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa?
MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6088
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:53:00 -
[620] - Quote
CommanderBolt wrote:Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums...
Tank (Fast - Light)
- 1 Shoota' (1 occupant)
- Some armour
BIG Tank (Regular - Medium)
- 2 Shoota's (2 occupants)
- More armour
SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy)
- 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants)
- 2 Shoota's
- MEGA ARRMUR
- MEGA SHEULD
best proposal yet. I think we have a winner.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:59:00 -
[621] - Quote
CommanderBolt wrote:Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums...
Tank (Fast - Light)
- 1 Shoota' (1 occupant)
- Some armour
BIG Tank (Regular - Medium)
- 2 Shoota's (2 occupants)
- More armour
SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy)
- 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants)
- 2 Shoota's
- MEGA ARRMUR
- MEGA SHEULD
Needz moar Dakka, but oderwize Rait Propah
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
16351
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 23:06:00 -
[622] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:CommanderBolt wrote:Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums...
Tank (Fast - Light)
- 1 Shoota' (1 occupant)
- Some armour
BIG Tank (Regular - Medium)
- 2 Shoota's (2 occupants)
- More armour
SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy)
- 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants)
- 2 Shoota's
- MEGA ARRMUR
- MEGA SHEULD Needz moar Dakka, but oderwize Rait Propah
You gitz iz bein' stupid!
We need moar flashzez! Moar shoota's, and moar dakka!
We need STOMPAz!
- Deth Kannon
- Supa Rokkit
- 5 Big Shoota's
- Crusha Ball
- an a Red Paint Job cuz the Red unz go fasta!
*"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
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 23:50:00 -
[623] - Quote
Moar 40k references?
MLT HAV - Predator
STD HAV - Leman Russ Tank
Marauder - Land Raider
G Enforcer - Immolator
C Enforcer - Ravager? Hammerhead?
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
16357
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 11:40:00 -
[624] - Quote
Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6107
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 12:12:00 -
[625] - Quote
problem is whenever someone suggests making enforcers light HP, big gun, people start absolutely sh*tting kittens saying they'll be useless and wanting them to be able to take lots of hits.
I don't think people are on the same sheet of music when you say "Glass cannon."
But on the other hand, I don't forsee anyone making the easy to annihilate hulls cheap, which is the POINT of glas cannon stuff economically. Lots of cheap tanks with big guns usually trumps a few heavy tanks with good armor.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
335
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 14:17:00 -
[626] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges.
1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it
2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers
3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead
4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6113
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 15:48:00 -
[627] - Quote
Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2652
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 18:45:00 -
[628] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost.
No, because video game.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6122
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 19:29:00 -
[629] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game.
Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 23:15:00 -
[630] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things
My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3...
1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate)
3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?
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
16366
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 00:48:00 -
[631] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?
Personally I'm always of the opinion that tanks forward armour could benefit from some kind of resistance buff to encourage tanks to always be facing their targets and using cover to minimise angles of fire against them.
It's interesting with Lazer....he's saying all of these things as if I have not covered them long before him in this thread......
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2654
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 00:54:00 -
[632] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does.
No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6123
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 02:05:00 -
[633] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen.
Try not treating everyone else like they're made of pure sh*t and they'll stop treating you like a second class citizen.
You know, courtesy if you want courtesy?
It does work occasionally.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2654
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 04:11:00 -
[634] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. No, I hate how my preferred playstyle gets marginalized, and being treated like a second class citizen. Try not treating everyone else like they're made of pure sh*t and they'll stop treating you like a second class citizen. You know, courtesy if you want courtesy? It does work occasionally.
So that's what you call my unwavering support of my chosen playstyle? Real nice
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
137
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 04:48:00 -
[635] - Quote
Spker and Breakin can we stop with the argumentative tangents?
Spker, AVers and line infantry have just as much right to comment on their feelings of vehicle balance as vehicle users have to comment on dropsuit balance. Breakin does have a vehicle pilot alt (a maddy pilot), and if anything has been calling for AV and the Gunnlogi to both be nerfed to bring the maddy up to snuff (or, depending on how you read his wording, the maddy to be buffed and gunnlogi slightly nerfed)...the important part being that there is a reasonable TTK for a Dedicated AVer (Note the dedicated, not a guy who just grabs the starter AV fit or MLT FG) to take out an HAV (regardless of type) when the active mods are on cooldown.
I guess my point is Spkr, tone it down, and don't take everything the Breakin suggests as automatically bad for vehicles (as not everything he suggests is), just consider his ideas and try to explain why you do or don't agree with him (give him the benefit of the doubt)
According to the OP, Marauders and Enforcers are going to be side-grades...accept that they're not going to be as relatively powerful as they used to be, instead let's focus on developing suggestions for how they can best fill the rolls as described in the OP (or any role you feel they should fill, provided it stays with the stipulation of a side-grade).
Breakin, it has felt in the past that Vehicle Operator's concerns took second seat to the concerns of AVers, so I understand Spker's fervent defense of roll, and violent opposition to the ideas he sees as threatening it. I agree that he needs to bring it down a notch but I agree that not having impact angles is an acceptable abstraction for the sake of simplifying game mechanics (although, I agree it would be kinda neat, base values don't change, but provides either more or less damage resistance dependent on the angle).
At least you both agree on vehicles being brought back to something more similar to the old values, and that the modules that you fit should modify tank performance more than the hull. So can we talk about new base values that would be good for the hulls and modules that would support this style of customization (preferably without calling anyone's ideas crap out of hand, at least not without a full explanation as to why)?
Also, for reference as we work on our suggestions: what's a good TTK MBT vs MBT assuming identical, defensive, brick fits facing each-other head-on (spherical mercs in a vacuum), I'm in favor of a longer TTK myself.
oh, and what about adding a co-axial small turret?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1276
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 09:29:00 -
[636] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:problem is whenever someone suggests making enforcers light HP, big gun, people start absolutely sh*tting kittens saying they'll be useless and wanting them to be able to take lots of hits.
I don't think people are on the same sheet of music when you say "Glass cannon."
But on the other hand, I don't forsee anyone making the easy to annihilate hulls cheap, which is the POINT of glas cannon stuff economically. Lots of cheap tanks with big guns usually trumps a few heavy tanks with good armor.
I would want them to be glass cannons to other tanks, but just as "tanky" against AV.
It'd be a complete upgrade, but we wouldn't be **** on by AV for using our SP and also not being in a Marauder.
As it stands, having the SP and running a STD tank makes no sense real sense unless you have the cash to blow. You'll be almost entirely as effective in a militia tank.
I don't want the same thing to happen to the other tank types and out basic variants.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6127
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 09:59:00 -
[637] - Quote
Honestly the only way to balance enforcers as cannon destructo balls with a weak tank would be to bring back splash values.
You can't make it a glass cannon and tanky period.
But you can make it punch hard in both weight classes or as you said, AV will trivialize it. But if it has the ability to blow the crap out of infantry while retaining vulnerability it can balance out.
Regardless it needs to be cheaper than the others.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
337
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 15:11:00 -
[638] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?
1. Armor needs thickness and angling while all ammo needs penetration values and how does that work with shields and EVE in general?
3. Its the only way to do it in new eden so flanking is required but the problem is that damage is still caused where as TD in WW2 were able to bounce shots for no damage |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
138
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 16:26:00 -
[639] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? 1. Armor needs thickness and angling while all ammo needs penetration values and how does that work with shields and EVE in general? 3. Its the only way to do it in new eden so flanking is required but the problem is that damage is still caused where as TD in WW2 were able to bounce shots for no damage
Gotcha
Let's Abstract that and assume that the weapons in New Eden are always able to make some ammount of damage stick (through warping armor plates, or drawing energy from the shields)...and using the WW2 model, abstract a given tank's armor plating (or resistance to penetration) as a combination of HP and Resistances (or if shield recharge delay is kept...hoping not..a better recharge threshold)...work with the WW2 examples as a baseline, but then see how you would make the functional within the rules of the game. (Maybe add in armor angling to add/remove resistances or damage when firing at certain parts of a tank from certain angles).
A Tiger in dust doesn't have to be immune from lighter weapons fire, just practically immune (My Mission running BS in eve isn't immune from fire from rat cruisers, but I sure as hell don't worry about them very much...unless there are a ton of them)
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
16375
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 19:13:00 -
[640] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? 1. Armor needs thickness and angling while all ammo needs penetration values and how does that work with shields and EVE in general? 3. Its the only way to do it in new eden so flanking is required but the problem is that damage is still caused where as TD in WW2 were able to bounce shots for no damage Gotcha Let's Abstract that and assume that the weapons in New Eden are always able to make some ammount of damage stick (through warping armor plates, or drawing energy from the shields)...and using the WW2 model, abstract a given tank's armor plating (or resistance to penetration) as a combination of HP and Resistances (or if shield recharge delay is kept...hoping not..a better recharge threshold)...work with the WW2 examples as a baseline, but then see how you would make the functional within the rules of the game. (Maybe add in armor angling to add/remove resistances or damage when firing at certain parts of a tank from certain angles). A Tiger in dust doesn't have to be immune from lighter weapons fire, just practically immune (My Mission running BS in eve isn't immune from fire from rat cruisers, but I sure as hell don't worry about them very much...unless there are a ton of them)
But the Tiger was immune to small arms fire.
*"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
140
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 19:30:00 -
[641] - Quote
And HAVS are currently practically immune from smll arms fire (concen trated fire will. still hurt it if the HAV has no armor reps....we've gotten 5 tank kills by finishing off the survivor of a slugging match with my squads rifles). Not saying we need that level of front facing resistance, but it illustrates the point (we don't need a full tank simulation, just a reasonable facsimile of one)
Sorry for any mistakes, phone is freaking out
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:42:00 -
[642] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game.
So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then?
Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:44:00 -
[643] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?
That would actually make sense, well unless the Enforcer is fast, and therefore might try and orbit something, in which it won't have its face pointing towards the other HAV, but rather its sides and even back.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16386
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 07:51:00 -
[644] - Quote
I've had another thought.
Perhaps it's easier to balance tanks around this ideal
Tanks have less generalised slots and more specialise slot lay outs.
Large Turret Slots (Slow RoF high damage cannon)
Secondary Small Turret Slots (High RoF Anti Infantry guns)
Armour/Shielding Slot (Designed to accommodate the tier of armour from Light to Heavy determining the vehicle primary HP and and mobility attributes)
Defensive Slot 1 (designed to accommodate defensive modules that affect Shields or armour functionality from passive resistance to regenerative functions)
Utility Slot 1 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
Utility Slot 2 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
From here vehicles and the angles of armour they are engaged at have standard resistance values depending firstly of the logical location the armour/shields would be thickest and then by racial attributes perhaps.
Frontal Armour - Basic 25% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Side Armour - Basic 10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Rear Armour - 0% - "-"10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier (not rear armour also have the weak point on it so additional damage vs this face is likely)
Turret - 0% Resistance to damage.
A Tank theoretically could look like this.
Large Turret Slot: 80GJ Charged Electron Cannon
Small Turret Slot: 20GJ Compressed Light Railgun
Armour Slot: 120mm Armour Plating
Offensive Slot: Plasma Focusing Array (adjusts Turret functionality)
Defensive Slot: Active Nanite Injection System (passive regenerative feature ...blegh)
Utility Slot 1: Damage Control Unit
Utility Slot 2: Nitrous Injector
Frontal Armour Damage Profile: 65% Damage
Side Armour Damage Profile: 85% Damage
Rear Armour Damage Profile: 115% Damage
Turret Armour Profile: 100%
The Turret Slots determine what basic functionality you want your tank to have. DPS vs Alpha.
Armour Slot Conveys in this case a fair static armour boost and moderate mobility penalties. Pilot wants this tank to move reasonable quickly.
Defensive Slot: Pilot wants this tank to passively repair itself during combat or actively at a slower rate outside of combat.
Utility Slot 1: Pilot wants to have small resistance boosts for short periods of time to manage damage taken vs regenerated.
Utility Slot 2: Pilot wants this tank to be able to accelerate quickly for a short time at a moments notice.
If this ever was considered then.....
Rig Slots: An Additional Slot that general enhances or focuses on boosting one single small aspect of your hull while coming with a slight penalty as well.
E.G- Nanite Repair Systems Overclocker - Boosts the % of armour repaired by the Active Nanite Injection System by 10% however increases the cool down time of the unit by 5% or increases the PG of the unit by 10% etc.
Armour Damage Profiles =
Gallente - The Gallente are specialists of the scoot and shoot style of armoured warfare. A Gallentean Vehicle will rapidly approach and enemy column presenting its thicker forward armour at an angle firing a volley before reloading on the move. Thus Gallentea vehicles can rapidly agress and de-agress enemies with ease. However Gallentean tanks are usually constructed with lighter alloys to preserve mobility and this have weakened internal structures on the turret and rear sections of the hull.
+10% resistance to Forward Armour Damage Profile
+5% resistance to Side Armour Damage Profile
-15% resistance to Rear Armour Damage Profile
+0% resistance to Turret Armour Damage Profile
So ideally when a Gallentean Tanker is on the field they are trying to be mobile, preserve their ability to manoeuvre for aggressive and passive actions and close in on their targets for maximum DPS while presenting either their forward or side armours.
Meh just an off the cuff idea I've been mulling over. I got bored really and thought of ways to adjust the dynamic of tanks.
Specialisations could function like this
Marauder - +1 Defensive Module Slot - 25% Mobility Values and -15% Cool down to Utility Modules Fitted
Enforcer - +1 Offensive Systems Module Slot -15% Defensive Values - 20% Turret Tracking Speed
Black Ops - +2 Utility Systems Module Slots -10% to Offensive Systems Slot cooldown -10% to Defensive Systems Slot Cooldown.
Or some other ****.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6128
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:07:00 -
[645] - Quote
Bluntly I think impact angles would help vehicles overall.
Of course It would require another rebalance but eh.
Just make the assumption that shields are there to provide additional deflection and follow the contours of the vehicle to match the armor.
I.e. Caldari would have angled armor, gallente sloped armor.
Give the sloped less resistance to direct fire penetration and more splash deflection and do the opposite with angled or whatever seems appropriate.
Or use Kane's signature radius idea. It's not an obvious solution but it seems to have a bit of merit. That way rather than trying to balance the guns to each vehicle you can increase or decrease sig to lower damage to that vehicle.
A forge shot that passes through the bay doors of a dropship aren't going to do as much damage to a dropship as it will to a square hit on an HAVs ass.
The HAV has almost zero "deadspace" inside it's hull comparatively so it's sig radius would be bigger and take more damage from AV (not just handhelds, but turrets too)
This would allow vehicles that are constantly getting slapped around to be adjusted on the fly by tweaking the sig.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
673
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:28:00 -
[646] - Quote
I dont understand the need to turn Dust Tanks into War Thunder Ground Forces. This is just as much unrelated to the OP as Tank Crews. Its still an FPS and not a tank simulator.
We dont need to remodel tanks from the ground up, we just need the old tanks reintroduced with an aceeptable slot layout, pg and CPU.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6128
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 10:45:00 -
[647] - Quote
My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking.
We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
140
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:50:00 -
[648] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? That would actually make sense, well unless the Enforcer is fast, and therefore might try and orbit something, in which it won't have its face pointing towards the other HAV, but rather its sides and even back.
Well give the Caldari Enforcer the Hardened Front Facing Armor/Shield, and give the Gallente hardened Side armor?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6129
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:02:00 -
[649] - Quote
Enhanced resists on the glacis plate and would fit the tank destroyer motif.
There's nothing saying that a "glass cannon" cannot have strong points the way regular HAVs have weak points.
Forcing people to think before they engage is never bad design space. I still think enforcers should have a 25% size reduction to make them harder to hit. Perhaps having one secondary gunner at most.
You can justify all sorts of dirty design tricks if the premise of the vehicle is high vulnerability to AV weaponry of all types in order to avoid getting hit in the first place.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
343
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 17:56:00 -
[650] - Quote
1. Problem with all that is that its another overhaul for a new type of tank
2. The reduction of module slots and seperation into specific areas does limit what you fit on to it, possibly allow rigs as in EVE and maybe a unqiue module that cannot be taken off but also does not take up a module slot so that all the races can use them without half the races having to put it into a tank slot but comes with that specific vehicle - Im sure someone has said this before somehwere
3. For a 'TD' type of tank then would the turret come with it? ie a turret that you cannot buy on the market but cannot be removed from the tank either, so the turret is a specalized turret
4. The resistances could work possibly for shield, but for armor seems out of place, how would laser work? the armor reflects the laser beam onto a nearby enemy tank and causes damage or the laser goes straight through it - Cant really have sloped/angled armor with laser or even missiles |
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6130
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 18:06:00 -
[651] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Problem with all that is that its another overhaul for a new type of tank 2. The reduction of module slots and seperation into specific areas does limit what you fit on to it, possibly allow rigs as in EVE and maybe a unqiue module that cannot be taken off but also does not take up a module slot so that all the races can use them without half the races having to put it into a tank slot but comes with that specific vehicle - Im sure someone has said this before somehwere 3. For a 'TD' type of tank then would the turret come with it? ie a turret that you cannot buy on the market but cannot be removed from the tank either, so the turret is a specalized turret 4. The resistances could work possibly for shield, but for armor seems out of place, how would laser work? the armor reflects the laser beam onto a nearby enemy tank and causes damage or the laser goes straight through it - Cant really have sloped/angled armor with laser or even missiles
assume that the armor is ablative, reflective coating to deflect coherent light energy.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:03:00 -
[652] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I've had another thought.
Perhaps it's easier to balance tanks around this ideal
Tanks have less generalised slots and more specialise slot lay outs.
Large Turret Slots (Slow RoF high damage cannon)
Secondary Small Turret Slots (High RoF Anti Infantry guns)
Armour/Shielding Slot (Designed to accommodate the tier of armour from Light to Heavy determining the vehicle primary HP and and mobility attributes)
Defensive Slot 1 (designed to accommodate defensive modules that affect Shields or armour functionality from passive resistance to regenerative functions)
Utility Slot 1 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
Utility Slot 2 (designed to accommodate one utility slot that affects generally speaking non combative attributes)
From here vehicles and the angles of armour they are engaged at have standard resistance values depending firstly of the logical location the armour/shields would be thickest and then by racial attributes perhaps.
Frontal Armour - Basic 25% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Side Armour - Basic 10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier
Rear Armour - 0% - "-"10% resistance to AV weapons followed by racial modifier (not rear armour also have the weak point on it so additional damage vs this face is likely)
Turret - 0% Resistance to damage.
A Tank theoretically could look like this.
Large Turret Slot: 80GJ Charged Electron Cannon
Small Turret Slot: 20GJ Compressed Light Railgun
Armour Slot: 120mm Armour Plating
Offensive Slot: Plasma Focusing Array (adjusts Turret functionality)
Defensive Slot: Active Nanite Injection System (passive regenerative feature ...blegh)
Utility Slot 1: Damage Control Unit
Utility Slot 2: Nitrous Injector
Frontal Armour Damage Profile: 65% Damage
Side Armour Damage Profile: 85% Damage
Rear Armour Damage Profile: 115% Damage
Turret Armour Profile: 100%
The Turret Slots determine what basic functionality you want your tank to have. DPS vs Alpha.
Armour Slot Conveys in this case a fair static armour boost and moderate mobility penalties. Pilot wants this tank to move reasonable quickly.
Defensive Slot: Pilot wants this tank to passively repair itself during combat or actively at a slower rate outside of combat.
Utility Slot 1: Pilot wants to have small resistance boosts for short periods of time to manage damage taken vs regenerated.
Utility Slot 2: Pilot wants this tank to be able to accelerate quickly for a short time at a moments notice.
If this ever was considered then.....
Rig Slots: An Additional Slot that general enhances or focuses on boosting one single small aspect of your hull while coming with a slight penalty as well.
E.G- Nanite Repair Systems Overclocker - Boosts the % of armour repaired by the Active Nanite Injection System by 10% however increases the cool down time of the unit by 5% or increases the PG of the unit by 10% etc.
Armour Damage Profiles =
Gallente - The Gallente are specialists of the scoot and shoot style of armoured warfare. A Gallentean Vehicle will rapidly approach and enemy column presenting its thicker forward armour at an angle firing a volley before reloading on the move. Thus Gallentea vehicles can rapidly agress and de-agress enemies with ease. However Gallentean tanks are usually constructed with lighter alloys to preserve mobility and this have weakened internal structures on the turret and rear sections of the hull.
+10% resistance to Forward Armour Damage Profile
+5% resistance to Side Armour Damage Profile
-15% resistance to Rear Armour Damage Profile
+0% resistance to Turret Armour Damage Profile
So ideally when a Gallentean Tanker is on the field they are trying to be mobile, preserve their ability to manoeuvre for aggressive and passive actions and close in on their targets for maximum DPS while presenting either their forward or side armours.
Meh just an off the cuff idea I've been mulling over. I got bored really and thought of ways to adjust the dynamic of tanks.
Specialisations could function like this
Marauder - +1 Defensive Module Slot - 25% Mobility Values and -15% Cool down to Utility Modules Fitted
Enforcer - +1 Offensive Systems Module Slot -15% Defensive Values - 20% Turret Tracking Speed
Black Ops - +2 Utility Systems Module Slots -10% to Offensive Systems Slot cooldown -10% to Defensive Systems Slot Cooldown.
Or some other ****.
The slot layout stuff, absolutely ******* no. That's a more extreme way of doing 1.7, limiting choice because balance.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:04:00 -
[653] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking.
We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit.
As I told you, that should exclude turret damage values, as they were as broken as now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 19:05:00 -
[654] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.
The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.
M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.
The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.
The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? That would actually make sense, well unless the Enforcer is fast, and therefore might try and orbit something, in which it won't have its face pointing towards the other HAV, but rather its sides and even back. Well give the Caldari Enforcer the Hardened Front Facing Armor/Shield, and give the Gallente hardened Side armor?
That would make sense.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16392
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 21:39:00 -
[655] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:I dont understand the need to turn Dust Tanks into War Thunder Ground Forces. This is just as much unrelated to the OP as Tank Crews. Its still an FPS and not a tank simulator.
We dont need to remodel tanks from the ground up, we just need the old tanks reintroduced with an aceeptable slot layout, pg and CPU.
Not necessarily Ground Forces but like almost every other successful game that came out in the last ten years. Very rarely in online play have tanks been balanced around the idea of rapid firing guns.
AKA for the all the long standing dumbshits who are continuing to not use their brains...... TANKS DONT FIRE .50 Calibre guns as their primary turrets they have those 120mm Guns for a ******* reason. If you are driving a vehicle that does has such a calibre of gun you are not driving a tank.
None of us every have.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:44:00 -
[656] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:I dont understand the need to turn Dust Tanks into War Thunder Ground Forces. This is just as much unrelated to the OP as Tank Crews. Its still an FPS and not a tank simulator.
We dont need to remodel tanks from the ground up, we just need the old tanks reintroduced with an aceeptable slot layout, pg and CPU.
Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed.
Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well.
"Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6134
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:57:00 -
[657] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed.
Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well.
"Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls.
You just keep banging on that drum princess. You and Laser can start a HAV bitterness focus group.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 00:14:00 -
[658] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
Yeah, because FPS means no vehicles allowed.
Vehicles do need to be redone, skills need to have proper bonuses, they need good PG, CPU and HP values, and turrets need to be proper as well.
"Acceptable slot layout" to infantry means 2/2 on all hulls.
You just keep banging on that drum princess. You and Laser can start a HAV bitterness focus group.
Oh boy, more trolling. I'm crying tears.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
1856
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 02:47:00 -
[659] - Quote
i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it
All Hail Legion
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6135
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 08:30:00 -
[660] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it
The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it.
There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16397
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 09:28:00 -
[661] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it.
Yeah so as long as you can recover from the disabled status the mechanic would be great.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6136
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 10:43:00 -
[662] - Quote
Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
1856
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 13:50:00 -
[663] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it.
i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up.
All Hail Legion
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2354
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 15:09:00 -
[664] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
I think you're on to something here.
Roll Vehicles back to Chromosome values (tweaked by the things that have been learned since then) as well as rolling back some of the bad ideas that were developed along the way (like removable secondary turrets).
Only other thing that would be a "Must Have" if you ask me is Racial Parity among Turrets/Vehicles (even if they're reskins with individualized bonuses).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6139
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 15:38:00 -
[665] - Quote
Agreed.
Too much vehicle balance is predicated on other units that don't exist as well as weapons that don't exist either.
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
4266
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 16:49:00 -
[666] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking.
We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit.
I think initially something like this is the best course of action. Systems such as higher frontal resistance, damage angle reflection, ect. are all very cool, but not really the core of the problem, so I'd like to tackle stuff like that at a later date. Additionally the Chrome days were better than what we had now but in general people tend to remember good things in the past far more readily than bad things, and as such I think many people in the thread seem to underestimate how imperfect the Chrome stats were. Better, yes, but they still need quite a bit of work.
I'm trying to get the community PC redesign in a more solid place first, but then I intend to really dig back into the vehicle redesign initiative. The primary goals I'm looking at are as follows:
- More slots for HAVs and LAVs to allow more flexibility in fitting.
- General push to make modules a more important part of fitting, and base hull stats less important.
- Move armor repair back to an active module
- Keep shield recharge passive, but require a module of equal tier in order to surpass an armor repairer (Natural Shield Regen < Armor Repairer < Shield Regen + Recharger < Shield + Booster)
- Reduce Shield Recharge Rate on Armor Vehicles
- Make shield and armor vehicles have more similar total base HP, with main difference being in module HP/regen.
- Either move shields to 0 delay, or introduce skills & modules to reduce shield recharge delay.
- General rebuild of the skill system. Will attempt to leave existing skills intact, even if effect is modified (Avoid need for respec)
- Reintroduce/Add removed/needed modules.
- Explore options of Passive/Active modules with lesser/greater effectiveness.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6140
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:05:00 -
[667] - Quote
don't forget revert AV to chrome stats. not including the six missile swarm or 400m lock range
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
4266
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:16:00 -
[668] - Quote
Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6140
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:34:00 -
[669] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics.
Not a good idea at all
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
4266
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:41:00 -
[670] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all
How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 18:41:00 -
[671] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:And HAVS are currently practically immune from smll arms fire (concen trated fire will. still hurt it if the HAV has no armor reps....we've gotten 5 tank kills by finishing off the survivor of a slugging match with my squads rifles). Not saying we need that level of front facing resistance, but it illustrates the point (we don't need a full tank simulation, just a reasonable facsimile of one)
Sorry for any mistakes, phone is freaking out
Vehicles should be completely immune from rifles.
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.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 18:43:00 -
[672] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see.
Was that supposed to make any sense?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:19:00 -
[673] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it
You can hurt them so bad that they will back off, but vehicle turrets are generally (aka not the blaster) too strong for that, they'll just kill them before they escape, or AV as well for that matter.
EDIT: Read your idea, sounds neat, but I'm not sure if that would change much, but would be nice to have.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:22:00 -
[674] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense?
You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun.
1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim.
2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:29:00 -
[675] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is ******* silly.
Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:31:00 -
[676] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up.
Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large...
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6143
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:34:00 -
[677] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess.
Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2672
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 19:35:00 -
[678] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess.
I would have changes ready to go out though, of many kinds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:11:00 -
[679] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it?
I don't play it, so how would I know?
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.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 -
[680] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module.Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore.
Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4267
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 -
[681] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs
Well as long as the relative strength of both is unchanged, it doesn't really matter right? If a swarm had 200 attack and HAVs had 2000 defense in Chrome, would that not be the same if swams have 100 attack now and HAVs had 1000 defense?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2655
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:21:00 -
[682] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16398
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:25:00 -
[683] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it?
WT might as well be the closest thing to a tank simulator out this generation of gaming. Trumps that arcade World of Tanks crap..
*"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
16398
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 -
[684] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module.Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that.
I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity.
It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs.
Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field.
*"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
4268
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 -
[685] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6144
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 20:43:00 -
[686] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
this.
you exist, therefore I want to kill you.
really is that simple.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16398
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 22:12:00 -
[687] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. More to the point I will not ignore HAVs because HAV drivers NEVER ignore infantry, instead opportunistically slaughtering infantry for free kills wherever possible. The people who bang the loudest on the "I only want to fight other tanks" have historically been the ones I see with a maxed out HAV harvesting Infantry kills like a God-possessed Combine Harvester until I engage them. We exist on the same battlefield. You are on the opposing team. You are a target for extermination. Just like your blue dots on foot.
Actually you can tell me this. I only sporadically log into Dust these days. If farming the hell out of infantry like Duna isn't what I should be doing.....what is? I am lost.
((No sarcasm......I need something to do in Dust or I'm going to drop it))
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
1856
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 22:54:00 -
[688] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large...
2 types. 1 small say 1m square but not solid like a caltrop which you can carry lots of but can be shotup quite easily and the other 1-2m square (or just length or height) which is a solid block of ehp like a big block of rock or in this case a big block of armor plate to chew through which are fewer in number. to get the full effect these would have to be given in reasonable quantities with high deploy count with optimal effect using up both types.
All Hail Legion
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
280
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 01:54:00 -
[689] - Quote
AV weapons are more than effective enough versus all vehicles at this point.
I am actually surprised with the community that there aren't more posts asking for swarms or forges or plasma cannons to be able to shoot 90 degrees around corners so Frontline suits can lob 3 volleys at anything retreating for more easy vehicle kills. It has gotten to the point that it is more important to blow up the supply depots before going anywhere near infantry as even 2 militia av suits can bunny hop around and pop you if you aren't ready to duck around a corner.
I would like to see the next level tanks take similar amounts of sp investment as assault dropships as well as isk cost for base av defenses for all races, caldari having increased rail range and damage, gallente having better blaster dispersion and damage. Something along those lines.
I'm sure all the minmitar commandos will cry that they shouldn't have to reload to insta-lock on any vehicle and watch them pop from the top of some building. But it wouldn't be the dust forums without the garbage players trying to stay relevant. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2659
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 04:17:00 -
[690] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
Blame infantry for that.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16404
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 04:21:00 -
[691] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
Blame infantry for that.
But you can't.
Vet players exploited tanks in the early Chromosome period using their accrued SP pools to ruin the time of most new beta players achieving scores of 80/1 because no one had the capacity to fight back.
Infantry exploited the 50m rendering range and high building tops to ruin the days of tankers until Uprising 1.5.
Tankers exploited the **** out of OP tank ins 1.7.
It's a massive circle of abusive game mechanics that has led to one side bitching incessantly until change is made. Currently its out turn.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2659
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 04:24:00 -
[692] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity.
No, because again, there was no way to get some giant idiot of a blue dot out of a small turret unless someone drove a LAV into either side of the tank to kill the idiot. Problem with that is along with the blue dot dying, so did the person trying to help you. Never trust a blue dot. No mandatory small turrets, ever.
It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs.
There was no "maximizing a fitting" with two small turrets eating up CPU and PG. Those are the difference between fitting an enhanced damage mod and a complex damage mod, or a plate vs needing a CPU/PG upgrade mod. Again, no more mandatory small turrets, ever.
Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field.
Wasn't that way all the time. My experience beat out some randoms. Now ever terrible red dots with about an hour's worth of experience in a tank is equivalent to taking on the best during Chrome. They've been that dumbed down to the point where someone with as much experience as I have has trouble to someone a week out of the battle academy.
I know infantry is going to love that last one. You hop into a tank against AV and someone with my experience, and tell me how well you do. And you have to take the death in the tank, not jump out with PRO AV because you're worried about your KDR.
But I know how it will go. You'll burn 8-10 times in one match.
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.
2659
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 04:40:00 -
[693] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
Blame infantry for that. But you can't. lolwut. ALL THEY DID for 3 years is complain about vehicles and how their rifles couldn't destroy them. I've read about a scout glitch where they could run faster than a tank. Nobody complained about that. Also the MLT NOS module making a tank fly away at the speed of sound. When was that fixed? The very next day. Why? Because infantry complained about it. Couldn't have fun with it for 2 or 3 days, to tell CCP, "You know, you could give this to us with a 3 second activation and longer cooldown." No, it got nerfed so hard, they may as well have taken them all out. Infantry rightfully had the after-swarm freeze fixed, at the cost of doing - 7000 damage before having to reload with swarms. Of course they thought it was fine, yet pilots were saying that would be the end of vehicles - and what do you know, look how many pilots we've lost?
Pilots have been right, while infantry have been wrong. Whenever they can't destroy vehicles they get then nerfed, but AV OP? "Oh, it's just fine, it's perfectly balanced, you pilots can HTFU." I'm missing quite a lot but I'm reading something else.Vet players exploited tanks in the early Chromosome period using their accrued SP pools to ruin the time of most new beta players achieving scores of 80/1 because no one had the capacity to fight back. Again, glass tanks took care of those in literally 2-3 railgun shots. It's nobody's fault if one team has 4 pilots and the other has none. YOU CAN'T BALANCE THE DAMN GAME AROUND THAT. Infantry exploited the 50m rendering range and high building tops to ruin the days of tankers until Uprising 1.5. That's not an exploit, that's just horrible broken rendering, mechanics and coding. Same with CCP not fixing the railgun glitches. I'm actually surprised they fixed the damage vehicles suffered from going over rocks, and LAVs rolling and instantly exploding. I'm sure infantry thought that was fair and working as intended, too.Tankers exploited the **** out of OP tank ins 1.7. There weren't any exploits. Pilots wanted to remain pilots, and that was it. There were no "exploits." You're sounding less like a credible pilot to me.It's a massive circle of abusive game mechanics that has led to one side bitching incessantly until change is made. Currently its out turn. No, it's infantry constantly complaining that got us into the giant mess we're in now. When was the last time you remember vehicles getting a solid buff? I'll answer it for you = never.
I'm damn tired of being treated like a second class citizen.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Vitantur Nothus
Nos Nothi
1456
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 04:44:00 -
[694] - Quote
Introducing the new and improved HAV Pilot Helmet!
The shiny, space-age polymer you want ...
The airholes about the mouth you need!
* Cheeto and Soda slit sold separately |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16409
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 06:52:00 -
[695] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity.
No, because again, there was no way to get some giant idiot of a blue dot out of a small turret unless someone drove a LAV into either side of the tank to kill the idiot. Problem with that is along with the blue dot dying, so did the person trying to help you. Never trust a blue dot. No mandatory small turrets, ever.
It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs.
There was no "maximizing a fitting" with two small turrets eating up CPU and PG. Those are the difference between fitting an enhanced damage mod and a complex damage mod, or a plate vs needing a CPU/PG upgrade mod. Again, no more mandatory small turrets, ever.
Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field.
Wasn't that way all the time. My experience beat out some randoms. Now ever terrible red dots with about an hour's worth of experience in a tank is equivalent to taking on the best during Chrome. They've been that dumbed down to the point where someone with as much experience as I have has trouble to someone a week out of the battle academy. I know infantry is going to love that last one. You hop into a tank against AV and someone with my experience, and tell me how well you do. And you have to take the death in the tank, not jump out with PRO AV because you're worried about your KDR. But I know how it will go. You'll burn 8-10 times in one match.
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2660
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 07:27:00 -
[696] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 07:59:00 -
[697] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat.
He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)...
and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall
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
16410
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 08:24:00 -
[698] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall
Nah you are reading too much into it.
I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play.
However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust.
*"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
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 08:35:00 -
[699] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall Nah you are reading too much into it. I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play. However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust.
Nothing wrong with it if they tuned the railgun's damage (bear in mind that space-side railguns are more DPS weapons than Alpha-strike weapons, in dust they're doing both...I really want to see what Mattari Arty does) IMO you could adjust the damage numbers from Small Guns (their Damage Multipliers and Ammo Damage) to be Tank damage, and use Space-Side Small Turret ROF for Dust HAV Guns
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
16410
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 08:54:00 -
[700] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall Nah you are reading too much into it. I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play. However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust. Nothing wrong with it if they tuned the railgun's damage (bear in mind that space-side railguns are more DPS weapons than Alpha-strike weapons, in dust they're doing both...I really want to see what Mattari Arty does) IMO you could adjust the damage numbers from Small Guns (their Damage Multipliers and Ammo Damage) to be Tank damage, and use Space-Side Small Turret ROF for Dust HAV Guns
I also suggested that to force all 4 racial turrets and tanks into the game they could.
- Reskin the Maddy to be Gold and adjust it to 800 Shields 4000 Armour, Adjust the Maddy to 1125 Shields and 3400 armour.
-Reskin the Gunnlogi to Rust Red and give it the current Gunnlogi Stats, and adjust the current Gunnlogi to 3000 Shields and 1200 armour
Establish that each turret mantlet is assigned to the vehicle and all the changes when fitting a new turret is the barrel.
- Enlarge the Combat Rifle Barrel and give it the Current Large Blaster functions vs Armour
- Enlarge the Laser Rifle and make that the Amarr Barrel
- Rails and Missiles = Small tweaks
- Large Blasters become the 25mm gun or the CZ75 of Dust 514.
Now all turrets are in the game. Prissy ***** ass tankers can keep their ".50 Cal Maching Gun" and pretend they are good. Blasters become proper DPS weapons and function like they should, Rails get less DPS, Missiles/ Rockets less alpha (love to see their damahe halved and ammo cap doubled) and all four ******* tanks are in the game.
Not that I'd stick around to use the Amarr tank.
*"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
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 09:02:00 -
[701] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:[quote=Spkr4theDead]
He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)...
and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall Nah you are reading too much into it. I simply don't thing Dust vehicle gameplay is challenging or enjoyable any more and am looking into games that I think will require more of me as a tanker and are also interesting to play. However that tank turret thing still stands. Automatic Main Battle Cannon with no projectile drop? I chuckle quietly to myself every time I think about Dust. Nothing wrong with it if they tuned the railgun's damage (bear in mind that space-side railguns are more DPS weapons than Alpha-strike weapons, in dust they're doing both...I really want to see what Mattari Arty does) IMO you could adjust the damage numbers from Small Guns (their Damage Multipliers and Ammo Damage) to be Tank damage, and use Space-Side Small Turret ROF for Dust HAV Guns I also suggested that to force all 4 racial turrets and tanks into the game they could. - Reskin the Maddy to be Gold and adjust it to 800 Shields 4000 Armour, Adjust the Maddy to 1125 Shields and 3400 armour. -Reskin the Gunnlogi to Rust Red and give it the current Gunnlogi Stats, and adjust the current Gunnlogi to 3000 Shields and 1200 armour Establish that each turret mantlet is assigned to the vehicle and all the changes when fitting a new turret is the barrel. - Enlarge the Combat Rifle Barrel and give it the Current Large Blaster functions vs Armour - Enlarge the Laser Rifle and make that the Amarr Barrel - Rails and Missiles = Small tweaks - Large Blasters become the 25mm gun or the CZ75 of Dust 514. Now all turrets are in the game. Prissy ***** ass tankers can keep their ".50 Cal Maching Gun" and pretend they are good. Blasters become proper DPS weapons and function like they should, Rails get less DPS, Missiles/ Rockets less alpha (love to see their damahe halved and ammo cap doubled) and all four ******* tanks are in the game. Not that I'd stick around to use the Amarr tank.
Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?)
Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs?
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
16410
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 09:09:00 -
[702] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?)
Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs?
Yeah you would but at this point I don't care any more.
And meh..... IMO needs to be longer 60 seconds is **** all time to repair a Heavy Tank like the Marauder or even a light tank like the standard variants.
*"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
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 09:16:00 -
[703] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?)
Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs?
Yeah you would but at this point I don't care any more. And meh..... IMO needs to be longer 60 seconds is **** all time to repair a Heavy Tank like the Marauder or even a light tank like the standard variants.
I've got a spreadsheet with some numbers I've been working on (updated since I last posted the link) I'm adding in the other Racial HAV Base Hulls now. If you don't mind taking a look? (I can send it to you over skype if you'd like, I currently have the HAV Recharge time set to 60 seconds, but it can be easily changed)
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
16410
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 09:24:00 -
[704] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
Then wouldn't be just end up with the same problem with the "Autocannon" as we have with the Large Blaster (Unless you mean making it a burst fire weapon?)
Also...what do you think of a 60 second shield recharge time for HAVs?
Yeah you would but at this point I don't care any more. And meh..... IMO needs to be longer 60 seconds is **** all time to repair a Heavy Tank like the Marauder or even a light tank like the standard variants. I've got a spreadsheet with some numbers I've been working on (updated since I last posted the link) I'm adding in the other Racial HAV Base Hulls now. If you don't mind taking a look? (I can send it to you over skype if you'd like, I currently have the HAV Recharge time set to 60 seconds, but it can be easily changed)
Sure thing.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
350
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 12:08:00 -
[705] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
- More slots for HAVs and LAVs to allow more flexibility in fitting.
- General push to make modules a more important part of fitting, and base hull stats less important.
- Move armor repair back to an active module
- Keep shield recharge passive, but require a module of equal tier in order to surpass an armor repairer (Natural Shield Regen < Armor Repairer < Shield Regen + Recharger < Shield + Booster)
- Reduce Shield Recharge Rate on Armor Vehicles
- Make shield and armor vehicles have more similar total base HP, with main difference being in module HP/regen.
- Either move shields to 0 delay, or introduce skills & modules to reduce shield recharge delay.
- General rebuild of the skill system. Will attempt to leave existing skills intact, even if effect is modified (Avoid need for respec)
- Reintroduce/Add removed/needed modules.
- Explore options of Passive/Active modules with lesser/greater effectiveness.
1. I said that
2. With vehicles base hull stats should be different for each vehicle and possibly improved in places if specalized
3. I said that
4. I said that
5. Might have said that
6. Total base HP is one thing but having 2 vehicles at 5k HP but one shield and armor with most of the weapons doing damage to armor atm means advantage shield hence why armor has more atm but it doesnt seem to help
7. Shield should always be 0 - Constant passive shield regen - I said that
8. Go back to Chrome/Uprising vehicle skill tree - I said that
9. I said that
10. Its same as 9 since removed passive resistance modules offered less resistance for lower PG/CPU fitting and not needing to be active
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express
Smart Deploy
387
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 17:04:00 -
[706] - Quote
While we are changing vehicles, I hope that you at least consider changes to the large blaster turret. A blaster tank is very effective vs infantry, and fairly effective vs enemy tanks. Because of this, it is easily the go to turret. You only get out a missile tank or rail tank if you expect to kill tanks or turrets. This should be changed to make the blaster less of an all around weapon. The missile tank is meant to be all around.
I'm suggesting an increase to the fitting cost of a large blaster turret to lower its tanking ability. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
6151
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 17:17:00 -
[707] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:While we are changing vehicles, I hope that you at least consider changes to the large blaster turret. A blaster tank is very effective vs infantry, and fairly effective vs enemy tanks. Because of this, it is easily the go to turret. You only get out a missile tank or rail tank if you expect to kill tanks or turrets. This should be changed to make the blaster less of an all around weapon. The missile tank is meant to be all around.
I'm suggesting an increase to the fitting cost of a large blaster turret to lower its tanking ability.
blaster turret is low-mediocre vs infantry at best
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2667
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 19:46:00 -
[708] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:While we are changing vehicles, I hope that you at least consider changes to the large blaster turret. A blaster tank is very effective vs infantry, and fairly effective vs enemy tanks. Because of this, it is easily the go to turret. You only get out a missile tank or rail tank if you expect to kill tanks or turrets. This should be changed to make the blaster less of an all around weapon. The missile tank is meant to be all around.
I'm suggesting an increase to the fitting cost of a large blaster turret to lower its tanking ability.
Blaster good against infantry? You haven't been in a tank in the last few months. It sounds like you also want to nerf the blaster again. More dispersion, higher fitting cost? What can a blaster do when a rail is 290m away, or a missile is 240m away? I already know the answer to that, and it's blow up. A blaster has to get in the face of any vehicle to have a chance at blowing it up.
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.
2667
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 19:47:00 -
[709] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall
It's not too fast. It used to be faster, and when we had more modules, we had passive mods that reduced the spool time even more.
You just don't know what you're talking about.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 21:01:00 -
[710] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall It's not too fast. It used to be faster, and when we had more modules, we had passive mods that reduced the spool time even more. You just don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not debating that it used to be faster, I'm saying that the RoF doesn't feel right for a main cannon (it feels too fast, even for a Caldari Railgun)
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
16415
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 22:00:00 -
[711] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I always die with my HAV. I run a scout suit inside with a rep tool. That depends Spkr I've fought against pretty much all the big names of my time as a tanker I can't speak for before them since I was not a tanker but I think I've faired reasonably well.
Where was I saying it was you jumping out?
As for your assertion that I don't have experience.....well Spkr there's only so much you can learn in a game And if you are suggesting you can beat a similarly fit tank to your own plus two gunners I'd call you a liar. It doesn't much matter either way, I haven't played Dust in a month or so and honestly I don't feel like its a very good indicator or where I am at now as a tanker in terms of my gaming habits.
Where did I say it was you that didn't have experience?
I'm not used to the rapid firing Railguns, XT Missile Launchers, and Blasters any more. I'm used to 10 second reload time, managing my armour angles, using FPE, and dealing with which kinds of rounds to use vs which kinds of tanks, where to shoot them, how to shoot them, when to shoot them.
There's no better angle to take damage in this game.
But hey I'll leave you pretending that rapid firing 5 rounds out of a railgun at infantry who couldn't fight back made you good.
lolwut. That's a glitch, if you didn't know. It's been around for over a year.
^^^ are you sure you tank? If you did, you would've encountered that countless times, and knew what I was talking about right off the bat. He's just reffering to the standard firing rate of the Railgun relative to actual tank cannons, which he has at least some of a point about...the RoF of the Railguns seems to fast to me as well (though it shouldn't be as high as 10s, that should be reserved for Mattari Artillery)... and he's saying that adding in angled armor would be beneficial to the tanking experience overall It's not too fast. It used to be faster, and when we had more modules, we had passive mods that reduced the spool time even more. You just don't know what you're talking about. I'm not debating that it used to be faster, I'm saying that the RoF doesn't feel right for a main cannon (it feels too fast, even for a Caldari Railgun)
Pfff fires up to five rounds from a nine round chambering every 1.8 Seconds.... that's rapid fire if you ask me.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2671
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 23:09:00 -
[712] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Pfff fires up to five rounds from a nine round chambering every 1.8 Seconds.... that's rapid fire if you ask me.
Uh... no, because you can fire 3 rounds with an overheat. 5 if you wait for the bar to go all the way down and immediately fire again, and all 9 if you manage it well.
It's not fast enough when you need to destroy a vehicle then GTFO.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:00:00 -
[713] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:05:00 -
[714] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
WT might as well be the closest thing to a tank simulator out this generation of gaming. Trumps that arcade World of Tanks crap..
If you look at sim mode for Ground forces, maybe even realistic, sure. Arcade is a hell no, handles nothing like those tanks.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:10:00 -
[715] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module.Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that. I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity. It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs. Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field.
Forcing Teamwork is never a good idea, no matter how you slice it. Hell no. Making it to where it is a really good idea to have teamwork is better, you know, making it to where all the large turrets sucks ass at killing infantry could help.
Also, even when they were good, I had people for the most part just hop in for a ride, and if I needed infantry support, they would follow me in a LAV, simply because it's a lot easier that way. The front turret is terribly positioned imo, and the top turret is although better, for some reason inaccurate when aiming the large. A lot of the teams I was on had repping lAV's, which would follow me or another HAV, and infantry would go with us. It just worked.
In short, there's better ways of getting people to work together rather than forcing people, and forcing people doesn't really help anything.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:11:00 -
[716] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight.
This. Give me something to blwo up other than a Squid HAV.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:12:00 -
[717] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world.
What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours?
Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. More to the point I will not ignore HAVs because HAV drivers NEVER ignore infantry, instead opportunistically slaughtering infantry for free kills wherever possible. The people who bang the loudest on the "I only want to fight other tanks" have historically been the ones I see with a maxed out HAV harvesting Infantry kills like a God-possessed Combine Harvester until I engage them. We exist on the same battlefield. You are on the opposing team. You are a target for extermination. Just like your blue dots on foot.
Most of the time I ignore infantry. I see them, but I just don't care about them. It's only when I've ran out of targets or they pissed me off is when I shoot at them.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 03:16:00 -
[718] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large... 2 types. 1 small say 1m square but not solid and looks like a caltrop which you can carry lots of but can be shotup quite easily and the other 1-2m square (or just length or height) which is a solid block of ehp like a big block of rock or in this case a big block of armor plate to chew through which are fewer in number. to get the full effect these would have to be given in reasonable quantities with high deploy count with optimal effect using up both types.
So say enough to black entrances? I like. Could be a beginning to things like actual structures like actual gates and stuff.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6151
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 07:15:00 -
[719] - Quote
The problem with making the smalls optional back in chrome was even with them mads could field tanks that could weather a storm of fire that is unbelievable, gunnlogis and maddies universally had a 3-4 shot from solid AV lifespan and militia tanks were meat.
Having HAVs with the capability to be even MORE bricky is sketchy at best.
Currrently TTK on a normal gunnlogi (not a newbie gunlogi) exceeds the old sagaris by a wide margin. Not only because it can field the old Surya tank levels but because AV has all beeen nerfed both in rate of fire and damage output.
Leave swarms off my argument I dislike them. They aren't fun for me to use. So I don't.
But the mandatory turret removal would mean if we reintroduce marauders anywhere close to the old numbers their cpu and pg would have to come down anyway because they were barey manageable for most AV players as far as yo yo play and impossible to kill for all but a few.
The HAV rail and missiles would lilely be best staying as they are vs. HAVs if we don't retool them to be more like cannons.
But they need the splash. Being helpless vs AV infantry is uninteresting design space.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
killer270890 rock
G0DS AM0NG MEN
General Tso's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 14:49:00 -
[720] - Quote
I like that each tank is differentiated by a particular color, to differentiate a military tank of a GULOGI and also continuously ,
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but this time I'm not willing to lose.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:08:00 -
[721] - Quote
Relevant to my theorycrafting: Anyone know if a weapon with splash damage applies both the splash and the direct against a target when it hits?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6156
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:24:00 -
[722] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Relevant to my theorycrafting: Anyone know if a weapon with splash damage applies both the splash and the direct against a target when it hits?
Direct hit and splash don't stack one or the other.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:58:00 -
[723] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Relevant to my theorycrafting: Anyone know if a weapon with splash damage applies both the splash and the direct against a target when it hits? Direct hit and splash don't stack one or the other.
Thanks, I've made some more changes to my proposed numbers, you mind taking a look? (Do you need the link again?)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2683
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 07:07:00 -
[724] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol
What am I judging again?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
LudiKure ninda
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 14:05:00 -
[725] - Quote
When can we expect these changes?
I really want to get back in this game,but as a tanker..
( -í° -£-û -í°)
SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED
|
Mobius Wyvern
Sky-FIRE
5579
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:48:00 -
[726] - 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.
Sounds good to me.
Any ETA on when we might see Logistics vehicles returning?
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2680
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:30:00 -
[727] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote: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. Sounds good to me. Any ETA on when we might see Logistics vehicles returning?
Hopefully not for awhile, they still need to be fleshed out and balanced well.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2680
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:33:00 -
[728] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again?
You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16454
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 03:39:00 -
[729] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again? You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game.
Goddamn he'd hate it. OHKO penetrations. crew kills, Artillery Spam.....
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 11:00:00 -
[730] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
I don't play it, so how would I know?
So you're judging something you haven't even tried? lol What am I judging again? You said that Ground forces style mechanics added to HAV's, with the excuse of "it's supposed to be a video game". That is a silly statement, I said that millions beg to differ, and you haven't even played the game. Goddamn he'd hate it. OHKO penetrations. crew kills, Artillery Spam.....
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16456
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 11:20:00 -
[731] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
CL0AK W0LF R1D3R
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 12:47:00 -
[732] - Quote
Since being a tanker from the 1.2 era i think it was. I had just missed out on the proto tanks, but i did have a couple of months playtime in a vayu. The vayu was really weak. 3.7 mill tank would be demolished by my 1.7mill tank. The modules i think was what was key, a true tanker on here might agree that that changing the modules to fit the ds module classes (basic to complex) was a bad move because it made everything idiot proof (ish). The 5-3 / 3-5 slots was good for the enforcers. How about having the enforcer tank skill book that offered 3% resistance to damage depending on either it be for shield or armor. The maddy skillbook for speed, gunlogi movability, proto tanks should have the best of both worlds and a bonus to damage. As for the numbers a proto tank should be able to fit all proto on it. Hence the term proto. Pointless running a proto with a basic hardner because the turrets take up all the pg and cpu, if it has to have a low slot taken just for pg or cpu then put that amount the upgrades would give and take away the slot. The choice of where you put a small turret should also be something to look into aswell. I cant say exact numbers for the cpu and pg but proto tanks 3 turrets, enforcer single but with the option of 1 extra turret of where you would like to put it. |
CL0AK W0LF R1D3R
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 14:26:00 -
[733] - Quote
And also make it so that basic swarms cannot solo a proto tank. Just saying they are more op than 1.6 |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2361
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 14:33:00 -
[734] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire.
This game sounds cool, I am downloading it now....
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6178
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 15:12:00 -
[735] - Quote
CL0AK W0LF R1D3R wrote:And also make it so that basic swarms cannot solo a proto tank. Just saying they are more op than 1.6
this is a hilarious thing right here. basic swarms can barely solo an LAV
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
MetalWolf-Cell
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 16:55:00 -
[736] - Quote
Proto AV should be able to destroy vehicles fairly easily. After all they are specialized in that role to do so, right?
Just as a pilot should be able to shrug off standard AV if he is specialized in said skill. And if he has small turrets with good gunners, should be a force to be reckoned with...until he meets Proto AV. and it should be a struggle.
Like I said, I Understand, being in a tank and be completely soloed by one guy bunny hopping is frustrating. But if he is Proto AV, he is specialized to be the BANE of vehicles. He is succumbed to infantry jumping him as all he has is a sidearm. Even with a Minmatar commando, he only has one infantry based weapon, if he runs out of ammo in the clip in said weapon, he is going down to a squad of Anti-infantry.
Same with specialized Tanks (if we had them) they are meant to be hardened beasts, as that is what the player skilled into. Proto AV and specialized pilots equal each other out, and 2 Proto AV should take it out if the pilot doesn't make a hasty retreat.
and like Breakin said, A standard swarmer has trouble taking out anything, such as militia LAV's, you know, the weakest class of vehicles.
It's kind of disheartening to see that pilots and AV infantry can't come to happy medium and threads talking about HAV's, usually succumbs to trolling or radical bickering. Only a few I see manage to keep it civil and actually want to come to balance with the subject.
I want to see Tanks actually have a role and not Murder machines. Cause even though it is nice to see the potential to kill, but at the same time, it deteriorates it's role, because Infantry are usually the killers while vehicles support that assumption. Tanks with high DPS shells can slaughter infantry if given the right moment, but usually it boils down to supressive fire and area denial.
My opinion, A behemoth of a tank with slow High damaging cannon with splash damage, is much more potent than a large vehicle who's purpose is to do the job of infantry with a large rapid firing AR.
DUST 514/LEGION
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16458
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:40:00 -
[737] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire. This game sounds cool, I am downloading it now....
If on PS4 don't get into the American Tanks yet. They only have the M4 Medium Tank out and its damn easy to bust if you aims for the gun mantlet or the low driver area with Armour Piercing Ammo as you'll detonate the ammo stored there.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Operative 1174 Uuali
Y.A.M.A.H
266
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 03:37:00 -
[738] - Quote
Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!
I'm better than laser focused; I'm hybrid focused.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16462
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 04:11:00 -
[739] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!
That's not necessarily something I agree with. I don't see why players shouldn't if they wish be able to make the most of their hulls. turrets, and skills.
Ideally I'd love to see players encouraged to use two kinds of tanks. Their top tier tanks and their Eco Tanks for when ISK is tight.
Additionally I'd like to see all turrets becomes something appropriate for something that is supposed to be mounted on an MBT. Missiles as they are now and Blasters do not do this.
*"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
6193
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 11:18:00 -
[740] - Quote
Rewards in general need to be better. Running pubs or facwar it's not feasible to keep your militia tanks on the field due to the cost.
Part of my beef with the reward system is it actively discourages would-be pilots from taking risks since a full std/mlt fit sica or soma costs about as much as a prototype dropsuit fully fitted.
If hav pilots were able to sustain reasonable numbers of vehicles rather than one every two matches (same goes for ADS) we wouldn't have as sharp an argument between AV and pilots. But rather like it being almost impossible to sustain nonstop full ADV fits no matter how experienced you are (pc isk isn't being considered here) it is nigh impossible to sustain a profit save through overpowered fits destined to get nerfed.
Yes I am talking about the gunnlogi.
And the disparity in the gunnlogi will have the secondary effect of delaying improvements to the madrugar. Because with all of the generalized b*tching back and forth it's easy to say "av is overperforming" or "HAVs are overpowered" without examining what is causing the issue.
net results of complaining about the gunnlogi under normal circumstances will be to get havs nerfed in general rather than addressing the single one that is causing issues while ignoring the fact that two of them are little more than suicide fits for people who hate winning already.
It's like conflating "all AV is overperforming." What if it's just swarms? Is it unreasonable to state that the plc isn't particularly effective against the intended targets?
What are the circumstances (this applies both ways both v/av) that this overperforming is occurring?
Are HAVs overpowered because three of them decided to attack at the same place?
Is AV overpowered because they can focus fire and smash tanks?
Common sense answers to both questions is "no."
However, I'm waiting for the inevitable barely concealed assertion that havs should be immune to infantry plebes or that Vehicles should explode any time an AVer points an accusing finger at them.
Because that's the magic that has completely derailed this thread.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 14:14:00 -
[741] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!
1. If i mount a PROTO weapon on my suit can i fit nothing but basic on my dropsuit? No far from it even on basic i can fit on a couple of proto modules aswell
2. If i fit a PROTO weapon on my dropsuit does my dropsuit become a 'paper tiger'? No it doesnt
3. How would it be balanced with 'paper tiger' and 'strong defence'? It wouldnt
4. Terrible ideas where vehicle pilots are punished by infantry players who do not suffer from there own ideas |
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
183
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 15:01:00 -
[742] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!
Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6200
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 15:02:00 -
[743] - Quote
I was going to respond to your continuous whining about infantry players but I realized that your methods of talking at people speak for themselves.
Pretty sure your petty and accusative behavior will hamstring your efforts to get the game changed to primarily cater to your playstyle.
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
4319
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:56:00 -
[744] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES! Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too.
To an extent. To be fair, most dropsuits cant fit Proto EVERYTHING. Typically the sidearm and/or grenades are of a lower tier. So Proto Modules and Large Turret? Totally. But proto smalls on top of that? I'd have to say they would be a notch or two lower
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 19:52:00 -
[745] - Quote
Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles).
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6224
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 20:54:00 -
[746] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles).
Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 21:51:00 -
[747] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now.
You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6232
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:41:00 -
[748] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong)
8600 actual, or EHP?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:42:00 -
[749] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong) 8600 actual, or EHP?
Shield EHP
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6232
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:46:00 -
[750] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Someone run these numbers please. using fittings in the current vein for now. You're looking at 8600.16 Front 8260.68 Side 7751.46 Rear Shield EHP for 22.5 seconds with a 45 second cooldown on a Tri-Extender One Hardener fit Gunnlogi, and depletion of that buffer will keep that Gunnlogi out of combat for just over 3 minutes (Assuming the Pilot is fitting a STD Gun and no small guns, and one of each fitting mod in the lows and has fitting skills to 5)...(assuming my math is right...I'm really tired right now, so it could be wrong) 8600 actual, or EHP? Shield EHP
so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill.
and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:51:00 -
[751] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill.
and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked.
They're assuming hardeners running
I'll re-tweak the numbers...the idea of the 180 second regen time to to encourage the use of boosters and rechargers (added rechargers in the modules page). The Hardener is 22.5 Seconds Active, then goes on cooldown for 45 seconds (Same cooldown, reduced active duration assuming level 5). If I try to redo the regen time, I'll have to redo the rechargers as well
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6233
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:54:00 -
[752] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill.
and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked.
They're assuming hardeners running I'll re-tweak the numbers...the idea of the 180 second regen time to to encourage the use of boosters and rechargers (added rechargers in the modules page). The Hardener is 22.5 Seconds Active, then goes on cooldown for 45 seconds (Same cooldown, reduced active duration assuming level 5). If I try to redo the regen time, I'll have to redo the rechargers as well
remember rechargers stop if you shoot them currently. And passive shield tank should be viable if you can get away from incoming fire long enough for the shields to kick in the recharge.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:58:00 -
[753] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
so the numbers are assuming hardeners running, not the base passive tank? If so **** yeah. Having to pull a reload while the hardeners are up is hardly what I'd call unfair. HOWEVER. three minutes to regen shields is too much downtime. I don't think it should be twenty seconds (like now) but three minutes would be overkill.
and I'm iffy on 45 seconds active hardener, but what the hell? I'm not remembering how long the current ones last. I'd be willing to give some of this a shot just to see how well it worked.
They're assuming hardeners running I'll re-tweak the numbers...the idea of the 180 second regen time to to encourage the use of boosters and rechargers (added rechargers in the modules page). The Hardener is 22.5 Seconds Active, then goes on cooldown for 45 seconds (Same cooldown, reduced active duration assuming level 5). If I try to redo the regen time, I'll have to redo the rechargers as well remember rechargers stop if you shoot them currently. And passive shield tank should be viable if you can get away from incoming fire long enough for the shields to kick in the recharge.
This proposal assumes the removal of shield recharge delay (not depleted recharge delay)...also what do you think of the racial turret designs (there are multiple pages on the doc)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
183
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 03:21:00 -
[754] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.
You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.
Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.
Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.
The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.
And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES! Umm..... No. If infantry can fit full proto, tanks can too. To an extent. To be fair, most dropsuits cant fit Proto EVERYTHING. Typically the sidearm and/or grenades are of a lower tier. So Proto Modules and Large Turret? Totally. But proto smalls on top of that? I'd have to say they would be a notch or two lower
Well, that's what I meant. Infantry sacrifice a lower tier sidearm usually, tanks sacrifice smalls
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
687
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 04:22:00 -
[755] - Quote
A couple questions on the numbers. This isnt meant to be offesnsive, but its sure isnt going to be nice.
1) Why would i run a tank with a negative 25% damage bonus to a very expensive turret? Basically your Sagaris and Suraya are fat slow piniatas.
2) Why the STD tank redesign, and i do not have kind words for the stats on the maddy and gunlogi.
I would not like a 4-0 gunlogi with a passive shield regen of 18.1. My militia dropsuits rep shields faster than that. hell all of the shield regen numbers are bad, the infantry would riot if they had those numbers.
There is no use for a 3-3 madrugar, espeially with you slash proposed base hp stats from 5200 to 3400.
3) Caldari enforcer a 50% increase to range is in no way acceptable. 450 meters is from one red line to the other.
4)Amarr 15% natural armor resists, nope. Not with 4 low slots.
5) those turret stats, trying not to offend, but ........i dont know where to begin. if you want pro rail turrets to do 3242 damage per shot...sigh just tell me where did you get these numbers from?
some ideas are okay, but the majority, no. I think you are trying to take on too much at once, and those stats seem impossible to get rght without testing, and since nothing in vehicle related in dust is tested until after release, no i dont want to sit through months of these numbers at all. I think you shoud not tweak the base hulls that we already have and move the maruaders up and the enforces down the ladder respectively.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6239
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:35:00 -
[756] - Quote
The gunnlogi would be fine with higher regen. But how does the maddy turn up with fittings is the question. If you can spike the ehp higher than current via hardener then it's an improvement.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6239
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 06:36:00 -
[757] - Quote
Shield recharge delay is there for a reason. Don't f*ck with it.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
382
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:04:00 -
[758] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced.
1. My sentinal/scout/assault/logi/commando are not sidegrades, they are upgrades because they are better than the base frames and if im going to be training up a x8 skill then it better be improved |
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
752
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:09:00 -
[759] - Quote
Is this stuff gonna happend now or not? There is no need to discuss this any further with no feedback from devs.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
382
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 11:24:00 -
[760] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles).
1. That propsal is depressing
2. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles do not exist and frankly we need to balance what we have now and not what will be introduced
3. Shield recharge on a shield vehicle is less than 20hp/s? Militia dropsuits have better - Its a vehicle with an engine and a shield generator and the old Surya had a better passive shield regen and thats an armor tank
4. Shield/Armor hardeners need to be the same %
5. Resistance numbers for front/side/back will need introducing
5a. I dont think i have a tank in WOT where the sides have better armor than the front, the front is always the strongest part of a tank and the -5/10% at the back isnt needed
6. Shield extenders in EVE always improve regen rate and also do not add to a deley in regen either, its adds to the sig profile
6a. Shield extenders look nerfed
6b. Armor plates are nerfed
6c. Ancillery - Would mean introduction of capacitors which i doubt
6d. Shield hardeners - 18seconds isnt long enough to do anything worthwhile and basic is same as complex should be tiered
7. Turrets - You just increased damage while nerfing the HP of the hulls/modules and activation times with resistance numbers on all sides of the vehicles so in the end add it together and we have TTK which is even quicker than compared to now - Why? You just have made all the work before it pointless since pilots do not want short timers and 3 shot each other
8. Bring back Chrome for AV vs vehicles and Uprising 1.0 for HAV vs HAV
6e. Armor hardeners - You just made them king again compared to shield and basic is same as complex should be tiered |
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 12:23:00 -
[761] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:A couple questions on the numbers. This isnt meant to be offesnsive, but its sure isnt going to be nice.
1) Why would i run a tank with a negative 25% damage bonus to a very expensive turret? Basically your Sagaris and Suraya are fat slow piniatas.
2) Why the STD tank redesign, and i do not have kind words for the stats on the maddy and gunlogi.
I would not like a 4-0 gunlogi with a passive shield regen of 18.1. My militia dropsuits rep shields faster than that. hell all of the shield regen numbers are bad, the infantry would riot if they had those numbers.
There is no use for a 3-3 madrugar, espeially with you slash proposed base hp stats from 5200 to 3400.
3) Caldari enforcer a 50% increase to range is in no way acceptable. 450 meters is from one red line to the other.
4)Amarr 15% natural armor resists, nope. Not with 4 low slots.
5) those turret stats, trying not to offend, but ........i dont know where to begin. if you want pro rail turrets to do 3242 damage per shot...sigh just tell me where did you get these numbers from?
some ideas are okay, but the majority, no. I think you are trying to take on too much at once, and those stats seem impossible to get rght without testing, and since nothing in vehicle related in dust is tested until after release, no i dont want to sit through months of these numbers at all. I think you shoud not tweak the base hulls that we already have and move the maruaders up and the enforces down the ladder respectively.
1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer.
2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in.
a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead)
c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming)
d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi)
3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range.
4) See above answer, could be brought down to something like 2% per level
5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone, while preserving DPS, the variants then gain certain abilities (the specific one you referenced gains 5% Damage, while loosing range). The other turrets are based on the relative DPS of the infantry weapons that we already have.
Thanks for actually responding and reading it, Laser I'm addressing yours next
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 12:40:00 -
[762] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). 1. That propsal is depressing 2. Minmatar/Amarr vehicles do not exist and frankly we need to balance what we have now and not what will be introduced 3. Shield recharge on a shield vehicle is less than 20hp/s? Militia dropsuits have better - Its a vehicle with an engine and a shield generator and the old Surya had a better passive shield regen and thats an armor tank 4. Shield/Armor hardeners need to be the same % 5. Resistance numbers for front/side/back will need introducing 5a. I dont think i have a tank in WOT where the sides have better armor than the front, the front is always the strongest part of a tank and the -5/10% at the back isnt needed 6. Shield extenders in EVE always improve regen rate and also do not add to a deley in regen either, its adds to the sig profile 6a. Shield extenders look nerfed 6b. Armor plates are nerfed 6c. Ancillery - Would mean introduction of capacitors which i doubt 6d. Shield hardeners - 18seconds isnt long enough to do anything worthwhile and basic is same as complex should be tiered 7. Turrets - You just increased damage while nerfing the HP of the hulls/modules and activation times with resistance numbers on all sides of the vehicles so in the end add it together and we have TTK which is even quicker than compared to now - Why? You just have made all the work before it pointless since pilots do not want short timers and 3 shot each other 8. Bring back Chrome for AV vs vehicles and Uprising 1.0 for HAV vs HAV 6e. Armor hardeners - You just made them king again compared to shield and basic is same as complex should be tiered
1) Really?
2) These Racial vehicle values are based on the relative values of the current dropsuits, and don't necessarily need to be fully introduced to achieve balance, but we do need more racial weapons (and damage types to achieve proper balance).
3) Shield regeneration based on a recharge time 3.5 times smaller than the frigates in eve, and every effort made to maintain the charge time when increasing buffer. In addition, rechargers under this proposal are very powerful, and consider fitting a booster every once in a while (It's designed to prevent shield tanks from being massively powerful compared to their armor counterparts).
4) They don't necessarily need to be, provided that shield Hardeners have a low enough active duration and long enough cooldown, but I agree it would be easier to balance if they where identical (feel free to try stuff out, using the armor hardener stats for it...shield's being pulse-like isn't something I'm attached to).
5) Page 3 of the proposal talks about resistance by facing, Are you agreeing with me that it should be introduced? (Hard to tell).
5a) Side Armor stronger on the Brawler Marauders could be changed, but it is to demonstrate their "Orbiting Style" of combat that Rattati suggested, what would good values be for this?
5a-b) Noted, but it isn't that big of a deal to remove them.
6) Yes, in eve shields increase signature radius not some DRD level, but Signature radius helps all weapons hit you better (not to mention decreases enemy lock-time) which is a hard feature to implement in DUST, so DRD helps with the damage application side of things.
6a-b) yes both are nerfed by approx 10% to account for the average resistance gained under the Base Resistance by fitting section, might not be entirely necessary, but I thought it was a good idea to account for gaining 10% more EHP base on the sides, and 20% more base on the front.
6c) No it wouldn't, these are just active armor repairers...(these assume we're keeping our current passive ones as well)
6d) I was keeping with the current feel of shields being pulse-like, and the difference in stats is in the Cooldown, can look at active duration if you'd like
6e) (I saw you down at the bottom) They have the same tiering as shield hardeners, reduced cooldown. This sticks with CCP's current design philosophy...but if you think they need changed, what are good values for them? (I'll plug them in and see how they change things)
7) Rail Turrets have the same DPS as before (Just fire slower), Blasters could be toned down, but all the other weapons are based on the relative DPS of infantry portable weapons (using the Railgun as the Rail Rifle). TTK with railgun might be modified very slightly
8) If CCP happens to have the exact numbers cached somewhere agreed, this is only in case they didn't save the old numbers (or if they felt that reverting to them would be too much of an overhaul) and to demonstrate where racial variants might be.
Thanks for the neatly ordered feadback Lazer
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6240
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 12:48:00 -
[763] - Quote
Before you start yanking numbers from EVE:
EVE is not an FPS game. Your ability to aim in the game is calculated purely by server fiat. The firing mechanics in EVE are tethered to the fitting potential and hull speed and maneuverability.
In DUST it is player piloting agility and error vs. Enemy ability to consistently hit targets.
I agree with laser for once here. Because facing armor values aren't in the game we are unlikely to get it unless DUST becomes a cult hit and the cash overflow overruneth the cup, allowing CCP to do legion and a PS4 port.
Further armor on the glacis plate should be strongest as statistically the front of a tank is the most likely to be facing anti armor fire.
I like what you are trying to do, but we need to use existing mechanics. Troll back a few pages and look up the chrome V/AV spreadsheet someone linked to and poke at those numbers.
Ask the HAV pilots what the turrets were doing in 1.1 and take that into account. Once we have enough of that, if we can get enough people to sign off "this is what we want" we have something we can ask rattati for.
Trying to re-invent the wheel won't get us anywhere. The more we work within established mechanical boundaries the more likely we are to get what we want.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 12:53:00 -
[764] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Before you start yanking numbers from EVE:
EVE is not an FPS game. Your ability to aim in the game is calculated purely by server fiat. The firing mechanics in EVE are tethered to the fitting potential and hull speed and maneuverability.
In DUST it is player piloting agility and error vs. Enemy ability to consistently hit targets.
I agree with laser for once here. Because facing armor values aren't in the game we are unlikely to get it unless DUST becomes a cult hit and the cash overflow overruneth the cup, allowing CCP to do legion and a PS4 port.
Further armor on the glacis plate should be strongest as statistically the front of a tank is the most likely to be facing anti armor fire.
I like what you are trying to do, but we need to use existing mechanics. Troll back a few pages and look up the chrome V/AV spreadsheet someone linked to and poke at those numbers.
Ask the HAV pilots what the turrets were doing in 1.1 and take that into account. Once we have enough of that, if we can get enough people to sign off "this is what we want" we have something we can ask rattati for.
Trying to re-invent the wheel won't get us anywhere. The more we work within established mechanical boundaries the more likely we are to get what we want.
Only a few of the stats where ripped from eve (Shield/Armor values that I modified, and the concept of shield recharge time, reduced to fit into a faster paced environment), the rest of the stuff from eve was for racial flavor (bonus styles etc) and justification for DRD on Shield Extenders
If armor facing values aren't going to be added, increase base HP and HP values from modules by 10% (The numbers I told you earlier, take the side facing number and apply it all the way around). (Do you think I should go ahead and re-increase the numbers and just put in the armor facing section to decrease HP numbers by 10% to accomplish it?)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6241
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 13:00:00 -
[765] - Quote
Before you get too excited read the chrome base stats for vehicles.
There is a reason why I openly say that it was the most fun I had for V/AV.
Bluntly if we do that small turrets will either have to be mandatory again or the fitting willneed reduced.
Chrome HAVs were beast but the V/AV interplay was absolutely fun.
The hard part would be adjusting values so dropship pilots don't get crapped on.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
382
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 14:28:00 -
[766] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:1) Really?2) These Racial vehicle values are based on the relative values of the current dropsuits, and don't necessarily need to be fully introduced to achieve balance, but we do need more racial weapons (and damage types to achieve proper balance). 3) Shield regeneration based on a recharge time 3.5 times smaller than the frigates in eve, and every effort made to maintain the charge time when increasing buffer. In addition, rechargers under this proposal are very powerful, and consider fitting a booster every once in a while (It's designed to prevent shield tanks from being massively powerful compared to their armor counterparts). 4) They don't necessarily need to be, provided that shield Hardeners have a low enough active duration and long enough cooldown, but I agree it would be easier to balance if they where identical (feel free to try stuff out, using the armor hardener stats for it...shield's being pulse-like isn't something I'm attached to). 5) Page 3 of the proposal talks about resistance by facing, Are you agreeing with me that it should be introduced? (Hard to tell). 5a) Side Armor stronger on the Brawler Marauders could be changed, but it is to demonstrate their "Orbiting Style" of combat that Rattati suggested, what would good values be for this? 5a-b) Noted, but it isn't that big of a deal to remove them. 6) Yes, in eve shields increase signature radius not some DRD level, but Signature radius helps all weapons hit you better (not to mention decreases enemy lock-time) which is a hard feature to implement in DUST, so DRD helps with the damage application side of things. 6a-b) yes both are nerfed by approx 10% to account for the average resistance gained under the Base Resistance by fitting section, might not be entirely necessary, but I thought it was a good idea to account for gaining 10% more EHP base on the sides, and 20% more base on the front. 6c) No it wouldn't, these are just active armor repairers...(these assume we're keeping our current passive ones as well) 6d) I was keeping with the current feel of shields being pulse-like, and the difference in stats is in the Cooldown, can look at active duration if you'd like 6e) (I saw you down at the bottom) They have the same tiering as shield hardeners, reduced cooldown. This sticks with CCP's current design philosophy...but if you think they need changed, what are good values for them? (I'll plug them in and see how they change things) 7) Rail Turrets have the same DPS as before (Just fire slower), Blasters could be toned down, but all the other weapons are based on the relative DPS of infantry portable weapons (using the Railgun as the Rail Rifle). TTK with railgun might be modified very slightly 8) If CCP happens to have the exact numbers cached somewhere agreed, this is only in case they didn't save the old numbers (or if they felt that reverting to them would be too much of an overhaul) and to demonstrate where racial variants might be. Thanks for the neatly ordered feadback Lazer
1. Yes - Combining everything trying to passive tank wouldnt really be an option, it wasnt that much of an option anyways before let alone in EVE unless its PVE
1a. Combining everything again with possible theory fits and outcomes everything is roughly the same as it is now which is HAV vs HAV would be very fast but armor could still be the king
2. If, i doubt CCP will do it they have enough problems with this
3. Merlin Frigate - Base Shield 500hp, Shield passive recharge time 625s - Thats less than 1 a second and boosters in DUST are currently iffy at best due to they wont restore all the shield amount and/or if you get hit with AV the booster will stop boosting and recharge stops again
3a. Dropsuits have better passive shield recharge than a vehicle, then again vehicles are better than a ship in EVE, really it should be ship > vehicle > suit since you would think the big thing which has bigger shields and generators would be better - its all backwards
4. EVE has 4 diff types of damage, we have 2 and with them all doing armor so far armor is getting the shorthand of the stick
4a. Shield has always been pulse since the start, boosters used to have 5 pulses before they turned off
5. It doesnt exist in EVE, EVE has a flat base of standard resistance to the 4 diff damage types in which adding mods will change these values - In DUST it would be a flat base for each side and not all over the vehicle - I prefer New Eden and since the shield in DUST covers all of the vehicle why would the back and sides be weaker than the front? What it would be weaker to is EM damage or armor would be weaker to explosive damage as standard - But we need 4 damage types
5a. No values - Shield can be 1mm thick for all we know yet nothing gets through it until its down, armor is armor and the weapon used against it would need penetration values for it to cause damage and i dont think the 2 would work
6. Only weapon which requires lock on is the SL and it is currently broken and unskilled which needs to change
6a/b. But that really doesnt change anything, its the same as now just a few numbers tweeked
6c. Should always be active, active in EVE active in DUST
6d. You said you didnt like pulse like shields and the diff from basic to complex should be more than timers which i hate because cap rules all and also in resistance% like in EVE
6e. 5% change, so milita 25%, basic 30%, adv 35%, 40% proto
7. Same DPS but the hulls and modules have roughly the same HP/EHP so again nothing changes from the current TTK between vehicles
8. I hope they do but TTK should be longer on all sides, this OHK and who sees who first ruins the game completely and i hate twitch shooters
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:45:00 -
[767] - Quote
Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6245
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:45:00 -
[768] - Quote
From an AV perspective, and yes I realize I'm in the minority of chrome infantry players, I enjoyed fighting the old marauders. In chrome I was one of the few people who specced full forge and learned to kill sagaris and surya effectively.
It takes about a month to learn to butcher marauders, but it can be done. A lot of DUST is frantic running and shooting.
I loved battling chromosome HAVs because timing and positioning was the way to fight them. If you could make a pilot panic or confused you can beat them despite all claims of invulnerability.
If we can get the old chrome HAVs back, AV weapons will needa slight tweak up because of the loss of both the weaponry skill which was crucial, and the loss of weapon mod efficiency.
But that tweaking can be done after we get a feel for how the interplay goes if it is needed.
Another thing is the loss of skill benefits to vehicles.
Those skills made up for the baseline weaknesses of the HAV frames. At raw numbers a marauder wasn't particularly threatening unless you applied solid skills. The removal of those skills buggered up the design layout something fierce and nullified a lot of diversity in the fits.
My madrugar, for instance. I'm going to assume laser has a boatload more SP into HAVs than my alt.
But because of the lack of skill benefits given to drivers and pilots both of us would in a whiteroom, perform more or less identically with identical fits.
It used to be when you dropped into a fight you checked the enemy roster for certain people. I checked for known HAV pilots because by and large no-names weren't a threat.
Nowadays I only need to know three things.
1: what your hull is
2: what your gun is.
3:whether you're an HMG sentinel poptart.
That's it.
That's not how it should be.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6245
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 15:50:00 -
[769] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods)
Weakspot changes that instantly.
A wiyrkomi breach forge can kill a maddy in one shot with three mods if the gunner is slick enough to get in aft.
Against shields in the weakspot my forge guns hit for 165% and about 245% to raw armor
My hud may or may not be inaccurate but the results speak for themselves.
You absolutely CAN oneshot an HAV by putting a round up the tailpipe.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:02:00 -
[770] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods) Weakspot changes that instantly. A wiyrkomi breach forge can kill a maddy in one shot with three mods if the gunner is slick enough to get in aft. Against shields in the weakspot my forge guns hit for 165% and about 245% to raw armor My hud may or may not be inaccurate but the results speak for themselves. You absolutely CAN oneshot an HAV by putting a round up the tailpipe.
So instead of increasing the base stats on the hulls, why not increase the HP given by armor plates themselves? (or re-examine the damage bonus from the tailpipe weakspot)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6246
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:17:00 -
[771] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
So instead of increasing the base stats on the hulls, why not increase the HP given by armor plates themselves? (or re-examine the damage bonus from the tailpipe weakspot)
Chromosome the base hulls were flimsy and improved by the quality of fitting you could clock into it.
When uprising rolled around CCP decided to re-invent the wheel and reverse the apple cart and make the fittings less important and front-load the benefits on the hulls themselves. this had the added side effect of the dumbing down of vehicle mods.
Do I think the passive regen is horrible?
Nah, but it should have been provided along with active regen options as well for armor.
a lot of the issue is when your base hull has 4,000 EHP, then in order to balance things out without randomly buffing the crap out of AV you have to dumb down the modules.
If the HAVs were more fit-centric as they were in chrome more options open up.
The hull-centric model saw the removal of more options than it added by far.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
383
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:37:00 -
[772] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Nowadays I only need to know three things.
1: what your hull is
2: what your gun is.
3:whether you're an HMG sentinel poptart.
That's it.
That's not how it should be.
1. Thats basically it
2. If 2 identically fitted HAV square off against each other now and 1 has base skills and the other has all skills the difference is basically nothing - No extra turret damage/PG/CPU/Shield/Armor/Resistances/Booster amount/Armor rep amount etc - Maybe differences in experience and ammo/reload speed for the turret but they are basically the same and that 20mil SP into vehicles doesnt offer much anymore apart from unlocks
3. Chrome/Uprising you could tell from the stats of the HAV if they had skills or not and the skill tree alone gave a number of options into where to skill 1st while modules created a variety of fits - At 30mil SP you would not have level 5 everything for vehicles let alone have any SP into infantry things because there was always something else you wanted or needed to create that perfect fit or just to finish off a level - The difference in them days was huge, you either went full vehicles or not at all and it felt like a role, like something to get your teeth into - Yes it was hard for a new vehicle pilot due to no MM or decent academy system but you stick with it and learn and improve like any other role |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6246
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:45:00 -
[773] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
3. Chrome/Uprising you could tell from the stats of the HAV if they had skills or not and the skill tree alone gave a number of options into where to skill 1st while modules created a variety of fits - At 30mil SP you would not have level 5 everything for vehicles let alone have any SP into infantry things because there was always something else you wanted or needed to create that perfect fit or just to finish off a level - The difference in them days was huge, you either went full vehicles or not at all and it felt like a role, like something to get your teeth into - Yes it was hard for a new vehicle pilot due to no MM or decent academy system but you stick with it and learn and improve like any other role
this is the important one here.
Without the skill system fully realized we may as well have HAVs be randomly dropped in the redline for anyone to drive.
As I said, with you vs. my maddy pilot, assuming identical fits, the performance would be more or less functionally identical.
In chrome if I took my madrugar for a spin i was lethal, plus I knew when to call it good and bail before the swarms got too thick. But things have changed.
Right now the way the skill tree is set up we might as well just have a dropped tank be an ISK charge and no skills required, or a random drop in the back 40 a minute after the last one explodes.
I'd rather have the skill tree and chrome stuff back, and tweak the old AV values so that they can be fought, countered and the interplay matters.
Right now the interplay doesn't. If it's a madrugar or soma it's dead meat inside 5 minutes, 7 if you're slick (I got to 6.5) and a gunnlogi just isn't worth wasting ammo on. Yes it's wasting ammo. You have no chance of breaching the shields before it gets away.
Sicas are rarely seen and they're about as tough as a madrugar.
Them thar Gallente tanks sure be mighty impressive, don't they?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:45:00 -
[774] - Quote
So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6246
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 16:47:00 -
[775] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats?
Yes.
I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
383
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:33:00 -
[776] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods)
1. New Eden - If its in EVE it should follow to DUST - Its the same universe
2. Chrome was the 2 shot era for vehicles - Uprising 1.0 stopped that with reduction in damage mods and turrets damage - Also more modules slots and variety of modules and turrets with useful skills and skillbooks altered TTK before anyone brought out a vehicle - Vehicles were more defensive in Uprising era because to me at least it did take longer to take down vehicles due to everything above |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:48:00 -
[777] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods) 1. New Eden - If its in EVE it should follow to DUST - Its the same universe 2. Chrome was the 2 shot era for vehicles - Uprising 1.0 stopped that with reduction in damage mods and turrets damage - Also more modules slots and variety of modules and turrets with useful skills and skillbooks altered TTK before anyone brought out a vehicle - Vehicles were more defensive in Uprising era because to me at least it did take longer to take down vehicles due to everything above
I still don't think you understood what I meant there (For instance, having Shield Extenders increase signature profile in DUST won't help every weapon's damage application against that target although it should help with target acquisition, hence we have DRD)...nor did you answer my question...what do you think a good DPS Number (or how much lower from current) do you think Large Railguns need to be? I've updated my numbers slightly based on what you and Breakin have said...but I'll need to work on other skill bonuses later on today. (I've decreased Rail DPS by 20%, so look at the turrets and see what you think)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2700
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:52:00 -
[778] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles).
Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi?
People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:54:00 -
[779] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi? People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart?
Sentinel
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2700
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:01:00 -
[780] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer.
I'm thinking the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will be the main battle tanks.
2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in.
So instead of buffing the Madrugar to be on par with the Gunnlogi, you nerf the Gunnlogi to be on par with the Madrugar. Another bad idea.
a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead)
My Madrugar already nearly gets destroyed by a single Minmando. It doesn't need any less HP.
c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming)
Might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat.
d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi)
That's how it was in Chrome. I'm working on numbers with that in effect.
3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range.
Yes it does, because a PRO breach forge hitting the 167% in the back has a real good chance of destroying a base HP tank in one shot. That's an insane bonus for a weapon that already does insane damage.
5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone,
No, because it's the future.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:08:00 -
[781] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer.
I'm thinking the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will be the main battle tanks.
2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in.
So instead of buffing the Madrugar to be on par with the Gunnlogi, you nerf the Gunnlogi to be on par with the Madrugar. Another bad idea.
a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead)
My Madrugar already nearly gets destroyed by a single Minmando. It doesn't need any less HP.
c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming)
Might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat.
d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi)
That's how it was in Chrome. I'm working on numbers with that in effect.
3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range.
Yes it does, because a PRO breach forge hitting the 167% in the back has a real good chance of destroying a base HP tank in one shot. That's an insane bonus for a weapon that already does insane damage.
5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone,
No, because it's the future.
I can't wait to see your numbers Spker (I really can't wait, you've got some strong opinions, so my expectations are very high), and I'm still working on mine. I've updated them slightly here in only the past 30 seconds. I also wanted things to be more focused on modules than hulls, so I rolled most of the nerfed stats into the modules themselves (take a look at that page, and notice the differences). Base Regen on the Gunnlogi needed a nerf, there is no arguing with that point (Especially if we do away with shield recharge delay).
I also fail to see what a range bonus has to do with increasing damage...and as for a BFG one hitting a base HP tank...working as intended...fit some damn mods or gtfo.
I personally don't like the RoF on the rails currently, but we can agree to disagree on this point
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2700
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:11:00 -
[782] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi? People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart? Sentinel
LOLWUT
The sentinel has a -PG/CPU usage per level. Along with that, you really mean to tell me a PRO basic heavy frame has better PG and CPU than a PRO sentinel?
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.
2700
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:12:00 -
[783] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
1) Based on the descriptions that Rattati gave, I came up with the idea of making the Marauders Giant Battle-Buses. The Actual Size of the negative bonus is irrelevant (25% is a bit ridiculous) but it was to illustrate their roll as a large, frontline infantry killer.
I'm thinking the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will be the main battle tanks.
2) The Gunnlogi's Regen and Buffer currently are way too high relative to the Maddy, so I started by Slashing the regen down (and basing it off of a recharge time 3.5 time lower than the frigates) and making ever effort to ensure that adding buffer maintained the recharge. I then lowered the base fitting stats slightly (5%) to account for a 5% per level fitting skill being added in.
So instead of buffing the Madrugar to be on par with the Gunnlogi, you nerf the Gunnlogi to be on par with the Madrugar. Another bad idea.
a) The Maddy got a base armor nerf, but a fitting buff and on the modules page the introduction of the Large Plates should help significantly. As for the Specifics of slot layouts it's more to demonstrate that Gallente and Minmatar need to be mirroring eachother (Try it with the Maddy being a 2/4 instead)
My Madrugar already nearly gets destroyed by a single Minmando. It doesn't need any less HP.
c) The base HP numbers came from the cruisers in EVE, taking their shield and armor numbers and modifying them slightly to fit better into dust, (such as decreasing the shield levels slightly to account for the proposed base resistance by facing, increase the values of all the base HP and fitting mods that provide hp by 10% if you don't think the resistance by facing will be coming)
Might as well have pulled the numbers out of a hat.
d) Also, the shield regen numbers come back at a constant rate under this proposal, no shield recharge delay (Only Depleted Delay), so the hit isn't quite as bad as it seems. Additionaly, vehicle recharges are massively powerful under this proposal (if you look next to them you can see the power of only fitting one to a gunnlogi)
That's how it was in Chrome. I'm working on numbers with that in effect.
3) Again here, the actual size of the bonus doesn't really matter (as long as the devs know that a proposal like this will need to be hammered out) and could probably be brought down to a 25% total, but it is to illustrate the Caldari Philosophy of Range.
Yes it does, because a PRO breach forge hitting the 167% in the back has a real good chance of destroying a base HP tank in one shot. That's an insane bonus for a weapon that already does insane damage.
5) The turret stats for Rails Specifically came from reducing the refire rate to make them feel more like main cannone,
No, because it's the future.
I can't wait to see your numbers Spker (I really can't wait, you've got some strong opinions, so my expectations are very high), and I'm still working on mine. I've updated them slightly here in only the past 30 seconds. I also wanted things to be more focused on modules than hulls, so I rolled most of the nerfed stats into the modules themselves (take a look at that page, and notice the differences). Base Regen on the Gunnlogi needed a nerf, there is no arguing with that point (Especially if we do away with shield recharge delay). I also fail to see what a range bonus has to do with increasing damage...and as for a BFG one hitting a base HP tank...working as intended...fit some damn mods or gtfo. I personally don't like the RoF on the rails currently, but we can agree to disagree on this point
Not letting them out need. Need confirmation
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
142
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:15:00 -
[784] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles). Nerfing the Gunnlogi? Giving the Sagaris worse fitting than the Gunnlogi? People like you get vehicles nerfed into worthlessness. Is there any specialized suit that has less PG and CPU than its basic counterpart? Sentinel LOLWUT The sentinel has a -PG/CPU usage per level. Along with that, you really mean to tell me a PRO basic heavy frame has better PG and CPU than a PRO sentinel?
PRO Caldari Heavy frame has more PGU than the Caldari Sentinel, but less CPU (which you will find is mirrored in my proposed numbers) as for the fitting reduction, you'll find that in the base Marauder Bonuses.
Also...confirmation of what?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:31:00 -
[785] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).
What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)
(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods) 1. New Eden - If its in EVE it should follow to DUST - Its the same universe 2. Chrome was the 2 shot era for vehicles - Uprising 1.0 stopped that with reduction in damage mods and turrets damage - Also more modules slots and variety of modules and turrets with useful skills and skillbooks altered TTK before anyone brought out a vehicle - Vehicles were more defensive in Uprising era because to me at least it did take longer to take down vehicles due to everything above I still don't think you understood what I meant there (For instance, having Shield Extenders increase signature profile in DUST won't help every weapon's damage application against that target although it should help with target acquisition, hence we have DRD)...nor did you answer my question...what do you think a good DPS Number (or how much lower from current) do you think Large Railguns need to be? I've updated my numbers slightly based on what you and Breakin have said...but I'll need to work on other skill bonuses later on today. (I've decreased Rail DPS by 20%, so look at the turrets and see what you think)
1.It meas you show up on radar more often from further away - That helps
2. Like i said - All the old useful skills and skill bonuses along with the modules need to come back into play before you can theory fit anything
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:11:00 -
[786] - Quote
To the people who thinks that making blasters into a giant PLC is a good idea: How in the hell does a precision weapon such as a PLC makes sense? Also, would you ever use a PLC over a FG?
Shotty blaster makes more sense.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:19:00 -
[787] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
So instead of increasing the base stats on the hulls, why not increase the HP given by armor plates themselves? (or re-examine the damage bonus from the tailpipe weakspot)
Chromosome the base hulls were flimsy and improved by the quality of fitting you could clock into it. When uprising rolled around CCP decided to re-invent the wheel and reverse the apple cart and make the fittings less important and front-load the benefits on the hulls themselves. this had the added side effect of the dumbing down of vehicle mods. Do I think the passive regen is horrible? Nah, but it should have been provided along with active regen options as well for armor. a lot of the issue is when your base hull has 4,000 EHP, then in order to balance things out without randomly buffing the crap out of AV you have to dumb down the modules. If the HAVs were more fit-centric as they were in chrome more options open up. The hull-centric model saw the removal of more options than it added by far.
There was so many valid fit options in chromo, I loved it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:22:00 -
[788] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim.
They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever.
It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6252
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:24:00 -
[789] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim. They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever. It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this.
This doesn't answer WHY it was done. I know HOW it was done.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2683
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:54:00 -
[790] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:So...we're in agreement that we need a less hull-centric model for vehicles, with more of a focus on what modules are fitted, and with skills effecting final stats? Yes. I'm still baffled WHY CCP changed the makeup. I know they like to shake things up, and I applaud the desire to see the game not get stale, but you do this by adding content and value to content, not by completely changing the mechanics at a whim. They removed several modules and skills for no reason, and when we asked for them back, no response ever. It's called CCP logic Breakin, you should know this. This doesn't answer WHY it was done. I know HOW it was done.
Yes it does Breakin, again, CCP logic AKA no reason at all, nobody asking for it, just the complete opposite.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6252
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:11:00 -
[791] - Quote
Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense.
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
4338
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:32:00 -
[792] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense.
Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2686
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:36:00 -
[793] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense?
My point.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4338
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:03:00 -
[794] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense? My point.
When Rattati started doing things that made sense I got all freaked out "Wait....whats the catch? Did they hand Dust over to another company? What is this sorcery?! "
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2686
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:08:00 -
[795] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Doing things for no purpose other than "this might be cool. Let's surprise everyone" makes no sense in the context of a game who's features are near-riot inducing from the word go whenever someone pokes a number. Re-inventing them makes less sense. Breakin. Are you saying your expect CCP to do things that make sense? My point. When Rattati started doing things that made sense I got all freaked out "Wait....whats the catch? Did they hand Dust over to another company? What is this sorcery?! "
I just thought, "Oh, they have someone that is not a dumbass for once, I wonder if he can actually fix vehicles though"
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4338
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 00:16:00 -
[796] - Quote
Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes.
Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly)
Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly)
Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction
Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate
General Goals for this pass:
-Maintain Gunnlogi eHP
-Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen
-Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate
-Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar
-Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing
Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP.
Feel free to spaz out as per usual.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Alldin Kan
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1235
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:01:00 -
[797] - Quote
Reading through 40 pages of feedback will be overkill for me. Can someone give a brief summary of what went on here?
Alldin Kan has joined the battle!
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
687
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:39:00 -
[798] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual.
Went over it,
Gameplay wise impression:
Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field.
I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4341
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 02:04:00 -
[799] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
Went over it,
Gameplay wise impression:
Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field.
I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested?
Keep in mind I was mostly addressing two key issues
-Gunnlogi's having far too much regen without any requirement of a module to reach such levels.
-Madrugars falling short in both eHP and regen, when they should be superior in terms of eHP and inferior in terms of regen.
So all values are really taken against each other, and it isnt intended to be a balance pass against AV at all. I just more or less used the Gunnlogi as a baseline and then adjust everything accordingly around that. So the values themselves will most definitely change, I was more looking at general concept of performance as well as relative performance to each other.
Additionally I would like to see an increase in slots with relative adjustment values. That being said fits will likely have more hardeners equipped allowing a more consistent hardened state with a lot of player input to keep them cycling at the proper times. Again I was just taking the most simplistic setting for this pass (3 modules) to get some raw values out, and fully intend to expand out the fitting/modules more to provide a more balanced approach in terms of actual gameplay.
You are correct though, doing a generalist pass with these values against AV was my next step.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
143
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 02:17:00 -
[800] - Quote
Pokey, do you have a skype? I'd very much like some help hammering down my numbers (and ask you a bit about yours)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:11:00 -
[801] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Pokey, do you have a skype? I'd very much like some help hammering down my numbers (and ask you a bit about yours)
It would be a good idea to make a channel discussing this, live talking is better than this imo.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Golden Day
Y.A.M.A.H
805
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:14:00 -
[802] - Quote
Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^
Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves
You do know that you are the one with four eyes right?
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4342
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:22:00 -
[803] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Pokey, do you have a skype? I'd very much like some help hammering down my numbers (and ask you a bit about yours)
Sure thing, hit me up at leowen.dravon on skype
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:59:00 -
[804] - Quote
Golden Day wrote:Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves
Quote:we will just work on it internally.
This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2704
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 05:47:00 -
[805] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Golden Day wrote:Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves Quote:we will just work on it internally.
This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it.
It devolved mostly because I don't want to budge on vehicles, and believe AV should be a deterrent. In his own words, he wants tanks to counter each other. Sounds to me like AV is gonna get put on the chopping block. It's been a long time coming.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:19:00 -
[806] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Golden Day wrote:Quote:Neither my mental state nor vacations are affecting this. After the first 20 pages were dragged down into the useless drivel I have come to expect between vehicle and infantry discussions, I decided to let it simmer and see if it would dig itself out of the hole. And it seems to be doing so, spreadsheets being worked on etc. This initiative is full on, but without quality feedback, we will just work on it internally.
Our friendly scrub ratty has said this ^ Get back to working on discussions and spreadsheets slaves Quote:we will just work on it internally.
This makes it sound really suspect. Regardless, if it's real, as he said, we're on it. It devolved mostly because I don't want to budge on vehicles, and believe AV should be a deterrent. In his own words, he wants tanks to counter each other. Sounds to me like AV is gonna get put on the chopping block. It's been a long time coming.
I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6257
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:29:00 -
[807] - Quote
Pokey your premise will make tanks more powerful relative to AV/V interactions.
Due to the nature of changes to primary AV over the last few iterations of DUST the gunnlogi is currently more powerful than the sagaris was relative to that interaction.
And spkr there has to be a comprimose point where skilled AV gunners can in fact kill HAVs.
I liked chromosome because once I got a feel for how the HAVs and forge guns worked it was possible to fight them on something resembling an even keel. I didn't mind losing a milllion + ISK in AV fits to lock down and detonate an overly expensive surya.
AV gunners who focused on AV primarily thrived, everyone else whined.
I want the days back when AV gunners and tank drivers would doubkecheck the enemy roster to make sure they weren't going to get any ugly surprises.
But one thing that does need to be understood.
Teamwork is not a justification for nerfing AV. It is not an exploit to gang up on a difficult target.
However by the same token I do not, and never have, considered tanks surrounding and crossfiring infantry in an artificial killbox unfair either. Party tanks mowing people down by the numbers is working as intended.
I think that mechanically at base HAV vs AV should be somewhere in the neighborhood of an even fight with a moderate advantage to the HAV. Pilot skill vs gunner skill should be the deciding factor, and neither side of that engagement should ever be considered a foregone conclusion.
Tanks need to be vulnerable to destruction but not with the comparative ease of the current madrugar where no matter what you fit, one solo AV player is a sure bet to pop your vehicle.
I don't give a crap, I do not want HAVs to be easy kills any more than I want them immune to destruction by forge guns.
Chrome was an excellent balance point for this.
Right now I don't bother running AV much. ADS can't pin me down, I can trivially avoid HAV engagements and when I engage it's either a trivial engagement or a complete waste of ammo and effort.
It needs to change and bluntly this is why I think we should start by copy/pasting the AV/V from chrome then adjust the resistance levels of dropships so TTK doesn't become too short on ADS and standard dropships.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2705
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:30:00 -
[808] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however
It really does sound like he wants tanks to beat the hell out of each other.
And as far as Chrome V/AV balance goes, yeah, that was a really good time for vehicles. AV was a deterrent, and the escalation for tank warfare was awesome. Going from quite expensive MLT tanks, to more expensive STD tanks, to the behemoth Marauders that I think cost 2.5mil to 3mil ISK - I wouldn't know because I never had the SP for them.
Obviously, if someone was stupid enough to stay still and not know how to use the mods, AV would bury them. But we have the experience to make the most out of our vehicles, and I've even gotten back into using the Madrugar. It usually comes down to experience.
And I pray that the Madrugar gets brought up to the Gunnlogi, instead of the Gunnlogi being brought down to the Madrugar. They need validity in the face of the Enforcers and Marauders. If both are weak, then anybody that considers themselves a pilot will only use the specialized tanks, and nobody will take them out in pubs at all.
Vehicles need to be strong, and they need to stand up to AV.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6257
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:33:00 -
[809] - Quote
There's a difference between strong against and ableto ignore.
The current iteration of the gunnlogi is more difficult to destroy than the chrome sagaris was.
The chrome sagaris was awesome, this gunnlogi is too powerful defensively.
And no I am not defending swarms. I never use the damn things and never have so I have never fired a wiyrkomi swarm.
I've had them nail my maddy a few times though.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:41:00 -
[810] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I doubt that, he'll probably take our advice about the chromo AV/V balance however
It really does sound like he wants tanks to beat the hell out of each other. And as far as Chrome V/AV balance goes, yeah, that was a really good time for vehicles. AV was a deterrent, and the escalation for tank warfare was awesome. Going from quite expensive MLT tanks, to more expensive STD tanks, to the behemoth Marauders that I think cost 2.5mil to 3mil ISK - I wouldn't know because I never had the SP for them. Obviously, if someone was stupid enough to stay still and not know how to use the mods, AV would bury them. But we have the experience to make the most out of our vehicles, and I've even gotten back into using the Madrugar. It usually comes down to experience. And I pray that the Madrugar gets brought up to the Gunnlogi, instead of the Gunnlogi being brought down to the Madrugar. They need validity in the face of the Enforcers and Marauders. If both are weak, then anybody that considers themselves a pilot will only use the specialized tanks, and nobody will take them out in pubs at all. Vehicles need to be strong, and they need to stand up to AV.
They did beat the hell out of each other, too much in fact. TTK was bad as it is now.
As for the T I vs. T II HAV's, that is obvious. If they were just buffs in general, they are broke.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6257
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:44:00 -
[811] - Quote
Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2705
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:16:00 -
[812] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls.
Insane railgun damage as well as damage mods. Uprising 1.0 TTK was much better, because a tank wasn't wiped out in 2-3 rounds. Very experienced pilots could probably make a fight last 20 seconds or so.
We need more concrete ideas for what Rattati wants to do. We need to see what he's looking at.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:56:00 -
[813] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls. Insane railgun damage as well as damage mods. Uprising 1.0 TTK was much better, because a tank wasn't wiped out in 2-3 rounds. Very experienced pilots could probably make a fight last 20 seconds or so. We need more concrete ideas for what Rattati wants to do. We need to see what he's looking at.
To breakin, this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2689
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:57:00 -
[814] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Wasn't the ttk problem for tanks in chrome related to damage mods?
Use the 1.0 damage profiles or close to it with chrome hulls.
I would go with that, hell yes.
Although, I still want a shotty blaster. Hell, looking at the T II blasters, it would make a hell of a lot more sense than what it was before (you know, scattered being a upgraded normal, compressed being a gimped normal, and stabilized actually varying, but fitting it was ****?).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4342
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 08:37:00 -
[815] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey your premise will make tanks more powerful relative to AV/V interactions.
Due to the nature of changes to primary AV over the last few iterations of DUST the gunnlogi is currently more powerful than the sagaris was relative to that interaction.
As I said before, those numbers don't take AV into account at all, it was merely getting the relative balance between Shields and Armor. Values will of course be adjusted in accordance with AV values in the next pass.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6257
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 08:37:00 -
[816] - Quote
I'll grab the chrome spreadsheets and plug in numbers.
I'm going to copy over the HAVs but I will have to modify the AV numbers to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill, as well as heavy damage mods getting wacked in half.
Swarms I'm not going to post back to chrome stats, because they would cause severe problems between AV/DS/ADS interactions.
Someone needs to find a list copy of the chromosome vehicle skill tree.
Without a supporting skill tree we'll be stuck with the same BS we have now only instead of having supertanked gunnlogis we will have AFGs spiking holes through marauders in two shots.
The skill tree is critical.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6257
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 08:49:00 -
[817] - Quote
Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
143
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 10:29:00 -
[818] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested?
I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds...
I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6258
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 11:04:00 -
[819] - Quote
Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked.
No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot.
I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome.
HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame."
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1956
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 11:50:00 -
[820] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked.
No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot.
I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome.
HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame."
The biggest problem with moving sica and so mad to std effectively removing Malitia tanks and making it harder for newer player who might be inclined towards tanking .
Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
|
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1956
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 11:54:00 -
[821] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'll grab the chrome spreadsheets and plug in numbers.
I'm going to copy over the HAVs but I will have to modify the AV numbers to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill, as well as heavy damage mods getting wacked in half. I'm not going to bother with worrying about stacking penalty DPS loss (those penalties were introduced very late in the game and I didn't notice a significant TTK change.
Swarms I'm not going to post back to chrome stats, because they would cause severe problems between AV/DS/ADS interactions.
Someone needs to find a list copy of the chromosome vehicle skill tree.
Without a supporting skill tree we'll be stuck with the same BS we have now only instead of having supertanked gunnlogis we will have AFGs spiking holes through marauders in two shots.
The skill tree is critical.
I'm going to modify dropships by using resistances to keep them from getting exterminated by the numbers like they did in chrome. If anyone has a better idea on how to keep them buffed to where AV won't go bact to casually one and two shotting them I am all ears.
Edit: as a side note HAVs were sped up sharply in uprising. How much?
Because that will need to be reverted some or it will bugger up the balance.
Although I think keeping the speed on the maddy/gunnlogi/soma/sica might be a good idea at least in part. Those vehicles were basically rolling coffins at slower movement rates, but they served to justify the existence of lower tier AV.
I think you hit the nail on the head there when you mention the skill tree . I think pilots who invest sp heavily into tanks shouldbe rewarded with skill that apply passive bonuses tto their hulls like the shield resistance skill we got at the start of uprising that gave us a passive 25% resistance to av. We nneed more incentives to skill up to the max other than just unlocking gear .
Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 11:55:00 -
[822] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds... I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now.
I dont think seconds is the apppropiate standard AV fights though they seem instantaneous has realtivley long engagement time. I think we should focus on number of shots to kill a tank, and we have to stay with current AV values.
To make things a bit more complicated you're going to have to theory craft alot of fits, but once you have the formula down (i dont even math bros) then its just about punching in numbers and excell does the rest.
i.e Swarms vs Armor
- 1 volley does X amount of damage
vs Madrugar with 3 slots
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate + 1 hardener + 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 2 plates 1 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 3 plates 0 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 2 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 3 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 0 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 2 hardener 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 1 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it
- Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 0 hardener 3 repper it takes n shots to kill it
something like that
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 12:11:00 -
[823] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds... I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now. I dont think seconds is the apppropiate standard AV fights though they seem instantaneous has realtivley long engagement time. I think we should focus on number of shots to kill a tank, and we have to stay with current AV values. To make things a bit more complicated you're going to have to theory craft alot of fits, but once you have the formula down (i dont even math bros) then its just about punching in numbers and excell does the rest. i.e Swarms vs Armor - 1 volley does X amount of damage vs Madrugar with 3 slots - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate + 1 hardener + 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 2 plates 1 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 3 plates 0 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 2 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 3 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 0 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 2 hardener 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 1 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 0 hardener 3 repper it takes n shots to kill it something like that
Just added AV Grenades...I forgot them  (Should I add Flux Grenades as well?)
Want me to use the current 2/3? My currently proposed 3/3? and should I account for possible utility modules and such? (mCRUs, Scanners, Nitro etc?) (I've got a bunch of modules I still have to add to the vehicle modules page first, so I'll have to finish that first)
Once I have that done I'll start theory-crafting the possible fits for the Maddy (hopefully by lunchtime), then I'll try the same for the Gunnlogi...then the other two proposed racial HAVs (should be easier once I have the two others done)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
400
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 12:37:00 -
[824] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual.
1. 3 main slots is still bad
2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe
3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP
4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6259
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:04:00 -
[825] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked.
No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot.
I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome.
HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame." The biggest problem with moving sica and so mad to std effectively removing Malitia tanks and making it harder for newer player who might be inclined towards tanking .
Not if you drop the basic HAV skill tied solely to vehicle operation.
1 point in vehicle operation opens up basic vehicles across the board then branches into MBT, enforcer and marauder.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:10:00 -
[826] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:pegasis prime wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Bear in mind gunnlogis can be rigged to eat 5-6 proto forge shots while completely passive tanked.
No matter HOW you tank a maddy you cap out at 4 unless the forge gunner has no proficiency or he is a complete idiot.
I honestly think we should move the sica and soma designator to standard, make the maddy and gunnlogi main battle tanks and sidegrade the marauder and enforcer with those two as the middle ground even with a move back towards chrome.
HAVs are punishing enough that we only need one unbonused "frame." The biggest problem with moving sica and so mad to std effectively removing Malitia tanks and making it harder for newer player who might be inclined towards tanking . Not if you drop the basic HAV skill tied solely to vehicle operation. 1 point in vehicle operation opens up basic vehicles across the board then branches into MBT, enforcer and marauder.
Or the HAV skill gains a bonus that only effects the MBTs (and still unlocks the side-grade specializations)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6259
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:11:00 -
[827] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. Went over it, Gameplay wise impression: Sure f you assume hardeners will be on permanently, it may seem like Maddys and gunlogis have insane amounts of health, but by the time they are switched on damage is already taken. I'll see if i could help you put up the stats, but we ought to look at AV (infantry and vehicle) stats vs proposed vehicle stats to have a good impression of how OP or UP they may in the field. I'm thinking AV type / damage per shot vs Hadener off, hardner on, regen off , regen on for shield and armor. If we can get that spreadsheet on that figured out, then it may provide a good balancing counter point. Hey Thaddues you're good with numbers, you interested? I've gotten the AV numbers as they are now on my spreadsheet so I can work with them a bit easier. Just tell me what all information you'd like me to calculate (other than what is already on there)...and could someone please tell me what they think a good TTK for MBT v MBT and AV v MBT in seconds... I've also started adding a version of a vehicle skill tree influenced by the dropsuit skill tree and currently have the Gunnlogi at just above where it is performing now (in terms of Regen and EHP)...and will be adjusting slightly to try to bring it in line (when all skills to 5) with what we have now. I dont think seconds is the apppropiate standard AV fights though they seem instantaneous has realtivley long engagement time. I think we should focus on number of shots to kill a tank, and we have to stay with current AV values. To make things a bit more complicated you're going to have to theory craft alot of fits, but once you have the formula down (i dont even math bros) then its just about punching in numbers and excell does the rest. i.e Swarms vs Armor - 1 volley does X amount of damage vs Madrugar with 3 slots - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate + 1 hardener + 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 2 plates 1 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 3 plates 0 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 2 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 3 hardener 0 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 1 plate 0 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 2 hardener 1 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 1 hardener 2 repper it takes N shots to kill it - Armor tank has ehp value Y = 0 plate 0 hardener 3 repper it takes n shots to kill it something like that
You build the HAVs then you adjust the AV to reasonable counter. Doing it by building the HAVs to the counter will result in too much native homogenization.
If you do it the way you propose it maintains skill irrelevance because you're basing your base stats off say, a forge gun attack pattern.
It only works doing it that way on paper. But because of the fiting customization you create more work because you have to anticipate all of the variables.
You cannot do this. You haveto take the vehicle then balance the counter to a reasonable margin between extremes of efficacy.
I use shots to kill as a metric but I oversimplify the math I'm doing in my head. I don't have the patience to give math lessons.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:43:00 -
[828] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Just added AV Grenades...I forgot them (Should I add Flux Grenades as well?) Want me to use the current 2/3? My currently proposed 3/3? and should I account for possible utility modules and such? (mCRUs, Scanners, Nitro etc?) (I've got a bunch of modules I still have to add to the vehicle modules page first, so I'll have to finish that first) Once I have that done I'll start theory-crafting the possible fits for the Maddy (hopefully by lunchtime), then I'll try the same for the Gunnlogi...then the other two proposed racial HAVs (should be easier once I have the two others done)
I think you should use the current vehicle and module stats first, and then make adjustments from that. As far as we know, these are not going to change anytime soon, and we need to have a solid foundation to begin with. Current vahicle stats and Av stats is it.
Its not something that you should take on by yourself, but if we can get some other guys interested to put up the various possible fits stats for eHP (looking at you tankers).
This way if you add say 1 more slot for the enforcer for example, you only have to do the additional math for one slot.
Also, Breaking stuff, the Swarms were just an example, the real pain in the ass is going to be getting the stats for all AV that can damage vehicles, including small turrets for dropship, and large turrets.
Once we have this sort of foundation, theory crafting the Enforcers and Marudars etc can be measured using real data. We can all see the effects of adding an extra harderner and what it means for AV of all types, using most of our real gameplay experience we can judge whether an extra say 2 shots with a specific forge gun is going to feel OP or UP.
Swarmers can comment on how many extra volleys they think it should require to bring various maruader tank fits, Pilots can see how many extra small rail rounds they might need, and other tankers will know how much fire power they will need to bring a new tank down.
I think its better than random stabs in the dark we are working with now. There are some very good ideas, but they are being based on what people want tanks to be rather than adjusting based on what we have solidly infront of us. Forget new modules, or turrets, or racial vehicles that we have no clue whether or not they are going to be implemntedin the near future.
Frankly we need to have a spreadsheet based on the current dust reality that says here is a tank fit, it can have this much ehp and requires this to destroy it in this many shots.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6260
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 14:09:00 -
[829] - Quote
Let's work both angles. I'll work on resurrecting the chrome stuff you guys run the other angle.
Multiple reasonable proposals are always better than all eggs in one basket. So while I may disagree with your approach, don't think I'm going to try and roadblock you.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1956
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:30:00 -
[830] - Quote
If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use .
I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes .
Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
|
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
752
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:30:00 -
[831] - Quote
I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6261
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:33:00 -
[832] - Quote
Bright Cloud wrote:I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground.
Rattati's been interested in reintroducing logistics vehicles for a while.
Honestly I'm hoping he chooses to transfer the repair functions to the turret rather than the ungodly weird target-lock-proximity thing.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6261
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:35:00 -
[833] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use .
I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes .
I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent.
I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1956
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:39:00 -
[834] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:pegasis prime wrote:If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use .
I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner.
The problem you will have with the chrome skill trees is the drop suit ones like armour upgrades not only applied to drop suits but vehicles as well . They didn'tsseparate the skill tress properly till uprising
Proud Caldari purist . Rank 10 colonel omiwarrior.
I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6261
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:43:00 -
[835] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:pegasis prime wrote:If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use .
I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner. The problem you will have with the chrome skill trees is the drop suit ones like armour upgrades not only applied to drop suits but vehicles as well . They didn'tsseparate the skill tress properly till uprising
I believe Rattati and our HAV drivers are intelligent enough in combination to fix this if it is a problem. But I have a funny feeling that problem is why the skill tree for vehicles is chock full of "dead" skills with no bonuses if that's true. But I'd rather deal with the re-introduction of the problem and adjusting to compensate than leaving a skill tree that is solely for unlocks.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
752
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:47:00 -
[836] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Bright Cloud wrote:I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground. Rattati's been interested in reintroducing logistics vehicles for a while. Honestly I'm hoping he chooses to transfer the repair functions to the turret rather than the ungodly weird target-lock-proximity thing.
to be honest they should just add a big nanohive alike field that reps every 1 in its proximity of it. Ya know basically give it a module that gets on cooldown after a while but works like a triage hive.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6261
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 15:47:00 -
[837] - Quote
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I f*cking found it.
Skill list located.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6261
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 17:18:00 -
[838] - Quote
Good lord you guys weren't kidding about the compressed blaster in chrome.
In exchange for a gain/loss of 2-7 damage per MINUTE they are tacked with a 70% heat increase.
My brain just broke.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
404
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:19:00 -
[839] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Good lord you guys weren't kidding about the compressed blaster in chrome.
In exchange for a gain/loss of 2-7 damage per MINUTE they are tacked with a 70% heat increase.
My brain just broke.
Back on topic, and on a more serious note: the following were marauder bonuses.
Sagaris 4% to Heavy Missile turret damage per level
Surya 4% to heavy blaster turret damage per level.
Given that bringing enforcers back is part of the initiative, do we want to make the mads more defensively aspected?
I'd like to give the madrugar and Gunnlogi a bonus, and keep them somewhere between enforcers and marauders in tankability and damage output. Main Battle Tanks rather than specialist.
I also want to make Enforcers cheap, destructive and relatively fragile.
does anyone have any reasonable suggestions for bonusing while I try to sort through all of this crap I'm looking at?
1. Its easier if you just put up the spreadsheet with the chrome numbers up
2. Marauders/Enforcers similar bonuses except Enforcer has extra skill, if rattati wants tiger tanks then marauders need more defence
3. MBT need a bonus which is seperate but useful in its own right, if its not defensive (marauders) or offensive (enforcers) then it either gets no bonus or it needs something unqiue
4. Enforcers (TD) were only fragile from the sides and the back, generally the gun was in a fixed position with a little bit of wiggle room, other TD has a turret which moved slow but the entire hull seemed weaker but some had speed to make up for that
4a. If they are cheap and can 2-3 shot a vehicle then we may have the sica with 2 double damage mods back which wasnt fun so we end up with lots of TD and no other tanks because they cant survive but are spammable like the sica
4b. If they are too fragile then they are useless aka the old enforcers which lost to basic HAVs
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6263
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:31:00 -
[840] - Quote
1. Its easier if you just put up the spreadsheet with the chrome numbers up
Going to. combining the spreadsheets and cleaning them up, to include all vehicle, module (that I could find) and AV values. I'm redoing the layout so it's all in one place.
and skills, which have to be translated to the current skill tree because wheel. reinventing and reasons.
2. Marauders/Enforcers similar bonuses except Enforcer has extra skill, if rattati wants tiger tanks then marauders need more defence
That was my thought, but marauders are going to be beast anyway. But keeping the damage bonus makes enforcers pointless.
3. MBT need a bonus which is seperate but useful in its own right, if its not defensive (marauders) or offensive (enforcers) then it either gets no bonus or it needs something unqiue
Again, right there with you.
4. Enforcers (TD) were only fragile from the sides and the back, generally the gun was in a fixed position with a little bit of wiggle room, other TD has a turret which moved slow but the entire hull seemed weaker but some had speed to make up for that
since hit locations aren't on the table I'm not going to bother screwing with that
4a. If they are cheap and can 2-3 shot a vehicle then we may have the sica with 2 double damage mods back which wasnt fun so we end up with lots of TD and no other tanks because they cant survive but are spammable like the sica
I think we can come up with better values than that. My thought on viable enforcers would be to scale the models down 25% to give them a lower profile and make them harder to hit, and make them the fast ones.
4b. If they are too fragile then they are useless aka the old enforcers which lost to basic HAVs
See 4a. Trade raw defense for maneuverability and tracking.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:32:00 -
[841] - Quote
Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level)
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
4344
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:32:00 -
[842] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:
1. 3 main slots is still bad
Pokey Dravon wrote:Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly)
 Do you actually read? Or do you just go straight for the numbered list button?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2707
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:39:00 -
[843] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level)
If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too.
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.
2707
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:41:00 -
[844] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:pegasis prime wrote:If you guys are working on what sort of fits both shield and armour tankers used to run before the changes made through uprising then I'd recommend searching uo void echos old tank guides in the rookie training grounds void had posted quitea bit about armour tanks and I had posted several fits and tactics for shielded hav's . Just so you guys have some examples of what was viable /fun to use .
I miss being able to talk for ages about different fits for different purposes . I have a hull, module and turret list for chromosome with basic statistics. I'm trying to compile them together into something coherent. I also have the old AV weapon stats as well. If someone can miracle up the propulsion and miscellaneous mod stats or the chromosome vehicle skill tree you'll be my heroes for at least five minutes, or until I stop caring, whichever comes sooner. The problem you will have with the chrome skill trees is the drop suit ones like armour upgrades not only applied to drop suits but vehicles as well . They didn'tsseparate the skill tress properly till uprising
At least all the skills worked properly. I didn't mind Uprising 1.0, but what I know killed it for all pilots was the PG skill nerf.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6264
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:41:00 -
[845] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too.
it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:43:00 -
[846] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money.
I'd rather have tiercide than meta lock, but that's just me.......
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2707
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:45:00 -
[847] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I f*cking found it.
Skill list located.
So post it so we can work from it.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6264
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:46:00 -
[848] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Meta lock would be a neat way to keep proto AV from casually rolling new HAV and dropship pilots for their lunch money. I'd rather have tiercide than meta lock, but that's just me.......
Want in one had, sh*t in the other. Tell me which one fills first.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:47:00 -
[849] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know.
Oh, I was suggesting an additional bonus for the MBTS (something like 3% in addition to the 5% s from vehicle upgrades)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6264
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:47:00 -
[850] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I f*cking found it.
Skill list located. So post it so we can work from it.
I'm consolidating all of the spreadsheets together after I clean them up. Then I will post them.
As I said to Laser, I will be including all of the hulls, turrets, armor, shield and skill values as well as the AV values.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:48:00 -
[851] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. 1. 3 main slots is still bad 2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe 3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP 4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off
Read the entire spreadsheet before posting.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2707
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:54:00 -
[852] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know.
lol assuming I'm new
I had a code to get in the closed beta whenever it was available. I'm not new to Dust by any stretch of the imagination.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:54:00 -
[853] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Let's work both angles. I'll work on resurrecting the chrome stuff you guys run the other angle.
Multiple reasonable proposals are always better than all eggs in one basket. So while I may disagree with your approach, don't think I'm going to try and roadblock you.
The reason I prefer reverting back towards chrome is because vehicle fits used to be dynamic and unpredictable. There were niche fits that one pilot would use to great effect that others just couldn't make work to save their lives.
The HAVs varied greatly between SP levels and playstyles and provided a dynamic and fluid engagement where it wasn't written in absolutes.
I couldn't predict if the old maddies would pop in 3 shots or 5.
I couldn't guess if the old sagaris would eat six or even seven before vaporizing.
When I said that I found it reasonable to kill a sagaris in six shots that glosses over that rarely was I able to drop a mad on the first attack. Usually it took between three and six separate attempts to pin down the pilot, his tactics and his fit to finally rip off that six shot attack string.
There was no margin for error. Four shots, reload, two more shots before he can escape or get to cover. I usually arranged attacks where I could killbox the target to keep them from having an easy out.
Now it's easy to say that here in the forums but it's much harder to put a paper abstraction to achieve the same effect. I want to use the chrome hull and module stats vs. The old AV stats because they WORKED.
The turrets are a lot more negotiable for my project proposal. If HAV drivers want longer HAV vs. HAV battles I'm hardly going to complain.
Just this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 18:57:00 -
[854] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Bright Cloud wrote:I would like to know why LLAV's and MAV are beeing noted in the spreadsheet. Is this a sign that we are going to get our 3rd ground vehicle category? basically a dropship with wheels on the ground. Rattati's been interested in reintroducing logistics vehicles for a while. Honestly I'm hoping he chooses to transfer the repair functions to the turret rather than the ungodly weird target-lock-proximity thing.
I've actually talked to Pokey about this. Remote repairs are fine, and the special infantry rep needs to be a bubble. Remote repairs although sometimes a little buggy (sometimes they would shut off), and had kind of a short range (It was like 10m iirc), locking was really easy.However, the special infantry rep wasn't so easy, but a bubble rep would solve that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6266
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:01:00 -
[855] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bonus to fitting is a good generalist bonus that is both offensive and defensive (PG/CPU per level) If 5% PG, CPU, shield and armor is good for infantry, then it's good for vehicles too. it originally was one skill for both dropsuits and vehicles. It's amazing the things newer players don't know. lol assuming I'm newI had a code to get in the closed beta whenever it was available. I'm not new to Dust by any stretch of the imagination.
Believe it or not, very little of what I say actually pertains directly to you. You assuming otherwise usually leads to hilarity on my part, but I'll give it a pass today. I'm working on stuff.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:15:00 -
[856] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
I think we can come up with better values than that. My thought on viable enforcers would be to scale the models down 25% to give them a lower profile and make them harder to hit, and make them the fast ones.
4b. If they are too fragile then they are useless aka the old enforcers which lost to basic HAVs
To the first thing, I don't necessarily think that they should be the "Fast ones". Faster than say Marauders or maybe T I HAV's, sure. But Fastest should go to BO HAV's (yes, I still want those things to come back, and fixed.).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:22:00 -
[857] - Quote
I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6268
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:38:00 -
[858] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's).
This sounds like maybe something if we ask nicely Rattati might include in his PC revamp.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
409
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:39:00 -
[859] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. 1. 3 main slots is still bad 2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe 3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP 4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off Read the entire spreadsheet before posting.
1. Already did and he complained that i complained about working on the 3 tank slot layout, rattati has it in his spreadsheet so until its updated its working with 3 which is still bad no matter what angle you look at it from
2. I still dont like the docu |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:50:00 -
[860] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's). This sounds like maybe something if we ask nicely Rattati might include in his PC revamp.
I had an idea (based on something that Adamance had said) where we give NULL Cannons HP Values like Supply Depots, when it's depleted they go into lock-down for a short time (During which they cannot fire). If the possessing team Reps them back up to a certain % of Armor, the NULL Cannon comes back online, if they don't it defaults to neutral with full armor(Something along those lines to make them relevant in objective modes)...
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6268
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:52:00 -
[861] - Quote
So. I have consolidated the data I found for chrome as promised.
I suck at spreadsheets, everything I know (which you couldn't fill a thimble with) I learned over the last two hours by myself.
Copy/paste is my friend.
I didn't include the AV nade values because whoever copied the values down didn't bother posting the direct damage, and had dandelion fluff like 6m blast radius crap written in, so I'll leave that to Rattati to figure out.
So, in short, to everyone who has ever driven, or shot at a tank,
No One Loves You
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:58:00 -
[862] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes. Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly) Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate General Goals for this pass: -Maintain Gunnlogi eHP -Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen -Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate -Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar -Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharingResult is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP. Feel free to spaz out as per usual. 1. 3 main slots is still bad 2. 180plate used to offer 3200 armor or around that i believe 3. Heavy shield extender isnt even half of the plat in HP 4. When and if more AV shield weapons are added Gunlogi will be worse off Read the entire spreadsheet before posting. 1. Already did and he complained that i complained about working on the 3 tank slot layout, rattati has it in his spreadsheet so until its updated its working with 3 which is still bad no matter what angle you look at it from 2. I still dont like the docu
So you're complaining that he isn't going fast enough? wtf?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2690
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:59:00 -
[863] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd also like to reiterate that HAV's will still need a role to have. Even if they are balanced, they will still only have a single job already done by infantry, and that is shoot at people and other vehicles, mostly HAV's. We need more structures that could be destroyed (or defended) by HAV's, and ones that really matter at that (SD's can partly be replaced by nanohives, CRU's by mCRU's or DU's, turrets by HAV's). This sounds like maybe something if we ask nicely Rattati might include in his PC revamp. I had an idea (based on something that Adamance had said) where we give NULL Cannons HP Values like Supply Depots, when it's depleted they go into lock-down for a short time (During which they cannot fire). If the possessing team Reps them back up to a certain % of Armor, the NULL Cannon comes back online, if they don't it defaults to neutral with full armor(Something along those lines to make them relevant in objective modes)...
This kind of **** would be amazing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
409
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:25:00 -
[864] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
So you're complaining that he isn't going fast enough? wtf?
1. Please point to the part where i said that |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
409
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:28:00 -
[865] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:So. I have consolidated the data I found for chrome as promised. I suck at spreadsheets, everything I know (which you couldn't fill a thimble with) I learned over the last two hours by myself. Copy/paste is my friend. I didn't include the AV nade values because whoever copied the values down didn't bother posting the direct damage, and had dandelion fluff like 6m blast radius crap written in, so I'll leave that to Rattati to figure out. So, in short, to everyone who has ever driven, or shot at a tank, No One Loves YouIt's the spreadsheet. Click it.
1. Chrome was beast
2. Noticed missing alot of other modules like nanofibres and overdrives etc, take it you couldnt find them
3. We should just bring this back and tweek it which i am going to do |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6273
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:30:00 -
[866] - Quote
2. Noticed missing alot of other modules like nanofibres and overdrives etc, take it you couldnt find them
Nope
3. We should just bring this back and tweek it which i am going to do
what are you intending to tweak?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6280
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:39:00 -
[867] - Quote
I just found more modules.
Will update the sheet later tonight
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
410
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:45:00 -
[868] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
2. Noticed missing alot of other modules like nanofibres and overdrives etc, take it you couldnt find them
Nope
3. We should just bring this back and tweek it which i am going to do
what are you intending to tweak?
1. Possibly modules and maybe a few turrets
1a. Stuff like % which are odd but we can keep those which are a lower % and have lower CPU/PG values
1b. With turrets maybe general more splash because its a 6ft missile and in comparision to a core locus grenade it does less damage in a smaller radius
1c. Skills and skill bonuses and i mean skills for everything and every module
1d. Hulls will stay roughly the same
2. I will wait till the spreadsheet is updated |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6280
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 20:48:00 -
[869] - Quote
leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:31:00 -
[870] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable
My spreadsheet
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6290
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:36:00 -
[871] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet
Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU?
I reserve the right to ask more questions
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:45:00 -
[872] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet
Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw).
The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values).
The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades.
Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself.
But overall, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to these numbers either
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:47:00 -
[873] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game.
I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know?
And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6290
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:51:00 -
[874] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game. I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know? And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks.
that explains it. read the chrome spreadsheet. I attached the old HAV skill tree as well. And included the AV values for swarms and forges.
I'll be dickering around adding things like the PLC as well later on, as well as putting in a theorycrafting tab for including updating the non assault forge guns so they aren't a bad joke, but don't take a merry leap off the cliff into easy kill farming.
I will also be adding the REST of the chromosome modules that I found, like overdrives and such later tonight once I get some things done.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:52:00 -
[875] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now.The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts.Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers.
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.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:53:00 -
[876] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable My spreadsheet Why are you proposing a base 100% increase to the Surya's CPU? And a 1200 HP buff to the Surya's base HP? The surya from chrome doesn't need a buff. at all. This would be a significant buff to the most powerful in game units that have ever been in DUST. what possible justification is there for doing this? The Sagaris buffs you're proposing are also excessive. Neither HAV needs these boosts, especially with the factthat you have secondary turrets listed as Optional. there's nothing about these that are balanced in relation to any other thing in the game. I'm only just now seeing the old Chrome stats. I never even had the Marauders during Chrome, how could I possibly know? And if he wants to go with 2/3 and 3/2, they'll have to have about that much base HP, since he wants them to be mammoth tanks. Can't keep 4000 HP and expect them to survive ADV AV for long if they're supposed to be super heavy tanks. that explains it. read the chrome spreadsheet. I attached the old HAV skill tree as well. And included the AV values for swarms and forges. I'll be dickering around adding things like the PLC as well later on, as well as putting in a theorycrafting tab for including updating the non assault forge guns so they aren't a bad joke, but don't take a merry leap off the cliff into easy kill farming. I will also be adding the REST of the chromosome modules that I found, like overdrives and such later tonight once I get some things done.
Complex overdrive adds 12% to torque. Enhanced might be 8% and basic may be 5%. I still have a few of each.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 22:59:00 -
[877] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now.The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts.Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers.
I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 23:02:00 -
[878] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now.The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts.Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low
Maddy is current 4000; it's 200 more armor. Any more and people will claim the end of the game.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 23:04:00 -
[879] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now.The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts.Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low Maddy is current 4000; it's 200 more armor. Any more and people will claim the end of the game.
The PG/CPU values...sorry should have clarified again (Currently the Maddy has significantly less fitting ability than the Gunnlogi)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 23:11:00 -
[880] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Maddy's PG/CPU seems a little low (also, probably typo, but you have it labeled as having a 4th low slot right now btw). I deliberately lowered the base stats of everything so that at level 5, they have higher stats than the vehicles do now.The base shield regeneration values seem a bit high to me (Have you considered a 5% per level skill bonus to bring them up to those values/a bit higher than your current prescribed values). In my On Vehicles thread, I propose the extenders adding 2% or 3% to shield recharge rate, rather than having a skill dedicated to it. Anyway, practically all the recharge rates work out to 26-27 seconds for every vehicle. [/i] The Marauders and Enforcers also seem like straight upgrades instead of side-grades. The assault, logistics, sentinel, commando and scout suits are all direct upgrades of their basic frame counterparts.Also, the base HP on the Gallente Vehicles I'd like to see lowered (while rolling the missing values into the plates)...to make vehicles more focused on modules and skills myself. Dunno what slot layouts Rattati is looking at, but like I just said above, I lowered everything so that at level 5, every vehicle has higher stats than they do now. If Rattati wants to keep the same slot layouts, then the Marauders in my spreadsheet will need to have vastly increased HP numbers. I meant at level 5 the Maddy still seems to be a bit too low Maddy is current 4000; it's 200 more armor. Any more and people will claim the end of the game. The PG/CPU values...sorry should have clarified again (Currently the Maddy has significantly less fitting ability than the Gunnlogi)
If you look at the old Chrome stats, the biggest plate that we had was less CPU than PRO AV was. As of now we have terrible fitting capability, and the shield vehicles have more CPU than the armor vehicles anyway, because shield mods require more CPU.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1420
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 03:16:00 -
[881] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:If you look at the old Chrome stats, the biggest plate that we had was less CPU than PRO AV was. As of now we have terrible fitting capability, and the shield vehicles have more CPU than the armor vehicles anyway, because shield mods require more CPU.
Hey Spkr4theDead, not trolling here but do you have any idea if any of this is possible or remotely likely?
Even some of it, risk factors, likely hood of it getting nerfed the very next day? I am not asking for real numbers just general gut feeling. I haven't logged into Dust since 1.9 and that was one day. Just to check out the drop. Maybe it was 1.8. Anyway if they actually make vehicles viable it would be fun to check in once again. If not, well my tank (versus HAV) itch has a Lightning back scratcher currently.
From my little forum searching it looks like turrets are still bugged as much as they were before except now they are nerfed as well. Cool. ADS was not worth flying last time. IMHO, as draw distance cutoff means AV rounds are still invisible. Not much chance they can ever fix that one, code changes required.
And for all your effort, thanks and good luck.
KR
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2712
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 04:00:00 -
[882] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:If you look at the old Chrome stats, the biggest plate that we had was less CPU than PRO AV was. As of now we have terrible fitting capability, and the shield vehicles have more CPU than the armor vehicles anyway, because shield mods require more CPU. Hey Spkr4theDead, not trolling here but do you have any idea if any of this is possible or remotely likely? Even some of it, risk factors, likely hood of it getting nerfed the very next day? I am not asking for real numbers just general gut feeling. I haven't logged into Dust since 1.9 and that was one day. Just to check out the drop. Maybe it was 1.8. Anyway if they actually make vehicles viable it would be fun to check in once again. If not, well my tank (versus HAV) itch has a Lightning back scratcher currently. From my little forum searching it looks like turrets are still bugged as much as they were before except now they are nerfed as well. Cool. ADS was not worth flying last time. IMHO, as draw distance cutoff means AV rounds are still invisible. Not much chance they can ever fix that one, code changes required. And for all your effort, thanks and good luck. KR
There's still sometimes when swarms are invisible, but I'd say 80% of the time you see them, and if you're close enough, you hear it leaving the tubes 100% of the time.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6306
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 14:07:00 -
[883] - Quote
even if the Chrome Vehicles and AV were introduced tomorrow, and rattati decided to nerf something next week, Marauders would retain intense killing power. I intend to adjust proposed AV stats to make up for a couple nerfs since chrome we ain't getting back because of side effects on the HMG but if those went through and HAVs got nerfed I'd push to tone down the AV to go withit.
Marauders were absolutely killable, it was simply a thinking killer's game. You couldn't just run up and LOLAV I personally liked that but not all did.
But people like me, Atiim, and a few others know how to wreck the chrome vehicles.
Bear in mind if rattati does thusly deign to give us this request, the gunnlogi will be toned down, the maddy will get a slight buff, and the militia tanks will be a lot more fragile, but the mads will be rather difficult to kill unless you are a madman or you have friends.
Will train madmen.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
414
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:06:00 -
[884] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable
1. I have access to greandes which do more damage over a bigger area than a 6ft missile |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 18:20:00 -
[885] - Quote
I would really like it if we could get back to 7 slots to work with instead of our current 5...
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2716
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 18:45:00 -
[886] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
But people like me, Atiim, and a few others know how to wreck the chrome vehicles.
That's why hulls and modules were removed and vehicles overall nerfed, right?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16496
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 20:36:00 -
[887] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable
Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game.
I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size.
Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2719
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 20:59:00 -
[888] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move.
I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16496
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 21:06:00 -
[889] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move. I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant.
You won't like this Spkr but the Large Missile Launcher is inappropriate as they currently are for a tank turret.....they need to be altered or removed.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2719
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 22:23:00 -
[890] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move. I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant. You won't like this Spkr but the Large Missile Launcher is inappropriate as they currently are for a tank turret.....they need to be altered or removed.
Lolwut
Small missiles, not large.
And that would be yet another nerf to tanks. Why do you support nerfing tanks?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16497
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 22:44:00 -
[891] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.
Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable Honestly without proper main guns on tanks focusing on single or a small number of multiple/consecutive shots (2-3 at most) we won't ever seen "Tanks" in Dust 514 and well never establish a place for them in this game. I can cite numerous examples of games with better tank gameplay in them that Dust and what they all have in common is that tanks fire single shells with the ability to select the kind of shell fired which only really vary in terms of functionality by Damage vs Vehicles, and Splash Damage size. Some shot have very good anti infantry functionality, the best vs Tanks have the least....... it's certainly more engaging and fair for infantry than me predicting blaster or missile dispersion and blapping them on the move. I'm gonna work out some stats for a fragmented missile, AV missile, and I think Rattati wants a small railgun variant. You won't like this Spkr but the Large Missile Launcher is inappropriate as they currently are for a tank turret.....they need to be altered or removed. Lolwut Small missiles, not large. And that would be yet another nerf to tanks. Why do you support nerfing tanks?
Ah Small Missiles I now understand.
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:40:00 -
[892] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain.
I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16506
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:55:00 -
[893] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency.
So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields.
Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
14486
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:56:00 -
[894] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16506
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 04:58:00 -
[895] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you.
Fantastic!
I'm sure Pokey and Thaddeus will be pleased as I know they have brought their proposals to your attention.
By the way please don't my mannerisms as purely bitterness. I do apologise for coming off in that manner. It's more zeal.... passion if you will. Dust made me too Amarrian for my own good.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 05:02:00 -
[896] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
See Rattati's vision of the Falchion: insta-pop the Vayu. Dunno the HP he's considering for the hulls, or any possible turret stat changes, but I don't think the missiles will change much if at all.
Instead of nerfing stuff into the ground to be on par with the lowest common denominator, we could bring the railguns and blasters back up some, and nerf the missiles only a little to get them to try to be on par. Then the only question becomes do you want vanilla, Neopolitan or Rocky Road flavor?
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.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 05:03:00 -
[897] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you.
Ooooooooooooooooooooh... not asking for any specifics, but any idea on when you'll post that? And when you do, can you also post it in General Discussions? There's probably a few that only check this section of the forums when they're told about something.
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.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 05:06:00 -
[898] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you. Fantastic! I'm sure Pokey and Thaddeus will be pleased as I know they have brought their proposals to your attention. By the way please don't wholly mistake my mannerisms purely as bitterness. I do apologise for coming off in that manner. It's more zeal.... passion if you will. Dust made me too Amarrian for my own good.
I've sent mine in as well, including turret numbers; I tweaked the MLT turrets to be slightly worse than the STD ones, mostly to encourage people to at least get level one into the turret operations. I also feel there should be a MLT large missile turret, and just the same as I put in a spreadsheet, slightly worse than the STD.
I also added fragmented and AV small missiles; fragmented to get hopefully 80% of the old Python fire rate back, while doing far less than half the direct damage, but more splash than direct. Some will ask "how?" Answer: we have cluster bombs today. It's essentially that.
AV is slower firing than the missile we have now, while doing more damage with a full meter less splash than the current missiles, and a lot less splash damage with a slightly slower fire rate.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
777
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 06:37:00 -
[899] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields?
If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields?
Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets.
Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 06:58:00 -
[900] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields? If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields? Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets. Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors
There isn't a brick Madrugar anymore. If you're carrying too much armor, you're gimping the fit by lowering acceleration and top speed. Dunno about maneuverability though.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16508
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 07:08:00 -
[901] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields? If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields? Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets. Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2720
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 07:10:00 -
[902] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Experience
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
145
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 07:17:00 -
[903] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. How are missiles vs tank armor any different than scrambler and laser rifles vs dropsuit shields? If we get laser turrets you they won't magically eat vaporize shields? Missiles provide front loaded dps, but terrible sustained dps. If a missile tank misses even a couple shots he won't kill anything and he'll suffer getting shot down during reload. Missiles are also terrible against multiple targets where you can't kill one right off immediately. Railgun provide better range, accuracy, sustained dps, and the ability to engage multiple targets. Missiles are good for hit n runs. Or when fully crewed with two additional small missiles where you drown a target with missile fire without worry of overheating. Missiles are nice but have weaknesses vs dual Gardner shield tanks or brick maddies with fuel injectors Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
What's the reload speed of the Large Missile Turrets? They might not require a massive change provided the reload delay/time is long enough to account for it
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1420
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 07:19:00 -
[904] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
There's still sometimes when swarms are invisible, but I'd say 80% of the time you see them, and if you're close enough, you hear it leaving the tubes 100% of the time.
Thanks for the reply. I'll keep an eye on the forums and hopefully your efforts will be successful.
KR
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
699
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 11:46:00 -
[905] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation.
Missile Pros and cons
Pro:
High aplha DPS
Bonus to Amor
Neutral:
Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you
Cons:
Low sustainable DPS
Long reload times 10 seconds
Weak vs shields
Poor vs infantry
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
145
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 12:05:00 -
[906] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation. Missile Pros and cons Pro: High aplha DPS Bonus to Amor Neutral: Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you Cons: Low sustainable DPS Long reload times 10 secondsWeak vs shields Poor vs infantry
Thanks for that link, now I can calculate sustained DPS values (I couldn't find it)...although it is a bit out of date
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
781
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:46:00 -
[907] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation. Missile Pros and cons Pro: High aplha DPS Bonus to Amor Neutral: Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you Cons: Low sustainable DPS Long reload times 10 secondsWeak vs shields Poor vs infantry Thanks for that link, now I can calculate sustained DPS values (I couldn't find it)...although it is a bit out of date
id like to see the eHP for a dual shield hardened gunnlogi with a shield booster. its missing from your proposal and it should be shown. i think that combo has higher eHP than a maddy other than the dual plate + hardner fit you had.
people claim missile kill anything and everything, but not that particular gunnlogi. its the toughest tank combo in the game and you can run it full complex mods with dual small proto rails and the 1 large proto rail |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6316
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:55:00 -
[908] - Quote
alright monkeys, I'm just now editing the missing modules into the chromosome spreadsheet.
I'll also be working on a tab called theorycrafting for recommended adjustments for various things, such as the plasma canno, which looking at the numbers probably won't need much adjustment to make perfectly viable as it seems to have DPS values similar to an assault forge on first glance.
If anyone has a hard DPS number on the PLCs I would much appreciate it.
I'm also playing with the idea of recommending removal of splash from the assault forge to compensate for what would be the faster rate of fire. That way we can keep it from being used to eternally camp hack points with the splash as has been done with it in the past due to the rapid firing cycle, and as my peace offering when I post my recommendation that the standard forge gun be placed squarely between the assault and breach for DPS and alpha purposes, so that it has a place in the game other than "heavy sniper rifle"
I am open to SERIOUS recommendations to also place into the theorycrafting tab, to include ideas to keep dropships and their pilots from being marginalized, whether that is via fitting increase, or via altering their baseline resistances to AV weapons.
I will not be altering the base chromosome stats, because I want everyone to see the baseline I'm working on/have plagiarized from other places where other people have done the real work of compiling the data.
All recommended changes will go under the theorycraft tab.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
145
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:58:00 -
[909] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:alright monkeys, I'm just now editing the missing modules into the chromosome spreadsheet.
I'll also be working on a tab called theorycrafting for recommended adjustments for various things, such as the plasma canno, which looking at the numbers probably won't need much adjustment to make perfectly viable as it seems to have DPS values similar to an assault forge on first glance.
If anyone has a hard DPS number on the PLCs I would much appreciate it.
I'm also playing with the idea of recommending removal of splash from the assault forge to compensate for what would be the faster rate of fire. That way we can keep it from being used to eternally camp hack points with the splash as has been done with it in the past due to the rapid firing cycle, and as my peace offering when I post my recommendation that the standard forge gun be placed squarely between the assault and breach for DPS and alpha purposes, so that it has a place in the game other than "heavy sniper rifle"
I am open to SERIOUS recommendations to also place into the theorycrafting tab, to include ideas to keep dropships and their pilots from being marginalized, whether that is via fitting increase, or via altering their baseline resistances to AV weapons.
I will not be altering the base chromosome stats, because I want everyone to see the baseline I'm working on/have plagiarized from other places where other people have done the real work of compiling the data.
All recommended changes will go under the theorycraft tab.
Check my Infantry AV Tab, I've got the current values under there (including PLCs Max theoretical DPS)
I just put the Gunnlogi fitting with 2 Shield Hardeners in, but I've got to run for a few minutes Deathwind
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6317
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 15:02:00 -
[910] - Quote
thanks thaddeus I'll add you to the list of people I'm plagiarizing from.
By the way I edited my last post to clarify a few things.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
146
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:00:00 -
[911] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Again I'm not saying I don't want missiles to be a good turret type I am merely suggesting that with 3.5x the DPS of another turret and given that missiles have never traditionally held a DPS role in New Eden how can you guys ignore the incredible potency of these weapons?
Because your reasons are nitpicking rather than relevant. Missiles DPS role in Eve online has nothing to do with the conversation. Missile Pros and cons Pro: High aplha DPS Bonus to Amor Neutral: Medium range, you have to get into the fight to do anything worth while, rail tanks can pop you Cons: Low sustainable DPS Long reload times 10 secondsWeak vs shields Poor vs infantry Thanks for that link, now I can calculate sustained DPS values (I couldn't find it)...although it is a bit out of date id like to see the eHP for a dual shield hardened gunnlogi with a shield booster. its missing from your proposal and it should be shown. i think that combo has higher eHP than a maddy other than the dual plate + hardner fit you had. people claim missile kill anything and everything, but not that particular gunnlogi. its the toughest tank combo in the game and you can run it full complex mods with dual small proto rails and the 1 large proto rail
I'm changing my methodology for the Current fittings and focussing on primary buffer, so I'm eliminating the plate from the first one, and only fitting the minimum mods for the primary buffer (for now, I'll go back later and do silly armor stacking on a gunnlogi things later). And you're almost right, that combo has only about 700 hp fewer than the dual plater w/ hardener, while mounting a proto main gun, and only requiring a basic PG expansion...it has plenty of room to expand to pick up dual small turrets (probably proto, but I haven't gotten small gun stats loaded up yet).
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
146
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:06:00 -
[912] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:thanks thaddeus I'll add you to the list of people I'm plagiarizing from.
By the way I edited my last post to clarify a few things.
Would my proposed naming changes be considered reasonable? (Just trying to keep naming schemes similar between both the ground-side and space-side fluff) Such as the Electron-Proton-Neutron progression for Blasters, and Calibers for the Railguns...(maybe naming Specialized Turrets after T2 Ammo etc)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6323
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:10:00 -
[913] - Quote
nicely done with the DPS setup there Thaddeus.
Ok someone click my link and please verify whether or not my updates took. You should see an asston of new tabs representing vehicle modules and the theorycrafting tab, which I am working on.
My recommendations for changes to AV will include damage increases to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill which added 10% damage and heavy damage mod numbers being whacked in half (successful AV ran three damage mods in the highs) so if Rattati adopts this AV doesn't start in the land of impossible. if current damage values are higher, these will not be changed.
There will be no change to damage for light AV weapons as those damage mods only lost 2% which is insufficient to realistically alter TTK.
Again, anyone who has things they might like to see adjusted (dropship pilots I am talking to YOU) please post it so I can add it to the theorycraft tab.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6323
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:12:00 -
[914] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:thanks thaddeus I'll add you to the list of people I'm plagiarizing from.
By the way I edited my last post to clarify a few things. Would my proposed naming changes be considered reasonable? (Just trying to keep naming schemes similar between both the ground-side and space-side fluff) Such as the Electron-Proton-Neutron progression for Blasters, and Calibers for the Railguns...(maybe naming Specialized Turrets after T2 Ammo etc)
the less fluff that has to be changed in the database the better. a lot of times when you jerk around names it creates inconsistencies in the descriptions and gives false impressions as the whole thing needs to be revamped.
Ever notice the reference to tracking rounds in the flaylock description? It's unlikely to happen but let's avoid it where possible.
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
4353
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:16:00 -
[915] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:nicely done with the DPS setup there Thaddeus. Ok someone click my link and please verify whether or not my updates took. You should see an asston of new tabs representing vehicle modules and the theorycrafting tab, which I am working on. My recommendations for changes to AV will include damage increases to compensate for the loss of the weaponry skill which added 10% damage and heavy damage mod numbers being whacked in half (successful AV ran three damage mods in the highs) so if Rattati adopts this AV doesn't start in the land of impossible. if current damage values are higher, these will not be changed. There will be no change to damage for light AV weapons as those damage mods only lost 2% which is insufficient to realistically alter TTK. Again, anyone who has things they might like to see adjusted (dropship pilots I am talking to YOU) please post it so I can add it to the theorycraft tab.
Are these pure Chromo stats or are they modified?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6324
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:41:00 -
[916] - Quote
only the stats in the theorycraft tab are modified, and amended with notes.
Everything else is straight chrome crap.
Only the stats in theorycrafting WILL be modified.
Hey thaddeus I'm stealing your template. automatic DPS calculation based on changes is insanely helpful.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
147
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:44:00 -
[917] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:only the stats in the theorycraft tab are modified, and amended with notes.
Everything else is straight chrome crap.
Only the stats in theorycrafting WILL be modified.
Hey thaddeus I'm stealing your template. automatic DPS calculation based on changes is insanely helpful.
Feel free, easy enough to come up with on one's own anyway
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6325
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 16:50:00 -
[918] - Quote
I'm not worried about the officer variants of anything. those are Rattati's problem, not mine.
Additionally, I have no idea what the original numbers were on AV nades, so I'm not gonna touch 'em.
Again, I'm going to let Rattati figure that out, because only blast radii and damage were accounted for in chromosome stats.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6325
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:03:00 -
[919] - Quote
I changed my mind. After looking at the baseline DPS numbers after modifying a couple things I'm not going to uptick base values based on weaponry skills and loss of damage mod efficacy.
I think I'd rather let this stand and see if it is viable, and if it it not, let Rattati uptick the values by increments.
I'm proposing a significant increase to the plasma cannon DPS. That thing doesn't do remotely enough Damage fast enough to be a credible threat to anything but an untanked LAV and random infantry.
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
4353
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:06:00 -
[920] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm not worried about the officer variants of anything. those are Rattati's problem, not mine.
Agreed. Officer weapons are innately overpowered but they're random drops so that's OK. I'd only balance around MLT-PRO and forget the Officer weapons exist.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6328
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:10:00 -
[921] - Quote
Screw it, ain't changing a damn thing involving loss of weaponry or damage mod modifications. I think I'd rather see how the numbers I have play out.
The following has been done in the theorycrafting tab:
adjusted forge guns to conform to chrome charge times, current damage values for Assault forge
adjusted damage and charge time on the standard forge to place the DPS consistently 50 DPS behind the AFG
Adjusted damage and charge time on the breach forge to place it 100 DPS behind the AFG
Adjusted charge time and reload time of the PLC to increase baseline DPS above 370 DPS Vs. vehicles at the proto level
current link is here.
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
4353
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:22:00 -
[922] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Screw it, ain't changing a damn thing involving loss of weaponry or damage mod modifications. I think I'd rather see how the numbers I have play out. The following has been done in the theorycrafting tab: adjusted forge guns to conform to chrome charge times, current damage values for Assault forge adjusted damage and charge time on the standard forge to place the DPS consistently 50 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted damage and charge time on the breach forge to place it 100 DPS behind the AFG Adjusted charge time and reload time of the PLC to increase baseline DPS above 370 DPS Vs. vehicles at the proto level current link is here.
Just as an FYI, Gallente Commando with max reload and commando skills will break 900 DPS with an Allotek Plasma Cannon given your stats (No proficiency)
2.5 Reload
+15% Rapid Reload
+25% Commando Role Bonus
1.59s Reload
0.3 Charge Time
+25% Reduction for Operations
0.225 Charge Time
Effective Refire Time
1.59+0.225= 1.815s/shot
1501 Damage/shot
827DPS
+10% Commando Bonus
909 DPS
With Proficiency
+15% against shields
+10% Natural shield Weakness
1150 DPS against shields
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6333
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:33:00 -
[923] - Quote
I will address this at each point:
Just as an FYI, Gallente Commando with max reload and commando skills will break 900 DPS with an Allotek Plasma Cannon given your stats (No proficiency)
time to change the commando bonus.
2.5 Reload
+15% Rapid Reload
+25% Commando Role Bonus
1.59s Reload
See above.
0.3 Charge Time
+25% Reduction for Operations
0.225 Charge Time
Working as intended
Effective Refire Time
1.59+0.225= 1.815s/shot
Commando needs a different bonus
1501 Damage/shot
827DPS
Current IAFG at level 5 does 833.33333333 (you get the point) damage to armor at level 5. This is before adding proficiency or damage mods.
+10% Commando Bonus
909 DPS
Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar DPS values vs. armor
With Proficiency
+15% against shields
+10% Natural shield Weakness
IAFG Proficiency
+15% vs. Armor
+10% natural armor weakness
1150 DPS against shields
A Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar (slightly lower) numbers because damage mods were hacked in half. Plasma cannon suffers from short range, arcing shots and lack of usability. This theorycrafting tab is predicated on if Rattati re-adopts the chromosome vehicle baseline. The values are ONLY valid if said values are used. I'm aligning the PLC as a close-range IAFG substitute for the purposes of chrome basis performance.
I will be more than happy to provide feedback more in line with your proposal as well based on your numbers. Because the theorycrafting in this one, and the theorycrafting in your proposal will necessarily be incompatible.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6333
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:42:00 -
[924] - Quote
Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
147
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:51:00 -
[925] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders.
I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type:
Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
CCM-129 Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6338
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:57:00 -
[926] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders. I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type: Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher CCM-129 Assault Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance
Honestly I'd rather see a weapon modification slot that allows you to change the damage profile.
But this isn't a bad idea. The only problem with it is the fact that Swarms are particularly easy to use right now. I think holding off until we see how the meta of whatever changes rattati picks falls into place would be the best. Once that's happened, who knows?
The scrambler lance idea is based entirely off of a post Rattati made here
It's balanced entirely base on my experience with heavy weapon damage output and AV in general. It's meant to be the high-DPS counterpart to the high alpha forge guns, and provide an alternative method of attacking shield HAVs.
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
4353
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 18:02:00 -
[927] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
A Damage modded IAFG will achieve similar (slightly lower) numbers because damage mods were hacked in half. Plasma cannon suffers from short range, arcing shots and lack of usability. This theorycrafting tab is predicated on if Rattati re-adopts the chromosome vehicle baseline. The values are ONLY valid if said values are used. I'm aligning the PLC as a close-range IAFG substitute for the purposes of chrome basis performance.
I will be more than happy to provide feedback more in line with your proposal as well based on your numbers. Because the theorycrafting in this one, and the theorycrafting in your proposal will necessarily be incompatible.
Mmmmk. Seems reasonable, just wanted to make sure you had a balance between the two in mind but obviously you do.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6340
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 19:08:00 -
[928] - Quote
I'm still amazed that swarms have DPS values that would have been considered viable against chromosome marauders in TODAY's build.
This explains a lot.
Still waiting on feedback from anyone on dropships or *other things*
To put this into perspective, dropships in chrome were 2-shot-kills for a forge gun. 3 if you were maxed out on the tree (and I missed once).
I'd like to be able to propose numbers to fix this but I need someone familiar with dropship weaknesses during chrome to weigh in. Alternately we can just drop these changes and let Rattati adjust them.
Just give the ADS a 5% RoF per level if you do.
Or we can leave dropships on the hull-centric model (which everyone hates based on all of the feedback I have seen) and let them figure it out.
I don't know enough about dropship fitting to sanely poke at these numbers without likely buggering them up!!!
Or I can look at pokey's proposals and steal from his notes, as I have been stealing from everyone else.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
426
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 19:33:00 -
[929] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders. I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type: Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher CCM-129 Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance
1. Not unless you add in all 4 damage types that are in EVE, currently all we have is shield and armor damage |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
147
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 19:39:00 -
[930] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Recommending no change from current on swarm launchers. the theorycraft tab is a carbon copy of the current values, as those numbers are viable vs. Chromosome marauders. I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type: Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher CCM-129 Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance 1. Not unless you add in all 4 damage types that are in EVE, currently all we have is shield and armor damage
1. I'm not sure you need to numbered list if said list only contains one item (although in general I like your numbered lists)
2. I fully support this product and/or service (although, you could work with Inferno being Hybrid-Plasma (+10/-10) and Scourge being Hybrid-Rail (-10/+10) ).
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6340
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 19:43:00 -
[931] - Quote
all you'd have to do is:
Mjolnir: Laser (EM) profile
Nova: Explosive profile (current)
Scourge: Projectile (kinetic) profile
Inferno: Plasma (thermal) profile
But I'd worry more about getting vehicle and heavy weapon parity in some form or fashion before making a whole crapton of different swarms.
Plus I'm dubious about the whole idea simply because if there's a swarm for every enemy, what's the point of forge guns or the plasma cannon? Or RE and prox mines?
Including some more options like we have in EVE, while a neat concept might render certain options unnecessary.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6348
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 21:32:00 -
[932] - Quote
added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
taxi bastard
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
296
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:32:00 -
[933] - Quote
my concern is the balance vs AV and cost.
a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying.
if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced.
a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks?
militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6354
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:37:00 -
[934] - Quote
taxi bastard wrote:my concern is the balance vs AV and cost.
a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying.
if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced.
a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks?
militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo
which proposal are you looking at?
My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode.
the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in.
a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points.
And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion.
the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:46:00 -
[935] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still amazed that swarms have DPS values that would have been considered viable against chromosome marauders in TODAY's build.
This explains a lot.
Still waiting on feedback from anyone on dropships or *other things*
To put this into perspective, dropships in chrome were 2-shot-kills for a forge gun. 3 if you were maxed out on the tree (and I missed once).
I'd like to be able to propose numbers to fix this but I need someone familiar with dropship weaknesses during chrome to weigh in. Alternately we can just drop these changes and let Rattati adjust them.
Just give the ADS a 5% RoF per level if you do.
Or we can leave dropships on the hull-centric model (which everyone hates based on all of the feedback I have seen) and let them figure it out.
I don't know enough about dropship fitting to sanely poke at these numbers without likely buggering them up!!!
Or I can look at pokey's proposals and steal from his notes, as I have been stealing from everyone else.
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 -
[936] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:taxi bastard wrote:my concern is the balance vs AV and cost.
a marauder tank with "normal" speed and turning and "massive" EHP is very worrying.
if it was the speed of a turtle and massive EHP i could see how it could be balanced.
a enforcer tank with fast speed and fast turning and low EHP, how fast are they going to go? ok i see the balancing points but tanks are already fast as hell are you planning to nerf the speed of the rest of the tanks and make enforcers the speed of current tanks?
militia HAV and normal HAV - needs price increase and speed nerf imo which proposal are you looking at? My proposal (the return to chrome) would have militia HAVs being a lot squishier, maddies and gunnlogis being a moderately difficult fight for AV with Mads being hardmode. the reason I chose chrome is because it was the most fun for me and cited as most fun for a majority of HAV pilots who experienced it, as well as the AV gunners who hammered their faces in. a lot of the MAJOR issues with AV/V involving marauders (anemic WP payouts for AV) have been addressed with vehicle damage points. And if the chrome stats get adopted the speed of HAVs would have to be returned to chromosome levels. I don't have the exact numbers but they were slow to compensate for the fact that it took a lot of effort to hammer them into oblivion. the only things I could see as viable targets for keeping speed would be the sica and soma because they died fast if a proto forge gunner or swarmer was on the field. Usually in two shots. Three for a solidly skilled HAV driver cheaping out to get kills and save ISK for better tanks.
The only time it was truely fun was when a rail or missile higher than STD wasn't on the field though iirc.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6354
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:49:00 -
[937] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed?
Knowing they're d*cked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much.
And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short.
I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16527
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:54:00 -
[938] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:added placeholder stats for an officer scrambler lance and militia scrambler lance
Does the Scrambler Lance look like this?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:55:00 -
[939] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're d*cked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers.
I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6354
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:56:00 -
[940] - Quote
I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6354
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:57:00 -
[941] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I flew LDS's, and the problems I had was being alphaed before you even got to the drop off, which was annoying, especially for their ridiculous cost (seeing as it had a built in ****** CRU). They need a way to avoid damage, as otherwise they are ******.
So what would be a good way to improve them? A bonus to afterburners of some type? Better fitting for tank? better PG/CPU? higher base speed? Knowing they're d*cked up and knowing how to fix them fairly isn't the same thing. I know the first one, but number two, not so much. And as far as the rail or missile, take a look at my spreadsheet and give me suggestions on how to change the turrets so that the TTK isn't so very godawful short. I've heard HAV drivers say that 1.0-1.2 were the best for HAV vs. HAV balance. TELL ME WHY. That way I can figure out how to adjust numbers. I'd say that that 1.2 (1.0 and 1.1 had broken ass blasters) to 1.6 really for turret balance, as it stayed about the same throughout this time. If the numbers were changed so that max SP HAV's had around the same TTK for Chromosome HAV's and 1.2-1.6 turrets, I would be fine with it.
Find me turret numbers from that time period. If they look sane I'll add them in theorycrafting as suggested fixes
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6355
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:02:00 -
[942] - Quote
separated theorycrafting into three tabs.
AV theorycrafting
Turret Theorycrafting
Dropship Theorycrafting
Waiting on HAV driver and Dropship pilot input to tackle the last two.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
148
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:15:00 -
[943] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:separated theorycrafting into three tabs.
AV theorycrafting
Turret Theorycrafting
Dropship Theorycrafting
Waiting on HAV driver and Dropship pilot input to tackle the last two.
Dropships have a few major issues:
- Swarms balanced around killing tanks will always have an easy time killing Derpships (unless dropships can outrun swarms...which makes swarms completely irrelevant at killing derpships)
- Blasters are next to useless on dropships...so a role wide bonus to optimal range/dispersion would be helpful on them.
- They don't have the eHP to sustain hovering over a given area to provide fire support or any other kind of support really (so they can't fulfill the roll of gunships, medivacs, spawn beacons etc)
Dropship issues could be addressed through expanding fitting (both stats and slots). As well, they could benefit from some sort of active countermeasure against swarms (limited built-in supply of flares or some such nonsense).
In addition, they could greatly benefit from changes to the mCRU (Making it function more similarly to the other spawn options...as currently a player has to be clone terminated to select an mCRU).
I would suggest that peak STD Dropship eHP should be something similar to a high-tier MLT HAV, and adjust from there
HAV current top speed isn't altogether unreasonable IMO, the Gunnlogi has a bit much in acceleration, and the Maddy could use some more.
In addition, I don't think we should limit our thinking on HAVs to just be Tanks...a Heavy Attack Vehicle can refer to a number of possible configurations...I think they could benefit from a few transport slots that get taken away depending on configuration.
I also think that the Top Small Guns could use a larger angle of fire (I think they should be able to shoot up to put it simply). Front Small Turrets could benefit from being moved onto the top of the hull proper...and an option for a Co-Axial Small gun would be nice (although, a Co-Axial could make them too much like solo-murder machines)
/Rambling
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
16529
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:15:00 -
[944] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable.
No way. Just have the main body of the weapon as a simple mount to the weapon upon which the gunner affixes a small chamber used to generate the energy for the electro-laser.
Now that's an elegant form of Anti Vehicle weaponry.
*"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
148
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:18:00 -
[945] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable.
The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6355
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:21:00 -
[946] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect
looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well.
and thaddeus you gave me an idea
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
148
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:23:00 -
[947] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea
You say that like it's a bad thing XD the Sniper Rifle looks like a Pulse Rifle
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
16529
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:24:00 -
[948] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I hate you. No. GOD no. We'd need a mechanical horse for that to be justifiable. The weapon only looks like a Lance, but shoots Lazors like what you'd expect looks too much like a dark reaper missile launcher as well. and thaddeus you gave me an idea
I even have a bunch of lore to back up what it is and every purchase comes with a small post combat drone designed to collect and dispose of the wasted energy chambers as after use they continue to leak harmful radiation.
C'mon Senpai!
*"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
6355
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:29:00 -
[949] - Quote
Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad.
Infantry Transport Bay
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
148
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:31:00 -
[950] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay in module theorycrafting
Sooo much this..
I instead proposed a base increase to transport capacity that was reduced by higher tier turrets (But tbh, I like the module more)
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
16529
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:32:00 -
[951] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Adamance you may approve of this. It would allow a HAV driver to fully coordinate with a squad. Infantry Transport Bay in module theorycrafting
Sounds cool. We used to roll in 3 man rapid movement tank squads in Amarr FW. One six man team could hold all of the exterior objectives on any Large Socket Map and annihilate any vehicle on field by having superior DPS.
Also I don't want to sound like an ass but could a suggestion be put forwards about making tanks, especially marauders, bigger.
Tanks in Dust feel very small to me.....but that could just be the 3rd person veiw.
*"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
6356
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:34:00 -
[952] - Quote
Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16529
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:35:00 -
[953] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun.
Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might..
*"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
148
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:36:00 -
[954] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun.
Maddies....MADDIES...OUR ENEMIES HIDE IN METAL BAWKSES
as someone who loves to run a CRU on his HAV and park it as a battle-box, I love the module idea
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6356
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:37:00 -
[955] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might..
Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16529
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:40:00 -
[956] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Now imagine carrying supporting infantry from objective to objective while you provide supporting fire and they provide you with a screen against bastards like me who do things like shoot you with a forge gun. Honestly is MAV were a thing I'd stack one of these. Probably not on an MBT but if I was designing a HAV around transport sure I might.. Until MAVs are a thing, why not adapt to what we have?
Again sounds great but I think most players would have to go out of their way to fit something like this if more eHP mods were available to them.
I still have yet to work out using your proposal if
1x 180 Poly Plates
1x Pro Passive Armour Plate
1-2x Carapace
or
1-2 Heavy Armour Reppers are a possible fitting.
I know I'd use them but would other people?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1526
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 01:36:00 -
[957] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many. Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you.
Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view.
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16539
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 02:11:00 -
[958] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:
Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view.
I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati.
Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration.
I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Sir Dukey
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
1535
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 03:28:00 -
[959] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view.
I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them.
Buff armor tanks. Don't nerf my Gunny!!!
Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16546
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 03:32:00 -
[960] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sir Dukey wrote:
Oh come one, you seriously can't be sucking up True Adamance Info. It is completely biased from an Armor point of view.
I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati. Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration. I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them. Buff armor tanks. Don't nerf my Gunny!!!
If we can address a couple of weapons imbalanced then certainly. But if you want a skill tree like the old one for Chromosome or Uprising did you'll have to accept changes and alterations to the Gunnlogi.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
184
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 03:37:00 -
[961] - Quote
Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6359
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:19:00 -
[962] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice.
Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields.
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
4358
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 06:47:00 -
[963] - Quote
Good to see you're watching the thread Rattati. I only wish I didn't have to many projects that are splitting my time.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1246
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 07:38:00 -
[964] - Quote
A lot of the stuff is very good, but your small missiles are too direct damage focused (out DPS railguns) and have awful splash everything (DPS and radius) which is frankly dumb. Missiles should be a solid middle ground between blasters and rails (decent at both, but outclassed by either at the specific role) or try to match them.
Bah, not making good word typing! Most is good, but the small missiles are just awful and the no more ADS is somewhat irritating to me.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6360
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 08:28:00 -
[965] - Quote
I amnot going to arbitrarily change numbers on vehicle turrets without input from vehicle drivers.
I'm comfortable tweaking AV. I know AV like I know my belt needs to be replaced with a smaller one.
But I prefer vehicle input before changing things.
Just remember that the numbers here would be modified by skill bonuses in the skill tab. These numbers are a direct rip from chrome, not numbers I pulled out of my ass.
And in chrome vehicles were lethal.
One of the things I want is the old heavy damage mods back. To do that I have to bugger up the HMG to account for damage mod presence in the game, which will **** off my easy mode sentinel brethren immensely.
I'm also brainstorming how to stat out rattati's theoretical autocannon. It will, by necessity, have to fire in a manner unlike the regular HMG.
But as I said. I'm comfortable tweaking AV. Serious (not obnoxious) suggestions will be added to the various vehicular theorycrafting tab.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6362
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:01:00 -
[966] - Quote
In another note I have figured out how to stat out the minmatar AV autocannon and gallente mortar ideas rattati proposed.
If you're paying attention to how I am thematically running things, I'm keeping AV overall performance within a certain threshold.
My reasons for doing this so that they are easier to balance from a DPS/alpha standpoint and do not have a wide variation in DPS from each other.
This means the individual firing mechanics and the damage profiles are intended to be the primary determination of performance versus specific vehicle classes.
I intend for the forge and autocannon to perform well versus armor and comparatively poorly versus shields.
I intend for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar and plasma cannon to perform comparatively poorly versus armor but well against shields.
And I want them to do so in a consistent and predictable fashion so that players can use the weapons which best conform to their playstyle without having a "clearly superior" weapon.
Given these factors I intend that the shield cracker weapons clearly perform poorly vs. Armor and vice versa so that picking which weapon ( and by extension which fatsuit) has a direct effect upon your performance on the battlefield.
Again, along predictable lines.
I intend to balance based around my numbers for the forge guns.
Fast DPS, low alpha weapons will be set up to perform overall similarly to the Assault Forge Gun. (Scrambler lance)
Mid alpha/DPS will be comparable to the standard forge. (Minmatar Autocannon)
High Alpha, sluggish RoF/inaccurate will be comparable in DPS to the Breach Forge. (Gallente Plasma Mortar)
None of these heavy weapons will be built with AA, lock mechanics or any other mechanical assists in mind.
All of them are being balanced vs. The chrome numbers.
They are nit (as currently written) balanced against any other proposal or current mechanics.
However they are going to be easy to translate.
If you habe any particular objection to this balance approach, pleas speak up and be heard. I would hope that you do so with reasons that make sense or use math.
I am unwillingto deliberately transform AV/V into Easy Mode favoring the AV.
My intent is that there be a moderate base mechanical advantage to HAVs that individual AV gunners must overcome with proper tactics, positioning and skill.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
430
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:09:00 -
[967] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Oh hey, while we are at it, can we fix boosters to where they work under fire? Kind of a small thing, but would be nice. Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields.
1. Are you saying it is fair that a shield booster gets shut off if something hits it hard enough to stop the regen?
2. The shield booster is supposed to boost the shield back up even while taking damage, this happened in Chrome and Uprising - This is basically the same as a rep on a heavy and it not breaking off when the heavy is hit by an AR |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6362
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:13:00 -
[968] - Quote
1. Only barely, and I'll freely admit it's a stretch. If baseline regen values for shields are lowered, such as for my proposal, the answer is emphatically NO.
2. Again, only in a situation where native regen is HIGH.
UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE the answer is not only no, but f*ck you... NO!
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2691
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 11:41:00 -
[969] - Quote
@Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6364
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 12:35:00 -
[970] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:@Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it.
You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked.
This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris.
Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry.
If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
430
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 13:30:00 -
[971] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@Breakin, I looked above and saw the spreadsheet you meantioned, and I saw the HAV infantry thing. No. That would just give any Squid HAV the ability to be a slightly slower MAV with a big ass turret on it. You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked. This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris. Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry. If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight.
1. An MBT in todays world or even back in WW2 didnt seat more than the crew and they did not stop off to pick and drop of soliders
2. All transport vehicles are built for support which generally contain the driver and perhaps a gunner for general defence, some APC may pack a meaner gun but generally its not for hammering MBTs
3. Current DS fill the role of troop transport, logistic DS would be better for the role but if you give the role to an armored MBT then why the need for the DS? |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6370
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 14:37:00 -
[972] - Quote
The idea of versatility and providing tactical flexibility and options should apply as equally to vehicles as to infantry.
Further whenever I cite real world and historical examples they are summarily dismissed. I see no reason I should treat those arguments any different.
Finally this is a proposal not the document which has been chosen for use. Nor am I particularly of the mind that everything from the theorycraft tabs will be used even were it adopted.
But allowing an HAV to operate with a cohesive squad hardly seemed unreasonable given that usually the best defense from infantry AV is an infantry screen.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
149
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 15:29:00 -
[973] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The idea of versatility and providing tactical flexibility and options should apply as equally to vehicles as to infantry.
Further whenever I cite real world and historical examples they are summarily dismissed. I see no reason I should treat those arguments any different.
Finally this is a proposal not the document which has been chosen for use. Nor am I particularly of the mind that everything from the theorycraft tabs will be used even were it adopted.
But allowing an HAV to operate with a cohesive squad hardly seemed unreasonable given that usually the best defense from infantry AV is an infantry screen.
My current issue with the bay is that the fitting cost seems extremely high, particularly for a module with such a high penalty to base defense associated with it
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6375
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 15:38:00 -
[974] - Quote
I made it cost less than a standard small turret.
In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry.
The net benefit far outweighs the cost.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
149
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 15:48:00 -
[975] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I made it cost less than a standard small turret.
In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry.
The net benefit far outweighs the cost.
We will ignore that it is an optional module because I think forcibly inflicting tagalongs who want to AFK and reap kill assists in vehicles need to die in a fire.
The module can be easily removed from play once (if) MAVs are introduced at a later date.
Did you get your CPU/PG columns reversed then?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6375
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:06:00 -
[976] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I made it cost less than a standard small turret.
In exchange for having a potential of two small gunners plus three point defense/hack point assaulting infantry.
The net benefit far outweighs the cost.
We will ignore that it is an optional module because I think forcibly inflicting tagalongs who want to AFK and reap kill assists in vehicles need to die in a fire.
The module can be easily removed from play once (if) MAVs are introduced at a later date. Did you get your CPU/PG columns reversed then?
If the Cpu column is 1 or 0 then no.
I can't think of any justification why a bay would require any cpu control.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:16:00 -
[977] - Quote
Alright guys, everyone else has been giving great ideas, so I wanted to summarize my own. This is based on my personal experience as a tanker, along with all of the feedback I've seen here and elsewhere. Please keep in mind that all of this is my opinion.
WARNING: wall of text
First of all, major changes need to be worked into tanks at the Standard level. I believe that the Gunnlogi and Mardugar each need an extra slot for their racial tank, with a buff to AV. This works on the philosophy that a tanks power should lie in its modules, not its base stats. This would also inject a lot of variety to tanks, which is a good thing. Only problem I see with this is that the other vehicle types would get destroyed, which means they would need an extra slot for their racial tank as well (maybe an off rack mod for ADS). this might mean that vehicles would need a buff to their CPU and PG to accommodate this.
Second change for standard tanks, the Gunny needs to lose the ability to dual tank, while the Madrugar needs to gain the ability to fit a full proto racial tank + a proto large turret with little room for much else. The same would go for the Gunnlogi, full proto racial tank + a large proto turret. Example fit: Gunnlogi, 2 Heavy Complex shield Extenders, 1 complex hardener, I complex heavy booster, XT-201 Missile Launcher, Basic passive damage mod and a ammo expansion unit in the lows. Madrugar: 1 180mm Polycrystalline plate, 2 Complex Reppers, 1 complex Hardener, 80GJ Ion Cannon, basic fuel injector and scanner.
Now, on to skills, which also need major rework. Here are my suggestions on the vehicle skills and bonuses as far as tanks go.
It should be Vehicle command 5>HAV operation 3> Racial HAV operation 3> Specialized Racial HAV operation
HAV Operation unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation at level 3, giving a 1% bonus to overall HP per level.
Caldari HAV Operation unlocks Gunnlogi at 1, Caldari Enforcer at 3, Caldari Marauder at 5, giving a 3% bonus to shield recharge rate per level.
Caldari Enforcer Operation unlocks the Falchion, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Missile Velocity and Range per level, also giving a 5% bonus to Large Railguns Cooldown and all damage mod fitting per level (Enforcer Role Bonus)
Caldari Marauder Operation unlocks the Sagaris, gives a 5% bonus to Shield Module fitting per level, 2% to shield resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus of 5% to small turret fitting and damage.
Gallente HAV Operation unlocks the same way as Cal, gives a 3% bonus to armor repair per level.
Gallente Enforcer Operation unlocks the Vayu, and gives a 5% bonus to Large Blaster rof and Dispersion decay per level (circle decays slower) as well as the large rail and damage mod bonus above.
Gallente Marauder Operation Unlocks the Surya, and gives a 5% bonus to Armor Module fitting per level, 2% to armor resistance, as well as the Marauder role bonus to small turrets.
Marauders have a weaker weak point (30% more damage). Enforcers have a hard time fitting defensive mods, 25% increase of CPU and PG of all defensive mods for Enforcers (boosters and reppers unaffected)
Now, for the hulls. Please note that I leave out CPU and PG values, with the slot changes I have no idea what they should be.
CPU and PG should go Marauder>STD=Enforcer>MLT (IMO)
Gunnlogi
4/2 layout
Cost of 100k
Above average acceleration and turn speed, lower top speed.
3250 shields, 1000 armor.
Generalist
Falchion
4/3 layout
Cost of 150K
Very fast top speed and Acceleration, only loses to the Vayu. Better tracking but lower turn speed.
3000 shields, 1000 armor
Hit and run from a distance, using the range of missiles to be a longe range mobile killer, but easily destroyed at close range.
Sagaris
5/2 layout
Cost of 300K
Very slow top speed and Acceleration, only faster than the Surya. Slower turn speed but better tracking.
3500 shields, 1250 armor.
Drives around an objective, using its small turrets to deter or kill any infantry around it.
Madrugar
2/4 layout
Cost of 100K
Slower than average Acceleration, higher top speed. Turn speed is lower than Gunny, but has the ability to aim lower.
3500 armor, 1000 shields
Generalist
Vayu
Cost of 150K
3/4 layout
Fastest tank in the game, in both speed and acceleration, but suffers from slower turn speed than the Falchion
3250 armor, 1000 shields
Close range, very fast hit and run. Nitrous in with dmg modded Blaster, tear s*** up, GTFO.
Surya
2/5 layout
Cost of 300K
3750 armor, 1250 shields
Slowest tank in the game, in both speed and Acceleration, but has better tracking than the Sagaris.
The Behemoth. Sits on an objective, eating everything the Infantry has got, until a smart AV'er or Enforcer hits its weak spot
That's all my hull stats. Now, here's some other tid bits.
Gunnlogi Shield recharge needs to be toned down, and I see 2 ways of doing it.
Option 1: Lower recharge to 60 per second able to be modified by rechargers and extenders, keep everything else except Maddy recharge gets dropped to 40.
Option 2: lower recharge to 30 per second but make it constant, modified by rechargers and energizers. Only shield vehicles would get constant recharge, Maddy gets 20 a second.
Modules need to be re introduced. All of them.
Make Booster work under fire
Turret variety would be nice.
Give tanks a role. Something other than tanks to shoot at. Logi Vehicles, MAV, etc. You could also let tanks damage null cannons to the point where they shut down and have to be re hacked.
That's about it guys, let me know what you think about my proposal, and keep in mind that I don't know what the exact stats should be for AV and other vehicles after this.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6379
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:33:00 -
[978] - Quote
Most of what you are proposing is covered under my "revive chrome vehicle balance" proposal.
The idea here is that the HAVs are fit-centric rather than hull centric.
It doesn't matter if you runa maddy or a marauder. Without proper fittings you're driving a paper tiger.
I'm basing the AV values on chrome balance and I would like to alter the turrets to incorporate changes that apparently made HAV vs HAV more fun according to vet drivers
I am still waiting for input on dropships from pilots so I can incorporate the less squishy transport ship and ADS concept.
If I don't have any input within 48 hours I will begin creating theorycrafting tab entries for turrets, dropships and whatever else we are missing.
This is a chance to keep me from buggering your toys up.
Providing me numbers to work with and number crunch will increase the viability of this proposal.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:40:00 -
[979] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Most of what you are proposing is covered under my "revive chrome vehicle balance" proposal.
The idea here is that the HAVs are fit-centric rather than hull centric.
It doesn't matter if you runa maddy or a marauder. Without proper fittings you're driving a paper tiger.
I'm basing the AV values on chrome balance and I would like to alter the turrets to incorporate changes that apparently made HAV vs HAV more fun according to vet drivers
I am still waiting for input on dropships from pilots so I can incorporate the less squishy transport ship and ADS concept.
If I don't have any input within 48 hours I will begin creating theorycrafting tab entries for turrets, dropships and whatever else we are missing.
This is a chance to keep me from buggering your toys up.
Providing me numbers to work with and number crunch will increase the viability of this proposal.
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6382
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:17:00 -
[980] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
You tell me.
Work in progress.
Of particular note that I'm looking for input on:
Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model.
Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets.
Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend.
Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:40:00 -
[981] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
You tell me.Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not.
Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly.
Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6387
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:43:00 -
[982] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
You tell me.Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly
that's the chromosome stats. I want to shift that turret bonus to enforcers.
Let me be VERY clear.
ONLY the stats in the theorycrafting tabs are my work. the rest of these numbers are ripped directly from the chromosome build during closed beta, when the AV/V interaction was at it's best overall.
I'm not arbitrarily altering these stats precisely because I want driver input as well, and I want them to have a say in what will be fun to play. So if you have better ideas I will add said ideas into the theorycrafting tabs appropriately.
That way everyone can see the base stats this is based off of AND see how the proposal changes them.
I am an AV gunner primarily. I want pilot input in how I change the meta because I don't want you beggars having a leg to stand on accusing me of attempting to "ruin the game for you."
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:58:00 -
[983] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:
Sorry, havent been on the thread lately. So what your saying is, you pretty much agree?
You tell me.Work in progress. Of particular note that I'm looking for input on: Dropships: Eternal victims in chrome, I wish input on how to sustain current TTK rather than the old 2-HK model. Large Turrets: HAV drivers indicated that TTK in HAV vs HAV was too short. Looking for numbers from eras cited as better for the game in this aspect for altering turrets. Small turrets: Dropsuit max EHP has spiked about 20% across the board. small blasters and missiles should be altered to reflect this trend. Input welcome, arguments based on anecdote, personal bias and lacking in comprehensible logic/math are not. Read your hulls stats, and frankly I disagree on what you have for the Marauders. They shouldn't have high damage AND high defense compared to std. Marauders are the slow moving defensive tanks, std are the in between, and Enforcers are the agile high damage class built to destroy other tanks quickly. Also, on slots, if you have a marauder and a std tank that has the same number of slots for their racial tank, then the Marauder would only have a little better HP than said std tank, because only base stats would help the Marauder. Which isn't the path I personally want it to take. IMO, Std gets a 4/2 layout, Enforcer 4/3, Marauder 5/2, so Marauders gain the ability to fit even more, even better mods than std for defense, but suffer from movement speed penalties and being much more costly that's the chromosome stats. I want to shift that turret bonus to enforcers. Let me be VERY clear. ONLY the stats in the theorycrafting tabs are my work. the rest of these numbers are ripped directly from the chromosome build during closed beta, when the AV/V interaction was at it's best overall. I'm not arbitrarily altering these stats precisely because I want driver input as well, and I want them to have a say in what will be fun to play. So if you have better ideas I will add said ideas into the theorycrafting tabs appropriately. That way everyone can see the base stats this is based off of AND see how the proposal changes them.
Well, you have my input on how tanks should be up above. The chrome stats were the best we have had, but I think that if we implement my proposal then we would have a nice vehicle interplay going on, with AV being toned up with the new tanks.
Under my proposal, with Marauders getting bonuses to Small turret and an extra racial tank slot compared to Std, they would be the ideal objective taking HAV, able to shred Infantry with ease as long as you have gunners, while being hard to destroy, but very slow. The Enforcer counters that, being agile and hard to hit while dishing out a ton of damage to the Marauders through their bonuses to their turrets and damage mods, but not being able to take as many hits.. Then the Std vehicles are the generalist hulls, not being able to take damage or dish it out like an Enforcer or Marauder, but being average in both.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6390
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 19:20:00 -
[984] - Quote
I want to know if it's possible to scale down models.
Enforcer with no secondary turrets, 25% reduced in size and much much faster than a marauder makes for a much more interesting glass cannon concept IMHO.
Lower profile + faster = harder to hit.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
149
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 19:47:00 -
[985] - Quote
Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles...
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 20:13:00 -
[986] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles...
Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6391
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 20:19:00 -
[987] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES
making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference
making them SLOWER is my relevant thought.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
437
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 20:52:00 -
[988] - Quote
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16552
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 20:52:00 -
[989] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin', what about making some vehicle scale "EWAR" (as they call it dust side) with different levels of detection, sensor radii and profiles... Yeah... Say we can implement the scaled down model for Enforcers, give them the best EWAR, then make Marauders 25% bigger with the worst EWAR... Std in the middle. YES making marauders bigger isn't going to do much in the way of making a difference making them SLOWER is my relevant thought.
The only reason I suggest bigger is for scale. A fair number of examples are present throughout the gaming industry.... however I'll just draw from history.
The Tiger H1 was huge compared to smaller less well armed and armoured tanks. Personally one day I'd love to see specialised Marauder Hulls. Bigger, less conventional looking, etc.
http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg
That Cannon is a Large Turret and a half!
*"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
6391
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:21:00 -
[990] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either
Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both.
the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels
The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP.
This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
186
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:24:00 -
[991] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch.
Agreed. I don't know if a resist bonus would even work for Marauders, and I f there is 1 it would have to be like 1-2% because again, power in modules, not base stats (I've said that so many times in this thread....)
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
16553
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 21:58:00 -
[992] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch.
They do look high to me. 25% reduced incoming damage is pretty significant vs say 10-15%.
Hey Breaking one thing I thought about relating to Active Hardners that could spark some interesting discussion is the idea of short duration prolific protection from them for high fitting costs.
So ideally you would fit one hardener in addition to your passive plating for short bursts of powerful protection which cycle over the course of 30 or so seconds.
In the instance of shorter duration modules perhaps the Marauder could extend the effects of these powerful resistances out for an additional second or two.
*"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
6391
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:02:00 -
[993] - Quote
honestly?
COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming:
cooking things up that behave similar? maybe.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16553
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:08:00 -
[994] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:honestly?
COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming:
cooking things up that behave similar? maybe.
If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds.
Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level
= something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time.
Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified).
Just a thought.
*"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
150
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:08:00 -
[995] - Quote
Link
Updated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates)
Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6391
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:21:00 -
[996] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:honestly?
COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming:
cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought.
and not a bad one
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6391
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:27:00 -
[997] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:LinkUpdated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things)
eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome
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
4376
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:29:00 -
[998] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:honestly?
COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming:
cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. and not a bad one
So basically a hardener better suited for a HAV vs HAV fight, for when you know exactly when the damage is coming but then suffer from long downtime as to make them unsuitable to fight against infantry. I like that general idea.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
150
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:30:00 -
[999] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:LinkUpdated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things) eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome
The Maddy Examples are current fittings with current values (The Semi-viable ones I could think of)...(so if they're similar to the sagaris, take that as a little indication of AV's current situation vs armor)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6392
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:33:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:LinkUpdated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things) eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome The Maddy Examples are current fittings with current values (The Semi-viable ones I could think of)...(so if they're similar to the sagaris, take that as a little indication of AV's current situation vs armor)
that's a magazine and a half from proto IAFG to kill. average TTK well over 15 seconds.
With current HAV speeds that's a guaranteed escape.
How do you intend to balance the marauders, which are even more bricky traditionally?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6392
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:34:00 -
[1001] - Quote
found the chrome AV nade values.
Guess what's going into my proposal...
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16553
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:35:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:honestly?
COmbining mods isn't hilariously awesome, mostly because :programming:
cooking things up that behave similar? maybe. If you are referring to my post I don't mean in terms of one Hardener = two stacked current hardeners.... I mean +40% resistance for 8 seconds w/ cool down of 40 seconds. Modified by Marauder skill set of 5% increase to duration per level and the Skill Tree -5% to cool down per level = something like 10 second duration, 30 second cycle time. Instead of 24 second duration (unmodified by skills) and 60 second cool down (unmodified). Just a thought. and not a bad one
I only bring it up for discussion after thinking of Hardeners is Dust as Active Counter Measures. Something you pulse tactically to ensure you HAV withstands damage or escapes harm, not something you rely on to define your total eHP for meaningful lengths of time.
*"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
150
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:41:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:LinkUpdated my base stats, as well as some module stats (particularly Armor Plates) Expanded Slots to 7 each, and fitting to allow for the slots to be filled (as well as shown where my proposed skills would effect things) eyeballing the maddy examples, I'm seeing similar overall EHP levels to the sagaris from chrome The Maddy Examples are current fittings with current values (The Semi-viable ones I could think of)...(so if they're similar to the sagaris, take that as a little indication of AV's current situation vs armor) that's a magazine and a half from proto IAFG to kill. average TTK well over 15 seconds. With current HAV speeds that's a guaranteed escape. How do you intend to balance the marauders, which are even more bricky traditionally?
Tweaking the armor plates right now, I buffed them up a little too much...check now
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
4376
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:42:00 -
[1004] - Quote
What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6392
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:44:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime
This I like. Remind me later. Bedtime.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16554
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 22:59:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime
As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine.
For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration.
*"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
4376
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 23:07:00 -
[1007] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration.
Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners.
So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time.
Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time.
Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16556
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 23:43:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations.
Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time.
*"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
4377
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 23:47:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Ah well, I wasn't aware of your intention in that regard. I guess for me I miss the micromanagement that was required to properly operate your vehicle's modules via cycling and whatnot...it's been a large driving force behind pushing back to having more module slots. But that's just my personal desire.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 00:00:00 -
[1010] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations. Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time.
I'd seriously rather not. That's going back to the waves of opportunity ****, and we saw how that went.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16558
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 00:05:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime As long as they are universally the same values I think these should be fine fine. For the flux active hardeners though they cannot have intensely long down times assuming a much shorter duration. Well I'm going under the assumption that we have more slots with the intention of cycling multiple hardeners. So Resistance Amps when you want a little resistance all the time. Active Hardeners when you want some resistance most of the time. Flux Active Hardeners when you want a lot of resistance in certain situations. Ah my suggestion was to ideally make it so only 1 could be fitted with no need for cycling beyond consideration for its down time. I'd seriously rather not. That's going back to the waves of opportunity ****, and we saw how that went.
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 00:49:00 -
[1012] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits.
Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16561
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:20:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits. Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing.
That's fair but I am looking at the old modules and if I am not mistaken they were 60 second active duration with 15 seconds down time. That's not micromanaging that's being constantly powerful.
I might as well be have been using passive modules back on since I only had to toggle a button once a minute.
*"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
4379
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:37:00 -
[1014] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits. Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing. That's fair but I am looking at the old modules and if I am not mistaken they were 60 second active duration with 15 seconds down time. That's not micromanaging that's being constantly powerful. I might as well be have been using passive modules back on since I only had to toggle a button once a minute.
I think those were the remote armor repairers, not the local reps, but I could be wrong.
I totally get what you're saying between using passives if you want resistance all the time and using an active if you want it for short bursts, but personally I'd like having something in the middle ground as well.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2692
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 01:43:00 -
[1015] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Dust arguably had waves of opportunity more in Chomosome and Uprising than it ever did after 1.7 (as it was wolfman's intention that his changes would create them instead of removing them entirely) and that was what I consider to be one of the best aspects of Dust 514's vehicle gameplay that was compromised for the sake of what we have now.
Honestly I would argue that if you wanted constant resistances against shield and armour values you should then rely on Passive modules and that if you want to active tank you have to accept that the duration of your modules active times will be short and the cool downs a moderate value.
Micromanaging your modules so that it lasted over a period of time, not just all at once is not waves of oppertunity, and on top of that, that IS what we had in 1.7. Again, no. That kind of gameplay is too simple, and therefore too boring. Chromo was about trying to make your down time as low as possible. That isn't really arguable unless you had weird ass fits. Passive modules don't give the same power as active, and on top of that, they don't require you to manage them at all. You're missing the point of why people actually liked Chromo gameplay, which was mainly to do with the fact that that was a actual thing. That's fair but I am looking at the old modules and if I am not mistaken they were 60 second active duration with 15 seconds down time. That's not micromanaging that's being constantly powerful. I might as well be have been using passive modules back on since I only had to toggle a button once a minute.
If you used say 3, you could use them in a verity of ways, it wasn't always a "thy're on" situation, and if it was, you had a ****** tank compared to turning them all on, obviously. If you were doing that, then yes, you might as well been using passive modules, unless you're trying to get more speed out of your fit, in which cool, use the active modules (see, that's what's called variation of fits, something that doesn't exist now).
Also, iirc, the cooldown was made much higher, so you had to time it much more, and even then, you still had like 15 seconds of downtime or something like that. Would you want that?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2736
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 04:34:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels
Laser strike = Rattati's own words.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6395
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 04:38:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels
Laser strike = Rattati's own words.
That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6395
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 04:46:00 -
[1018] - Quote
alright: the following items need to be addressed for my proposal to work.
Dropships: too squishy. am going to do a combination of fitting buffs and resistances
Surya: Inordinately higher EHP than the sagaris. a bit more is fine, but not by THAT much. Surya simply represents a reversal of what we have now. Needs to be toned down to be closer to sagaris, though still higher.
Sica: too squishy. want to compensate by making faster
Soma: Too squishy. want to compensate by making faster
enforcers need stats.
Need speed values for the HAVs.
HAV speed needs to be dropped back to chrome for these values to work.
Exception: enforcers/mlt HAVs. Potentially slight speed increase for maddy/gunnlogi from chrome values
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2736
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 05:06:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels
Laser strike = Rattati's own words. That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else.
Dunno what you don't understand about his own words.
I escaped the edge of a laser strike in a Maddy, because I think quickly and had my NOS ready to go. Problem was there was a tank not far, so I had to engage it with very little health.
Next you're going to say quick thinking is OP.
Again, I don't understand what you don't understand about his own words.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2264
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 05:14:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Ah well, I wasn't aware of your intention in that regard. I guess for me I miss the micromanagement that was required to properly operate your vehicle's modules via cycling and whatnot...it's been a large driving force behind pushing back to having more module slots. But that's just my personal desire.
I miss the micro management in EVE that came with managing capacitors and active modules. I've still my hopes up that CCP will someday finally add capacitors to vehicles in Dust. That's perhaps one of the biggest things I wish for vehicles.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6395
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 05:19:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels
Laser strike = Rattati's own words. That's not a justification for making them overpowered against everything else. Dunno what you don't understand about his own words. I escaped the edge of a laser strike in a Maddy, because I think quickly and had my NOS ready to go. Problem was there was a tank not far, so I had to engage it with very little health. Next you're going to say quick thinking is OP. Again, I don't understand what you don't understand about his own words.
he wants to double the EHP of marauders from their chrome stats.
This is not in any way balanced, nor should it be considered in any way a sane proposal.
If you said orbital strikes do 50% less damage I would be on board. But not doubling the EHP.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2736
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 05:44:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
he wants to double the EHP of marauders from their chrome stats.
Rattati wanted proposals, now he's working on his own. We don't know what modules he's considering, or slot layouts, or the bonuses the vehicles will have. If he wants the Marauders to remain 3/2 and 2/3, then yeah, they must have huge base HP to be (again, in his own words) mammoth tanks easily dispatched by a laser strike. I keep having to bring up things that Rattati has said he wants for vehicles. Why do you keep ignoring his vision?
This is not in any way balanced, nor should it be considered in any way a sane proposal.
1.7 wasn't a sane hotfix.
If you said orbital strikes do 50% less damage I would be on board. But not doubling the EHP.
If I can escape a laser in a trash Maddy, then a Marauder should have a much better chance with all modules active as well as a NOS. Even now, warbarge strikes are child's play. Of course, you don't want Rattati's proposed mammoth tanks to have HP worthy of being considered 'mammoth'.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6395
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 06:11:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Lazer fo cused's proposal DOUBLES MARAUDER EHP FROM CHROMOSOME LEVELS.
What is so hard to comprehend about this?
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2265
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 06:15:00 -
[1024] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I don't want to nerf them at all but unfortunately what we have in Dust I have come to understand are not tanks.
Large Missiles if you can call them that since they are actually more akin to Rocket Launchers not only have too much DPS (3361 vs Shields and 4550 vs Armour) but also do not function like a Main Tanks gun. They are inappropriate for the role as the main gun of a tank and unbalance tank combat greatly.
Missiles are tank mounted swarms that actually require aim and timing, don't have a 400m range, and don't ignore obstacles and terrain. I'm proud to be able to use missiles. Hell, I can use all the turrets with deadly proficiency. So can I but it's not right that Missiles have a potential TTK of less than 3 seconds VS one specific type of vehicle (when only two are present in the game). It would also not be right if CCP released the Laser Turret and it was capable of dealing 4500 damage per second to shields. I mean unmodified PRO Missiles deals 3.5 times more DPS than PRO Railguns and almost 4x as much DPS as Blasters. Looking at the spectrum of Large Turrets in the game the DPS values a the opposites in terms of DPS to what they should be. Missiles unfortunately are the be all end all of most tank battles. I'd rather they simply be one option of many.
Large railguns have 2 times more damage per clip and large blasters have about 4 times more damage per clip than a large missile turret clip. Stop saying that large missiles have huge DPS. They only have high ALPHA, not DPS. DPS doesn't count if it's just for a second or two.
And why do you keep crying that large missiles are the "be all end all"? A railgun Gunnlogi clearly wins the majority of the time in any vehicle engagement. Particle cannons basically guarantee you a kill against both armor and shield vehicles, not just armor vehicles like large missiles.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
706
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 06:42:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer fo cused's proposal DOUBLES MARAUDER EHP FROM CHROMOSOME LEVELS.
What is so hard to comprehend about this?
Agreed, this is completley unacceptable. Muh Orbitals are a poor reason to advocate this. In fact, i would ignore the impact that orbitals have completley on tank balance, orbitals are supossed to kill everything in its blast radius. if you want to bring out a devastating tank but its too slow to escape, and it gets nuked, its called a sad day for you.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Auris Lionesse
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
1327
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:03:00 -
[1026] - Quote
one question? can there be a new control scheme added for vehicles?
specifically modeled after battlefield with a left shoulders brake/reverse and a right r2 acceleration button?
considering one of the tank destroyers would be aimed through actual positioning of the vehicle. itd be cool to have the turret only move marginally with the right stick for fine adjustments, (20-30degrees max) and use left stick for steering/aiming and positioning with l1 l2 for break and reverse, make r2 accelerate and r1 becomes the new module radial.
unless the halfway analog deadzone has been addressed already, cause currently theyre just a pain to drive. i cant imagine trying to use the destroyer with the current scheme. i need to be able to stop on a dime and reverse if my gun cant be aimed well.
thats how tank hunting in battlefield is. you play peekaboo. drive out, pop someone with the gun, and while its reloaded you haul it back before he can turn and kill you and its back to cat and mouse.
thats how i see the enforcers at least. ive wanted a dedicated tank destroyer for sometime.
i initially saw it as the medium assault vehicle fitted with a large cannon av turret. mobile, low health, easy to sneakup on a tank and mess it up and spider away quickly when people realize youre there. dampened and quiet until you start firing.
marauders... well thats self explanatory.
in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module.
make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active.
otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp.
Don't vote for iron wolf saber.
Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6396
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:07:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Auris Lionesse wrote:one question? can there be a new control scheme added for vehicles?
specifically modeled after battlefield with a left shoulders brake/reverse and a right r2 acceleration button?
considering one of the tank destroyers would be aimed through actual positioning of the vehicle. itd be cool to have the turret only move marginally with the right stick for fine adjustments, (20-30degrees max) and use left stick for steering/aiming and positioning with l1 l2 for break and reverse, make r2 accelerate and r1 becomes the new module radial.
unless the halfway analog deadzone has been addressed already, cause currently theyre just a pain to drive. i cant imagine trying to use the destroyer with the current scheme. i need to be able to stop on a dime and reverse if my gun cant be aimed well.
thats how tank hunting in battlefield is. you play peekaboo. drive out, pop someone with the gun, and while its reloaded you haul it back before he can turn and kill you and its back to cat and mouse.
thats how i see the enforcers at least. ive wanted a dedicated tank destroyer for sometime.
i initially saw it as the medium assault vehicle fitted with a large cannon av turret. mobile, low health, easy to sneakup on a tank and mess it up and spider away quickly when people realize youre there. dampened and quiet until you start firing.
marauders... well thats self explanatory.
in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module.
make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active.
otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp.
bastion modules are nonviable in DUST. They would allow AV gunners to trivially kill vehicles.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Auris Lionesse
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
1328
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:12:00 -
[1028] - Quote
also as for the missile turret. i think it should be redsigned along with an assault variant of the swarm launcher.
give it a laser designator. that you piant the target vehicle with. the missiles fly out and follow the laser point this way its actually guided missiles and not just dumbfire rockets.
then rebalance accordingly cause they can be aimed at long range, as missiles should be long range weapons and reduce the damage they can deal up close.
Don't vote for iron wolf saber.
Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.
|
Auris Lionesse
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
1328
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:18:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Auris Lionesse wrote:one question? can there be a new control scheme added for vehicles?
specifically modeled after battlefield with a left shoulders brake/reverse and a right r2 acceleration button?
considering one of the tank destroyers would be aimed through actual positioning of the vehicle. itd be cool to have the turret only move marginally with the right stick for fine adjustments, (20-30degrees max) and use left stick for steering/aiming and positioning with l1 l2 for break and reverse, make r2 accelerate and r1 becomes the new module radial.
unless the halfway analog deadzone has been addressed already, cause currently theyre just a pain to drive. i cant imagine trying to use the destroyer with the current scheme. i need to be able to stop on a dime and reverse if my gun cant be aimed well.
thats how tank hunting in battlefield is. you play peekaboo. drive out, pop someone with the gun, and while its reloaded you haul it back before he can turn and kill you and its back to cat and mouse.
thats how i see the enforcers at least. ive wanted a dedicated tank destroyer for sometime.
i initially saw it as the medium assault vehicle fitted with a large cannon av turret. mobile, low health, easy to sneakup on a tank and mess it up and spider away quickly when people realize youre there. dampened and quiet until you start firing.
marauders... well thats self explanatory.
in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module.
make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active.
otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp. bastion modules are nonviable in DUST. They would allow AV gunners to trivially kill vehicles. and control schemes need to be fixed in general. but I dunno if that is on the table
well id rather have the control scheme fixed first and foremost.
i can make poorly made vehicles work as long as i can drive them. in the current state i cant make it around a corner without bumping into something or getting stuck in that wonky deadzone while trying to turn around.
as for bastion modules its simply a matter of balancing the numbers.
any mechanic present in eve online has a potential home in dust.
dust is just the ground version of eve online.
there should be eve parity just as much as there should be racial parity.
thats why ive long been an advocate of capacitors and modules like armor resistance.
Don't vote for iron wolf saber.
Vote for someone who will help the community i.e. anyone else.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6398
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:22:00 -
[1030] - Quote
immobility is death, because vehicles have weakspots
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2694
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 07:31:00 -
[1031] - Quote
So Breakin and me just cussed each other out for a solid 2 hrs. or so (again), but it was about Logis vehicles. From what I understand, he wants:
1: Both LLV's and LDS's to rep things
2: for repping turrets to replace remote reppers
3: For HAV's not to be able to fit them easily (kinda like a cloak on a assault deal).
I disagree with all three points (kinda)
1: There is a concept I dubbed "The Logistics Triangle". Currently, there's three main theme's of a logi, and that is repping things, transport (for infantry it's spawning with uplinks), and supplying infantry's boomsticks. Although there's no third logi vehicle, nor is there resupplying, that third one should get resupplying (I say that it's a LMV, sexy school bus with a MSD anyone?) We do have LDS's and LLV's, and they were balanced for the logistics triangle (or at this point line). LLV's were the better of the two for repping (although the special infantry rep sucked ass, we all know it) and could do some transport, and the although terribly balanced in the ideal situation would be much better at transport, and although would be terrible for repping could be half way decent at airdropping supplies in (maybe a giant nanohive kinda thing?). With this, it would be all out of whack. It would become whichever is the best gets used the most, and that is bad for balance.
2: This was the main one (and had the most time and the most insults). My problem is this: Before, it was simple: a person fitted their LLV in two ways: they would tank a little (not much, the reppers took up a lot) and had one kind of tank repper, or they had both tank reppers and no tank. The LLV pilot would then coordinate with a friendly HAV (not: due to the ****** repper, not infantry) on when to rep, when you had to leave due to being hammered (which happened a lot, yes a untanked or only lightly tanked LLV vs. AV or HAV's wasn't that tough, only the full tanked ones were)m things like that. You had to respond quickly, and you had to be really careful, one wrong move and you're both toast, as the HAV tanked more than repped, it wasn't just a normal fit (unless you were repping a random). Making them turrets would change all of that.
First off, it would require a full man to do just ONE tank (yes, you would need another full LLV to do this with, and we only have 16 man teams, as well as that price starts adding up to be real damn expensive for one HAV), a **** load of coordination is now added, seeing as you have to talk to now 3 new people for different tasks. It just becomes a mess of inefficiency, which I hate, as that is the opposite of what he wants to bring back, which is the chromosome vibe. One of his complaints was that he wants remote reppers to rep infantry as well, and to that, infantry repping as a vehicle was only available on the LLV, and I'd like it to stay that way (although that old rep as said needs to go, a bubble rep seems to be a good way to go about it from my talks with Pokey, but a turret for that would be fine with me), and combining them just to say that they are combined is beyond ******* silly.
3: I'm iffy on this one. It really comes down to if it can be balanced. Imo, it was, as it took a shitload of skill (especially in large numbers) to pull off. One wrong move, the engagement is over, your entire squad is dead (and yes, seen it happen a couple times, it's usually someone decides to lock someone else, or accidentally because of moving and aiming wrong).
That is all.
EDIT: reread 3, realized that it isn't worded right. To clarify, I want heavy remote repps to stay, but if they can't due to balance, remove them (but lights regardless needs to stay).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 10:38:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch.
1. Its a role bonus like the logi gets, its either armor or shield but not both and even if it was its not much on 1000armor and by then once you are down to that on a shield vehicle you are as good as dead
2. How? The sagaris is at chrome levels, the shield skill offers 5% per level to shield HP as it did before, i just added resistance if its supposed to be a point defence machine
3. Again how? its 5% to armor repair amount so your repper will repair 25% more at level 5 than it does at a base? |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 10:48:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:What if you had 3 flavors?
Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime
1. Had them in Uprising for shield vehicles - 10sec on /30sec off - Didnt work out so well for shield vehicles since no one ever used them hardeners hence why armor vehicles were better
2. If its on for 10sec and off for 1min then there is no point to using them since if ground vehicle are going to be slower then in 10sec or less they better get behind some decent cover or far away |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6399
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 11:02:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. 1. Its a role bonus like the logi gets, its either armor or shield but not both and even if it was its not much on 1000armor and by then once you are down to that on a shield vehicle you are as good as dead 2. How? The sagaris is at chrome levels, the shield skill offers 5% per level to shield HP as it did before, i just added resistance if its supposed to be a point defence machine 3. Again how? its 5% to armor repair amount so your repper will repair 25% more at level 5 than it does at a base?
ahhh you fixed it
Ok. first up, the sagaris was bloody powerful. adding 25% resistance plus 25% HP would only bring it's EHP upward towards the Surya, and the surya EHP was excessive in a bad way.
second, the buff to the surya takes it's average EHP (someone was kind enough to link the fit) from over 16k to over 20k.
Given the SUrya was almost untouchable that's an unacceptable result. There is no other instance in this game where an upgrade from a weapon, suit or module provides double or triple the base EHP benefit of the unit before.
Your scaling is off. The only way for the bonus you suggest to work is to strip SIGNIFICANT fitting power from marauders.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 11:34:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
1. Chrome with altered numbers, not finished either Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both. the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP. This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch. 1. Its a role bonus like the logi gets, its either armor or shield but not both and even if it was its not much on 1000armor and by then once you are down to that on a shield vehicle you are as good as dead 2. How? The sagaris is at chrome levels, the shield skill offers 5% per level to shield HP as it did before, i just added resistance if its supposed to be a point defence machine 3. Again how? its 5% to armor repair amount so your repper will repair 25% more at level 5 than it does at a base? ahhh you fixed it Ok. first up, the sagaris was bloody powerful. adding 25% resistance plus 25% HP would only bring it's EHP upward towards the Surya, and the surya EHP was excessive in a bad way. second, the buff to the surya takes it's average EHP (someone was kind enough to link the fit) from over 16k to over 20k. Given the SUrya was almost untouchable that's an unacceptable result. There is no other instance in this game where an upgrade from a weapon, suit or module provides double or triple the base EHP benefit of the unit before. Your scaling is off. The only way for the bonus you suggest to work is to strip SIGNIFICANT fitting power from marauders.
1. They are marauders they are supposed to be bloody powerful
2. Its EHP may reach uptowards the Surya but the Surya gets the same skills roughly, But if Minmatar vehicles enter then i would most likely swap the shield HP to the minmatar marauder and give Caldari 5% per level on shield regen perhaps
3. The Surya was not untouchable and its a vehicle not a dropsuit which can be upgraded in many diff ways to be better and its alot more powerful to boot
4. My scaling is fine so far but not done |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6404
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 12:59:00 -
[1036] - Quote
your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it.
The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
155
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:02:00 -
[1037] - Quote
I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6406
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:20:00 -
[1038] - Quote
whoever said enforcers were glass cannons was smoking the biggest crack pipe when they were playing them
Same slot layout as marauders... check
Miniscule PG/CPU reduction... check.
Higher base hull HP... Check.
Same bonus as marauders -5% overall efficacy... check
Glass cannons my ass.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:22:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it.
The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained.
1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder
2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option
3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV
4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out
5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:25:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome
1. The current SL is not laser guided or even requires 1/10th of the aim that you want for vehicle turrets
2. Current vehicle turrets like the large missile require aim, the SL does not
3. The current missile turrets are already controlled by where i aim, they just do not track the target and go round 3 corners and i dont want it either
4. A vehicle version of the SL, do i get to lock onto infantry through cover and aim upwards and not lose lock and have the missiles chase infantry around 3 corners? |
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6406
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:26:00 -
[1041] - Quote
1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder
Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows.
2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option
Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak
3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV
Surya EHP was excessive.
4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out
Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesh*t. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps.
5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs[/quote]
Yes, because the corp battle players weren't ever complaining that marauders were dominating the matches.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2381
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:34:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Auris Lionesse wrote:
marauders... well thats self explanatory.
in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module.
make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active.
otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp.
I pictured this happening and a gunloggi turning into one of the Caldari large turrets from Closed Beta.
Also, I disagree that Bastion Modules are nonviable in Dust, though I do not think they should be looked at until later (get racial parity first, then Enforcers/Marauders included/balanced and then worry about breaking them again with specific modules).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:45:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder
Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows.
2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option
Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak
3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV
Surya EHP was excessive.
4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out
Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesh*t. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps.
5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs
Yes, because the corp battle players weren't ever complaining that marauders were dominating the matches. [/quote]
1. He said it not me, take it up with Rattati
2. Look at now, Madrugar is weaker than the Gunlogi yet you want to nerf the Gunlogi down to the Madrugars level so we end up with 2 useless vehicles instead of 2 useful vehicles
3. No - Infantry didnt want to skill into proper AV at all, Now all infantry has at least some form of AV that wouldnt be a problem
4. Wrong - You have the Chrome numbers - 180Poly was 3128 - It never was 3500 unless you add in the 25% bonus to vehicle armor but that was added on base stats
4a. Its why i said 3/2, you know 3 or 2 depending on pilot with at least 1 heavy rep
5. Nope they were not, even in Uprising no one complained that vehicles were useful and doing there job |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6406
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:53:00 -
[1044] - Quote
meh screw it, I'm not talking to you any more lazer. I'll do my thing, you do yours.
Your ability to justify anything so long as vehicles are untouchable by infantry is nothing short of amazing.
EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:59:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:meh screw it, I'm not talking to you any more lazer. I'll do my thing, you do yours.
Your ability to justify anything so long as vehicles are untouchable by infantry is nothing short of amazing.
1. Dont get mad because i countered all your points while you just decided to act like a child
2. If you dont want to start a discussion do not reply
3. 2 can play that game - Your ability to justify anything so long as AV are untouchable by pilots is nothing short of amazing |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6410
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:55:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Alright, I am actually winding down a bit, and running out of things I can justify changing.
the raw numbers in chrome are fun in some aspects, and enraging in others.
I am well aware that there was no "golden age" for any aspect of the game, but this one has the distinction of being entertaining to me.
My numbers can be found here.
the door will remain open if anyone wants to provide feedback. all of my proposed changes are in the various theorycrafting tabs.
the TL;DR of these changes are as follows. All changes are from base chrome stats
Hulls:
Viper and Gorgon: +15% buff to base PG/CPU
Sica and Soma should retain current speeds in uprising 1.10 build
Gunnlogi and madrugar: since I don't have data on moement, speed reduced from current
Surya: Skill changed to +5% repaired per level with armor repair modules from +4% damage per level
Sagaris: skill changed to +5% per level of amount gained via shield boosters from +4% damage per level
Myron and Grimsnes: 30% buff to base PG and CPU
Eryx: comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Shield Transporter, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level
Prometheus:comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Remote Armor Repair, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level
Charybdis Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Remote Armor Repair
Limbus Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Shield Transporter
Falchion: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large missiles, 5%/level to reload speed
Vayu: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large blasters, 5%/level to reload speed
Modules:
Added remote armor rep for use as a small turret
Added remote shield rep for use as a turret
Reduced base protection of 180mm plates by 20%
AV:
Restored Forge guns to Chromosome, minus 12 base damage
Reduced Plasma Cannon reload and reduced charge time to allow it to act in a real anti vehicle capacity
Added theoretical stats to Scrambler lance
Added Theoretical stats to Heavy Autocannon
Added theoretical stats to plasma mortar
Heavy and Burst Machineguns: Reduce base damage 10%, Restore older heat values, toggle off aim assist.
Heavy Damage mods restored to 5/7/10
Swarms retained as CURRENT (Uprising 1.0) type.
AV grenades restored to chromosome values
Theoretical stats including the lost weaponry bonus as a baseline included. As the weaponry bonus was crucial at the time.
Stats with the weaponry bonus are added at the bottom, baseline stats retained at the top.
All changes are annotated in the theorycraft tabs, not in the base numbers.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
483
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 15:33:00 -
[1047] - Quote
LOL reload speed bonus.
& justice for all
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2740
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:31:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Viper and Gorgon: +15% buff to base PG/CPU
lolwut. Buff that by a lot, but nothing else? lol
Sica and Soma should retain current speeds in uprising 1.10 build
Gunnlogi and madrugar: since I don't have data on moement, speed reduced from current
So MLT hulls keep the same speed, but STD hulls move slower? That would be like Ferrari introducing a mid-level sedan.
Surya: Skill changed to +5% repaired per level with armor repair modules
Actually something smart.
Sagaris: skill changed to +5% per level of amount gained via shield boosters
Better off with higher recharge.
So just one bonus, eh? I see
Myron and Grimsnes: 30% buff to base PG and CPU
These are quite fine right now actually. I still doubt you've ever set foot in the pilot's seat of any vehicle.
Eryx: comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Shield Transporter, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level
Prometheus:comes with CRU, Skill Bonus: 15%/level fitting reduction and 25%/level range on Remote Armor Repair, 5% reduction to mCRU spawn time/level
If spawn time on a logi ship isn't 5 seconds at level 5 at the very most, then it's not worth it in PC and FW, which is what the game is supposed to be balanced around.
Charybdis Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Remote Armor Repair
Limbus Skill: 15%/level fitting reduction on Shield Transporter
If we have 5% PG/CPU per level, this won't be a problem. They should come pre-fit with infantry modules, with a third slot for remote vehicle modules.
Falchion: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large missiles, 5%/level to reload speed
Vayu: reduced base HP, reduced fitting, reduced slot count, removed secondary turret slots. Role bonus: 50% reduction to fitting large turrets. Skill Bonus: 4%/level to large blasters, 5%/level to reload speed
That's worse than the Uprising Enforcers. You're giving me a stronger feeling every time you post that you've never been in a vehicle, ever. Reduced fitting? It was that way in Uprising, they had MLT stats. 50% reduction to fitting turrets? Terrible ideas
Added remote armor rep for use as a small turret
Added remote shield rep for use as a turret
Why bother using them as logistics then? Anybody that tried using them found them to be slow, clunky and incredibly frustrating to use. Everybody else is a fan of area of effect, why bring back something that didn't work?
Reduced base protection of 180mm plates by 20%
Why bother having them if that's the case?
AV:
Reduced Plasma Cannon reload and reduced charge time to allow it to act in a real anti vehicle capacity
They already get a reload skill, and another one on top of that when used with a commando suit.
Heavy Damage mods restored to 5/7/10
lolwut
Swarms retained as CURRENT (Uprising 1.0) type.
Still broken
AV grenades restored to chromosome values
Might as well send down asteroids.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
445
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:33:00 -
[1049] - Quote
1. Logi DS need a kick out button
2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max
2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi
2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer
3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles
4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on
5. Shield passive recharge is constant
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level
7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes
7b. Some values taken from EVE
7c. Some new modules added
7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance %
8. Hulls have had certain stats changed
8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values
8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout
8c. Marauder 5/3
8d. Basic HAV 4/2
9. PC/FW before pubs
10. Still not finished - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2740
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:42:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder
Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows.
What part of his own words don't you understand?
2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option
Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak
What's wrong with vehicles getting 5% per level to CPU, PG, shield and armor per level? Along with making base hulls weaker than current stats, but stronger than they currently are when those skills are at level 5?
3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV
Surya EHP was excessive.
No, the correct answer is............... nobody had AV.
4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out
Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesh*t. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps.
180mm polycrystalline plate didn't add that much.
5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs
Yes, because the corp battle players weren't ever complaining that marauders were dominating the matches.
It's called teamwork, and I would imagine each team could field more than one vehicle pilot at all times. Because after all, why should the game be balanced around pubs?
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.
2740
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:46:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it.
The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained.
Why do you always think in terms of "I must do this myself," rather than hoping there's a pilot on your team? That kind of thinking is poisonous.
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.
2740
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:47:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome
So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock?
Another bad idea from 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
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
156
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 16:54:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry.
So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator?
I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret.
Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever...
Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes
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
16578
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 21:18:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes
I always quite liked the idea of small missile pods I could activate during the rechambering time of my HAV's main gun..... if you look at the old fan art of the Caldari Marauder you'll see what I mean.
http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg
*"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
16580
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 22:52:00 -
[1055] - Quote
By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 00:30:00 -
[1056] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? I personally would like a Guided Missile Launcher for a Main Turret because I would find it more useful (as it could still be used for artillery purposes, by guiding it around obstacles and into tight positions), and could still be used for both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry Proposes, an ability I would find to be too powerful to put on a small turret. Swarm pods on the other hand would be pure AV, with no AI capabilities whatsoever... Now if you wanted to add on a lock-on Missile Launcher, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be one that I would personally use...not versatile enough for my tastes I always quite liked the idea of small missile pods I could activate during the rechambering time of my HAV's main gun..... if you look at the old fan art of the Caldari Marauder you'll see what I mean. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg
Something like a Coaxial Small Gun?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 00:34:00 -
[1057] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced?
The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day....
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
16585
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 00:50:00 -
[1058] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:True Adamance wrote:By the way CCP Tattati are you still in a position where new models are unable to be produced? The Armarr will have their HAV some day Adamance..... Some day....
I've found some very interesting non-standard tank designs that could be cool looking to base anything new off of.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2740
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 01:14:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator?
It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
188
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 02:13:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas.
Why is it a bad idea? A lock on large turret would be a bad idea, as you couldn't engage enemy AV.... At all. Meanwhile, guided missiles would let you engage both infantry AND vehicles more effectively (especially DS)..... Some times I don't get your reasoning Spkr, and infantry aren't the only ones with bad ideas....
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 02:19:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)
but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome So the pilot controls missiles that can't lock, but someone else controls the missiles that do lock? Another bad idea from infantry. So...you're trying to say that I'm Infantry? That I'm not an HAV operator? It's a terrible idea, and infantry come up with terrible ideas.
So...how about instead of going on a McCarthyesque Witchhunt for "Infantry" and further hurting your credibility, why don't you actually discuss why you dislike the ideas? Infantry and AVers have every right to comment on the Balance of our HAVs, vehicle modules, and turrets, just as we have every right to comment on the balance of Dropsuits, Dropsuit Modules, and Weapons.
I have put forward that I like the Idea of adding a Guided Missile Turret (not replacing current "Missile" turrets) where the missile(s) launched would follow your crosshairs in their flightpath instead of a lock-on function because I feel that a Guided Missile would give me much more versatility as a vehicle operator, particularly in the areas of bombardment, and artillery support, not to mention it would take away your ability to engage infantry entirely. As I stated above (which you conviniently cropped out of the quotation) I am not opposed to a lock-on main turret, and stated that I would not want to loose my potential bombardment support capabilities, so would not use them and instead opt for my mainstay railgun.
Swarm Pods would be the smaller, more limited version. A lock-on function making them essentially mounted swarms seems like the easiest way to implement them, and would be a major boon to small turret operators for AV purposes. Not to mention it would prove helpful on LAVs and ADSs, providing them another option for harassing HAVs, and hopefully making the whole of vehicle combat more interesting and varied, while making them more vulnerable to AV toting infantry themselves.
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
16590
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 03:32:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Hey Thaddeus if I threw you some main battle cannon stats could you bash some sense into them?
I'm trying to keep the turrets themselves unique, with as few disparities between them as possible.
I have the
Charged Electron Blaster - A tri-barrel electron accelerator that fires three projectiles at one in a small cluster.
150mm Carbide Railgun - A single shot high muzzle velocity railgun with the most devastating AoE.
Dual Focused Pulse Laser - A pulsing laser turret with no AoE but also no ammunition values or projectile falloff.
200mm Artillery Cannon - A devastating anti tank cannon with the highest AoE splash zone and alpha but slow reload and a lower muzzle velocity.
They need a bit of checking as their DPS values don't totally line up with how I want them however each turret has character which I think will be fantastic for the role.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 03:39:00 -
[1063] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Hey Thaddeus if I threw you some main battle cannon stats could you bash some sense into them?
I'm trying to keep the turrets themselves unique, with as few disparities between them as possible.
I have the
Charged Electron Blaster - A tri-barrel electron accelerator that fires three projectiles at one in a small cluster.
150mm Carbide Railgun - A single shot high muzzle velocity railgun with the most devastating AoE.
Dual Focused Pulse Laser - A pulsing laser turret with no AoE but also no ammunition values or projectile falloff.
200mm Artillery Cannon - A devastating anti tank cannon with the highest AoE splash zone and alpha but slow reload and a lower muzzle velocity.
They need a bit of checking as their DPS values don't totally line up with how I want them however each turret has character which I think will be fantastic for the role.
Sure I can take a look for you
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
710
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 11:40:00 -
[1064] - Quote
I do like most of you proposal, lol at naming officer weapons after you and your buddies, but the Av changes....well, well, well.
I disagree to the your forge guns changes, heavy damage mod changes, and the AV grenades. Not sure if i'm going to describe you as biased, but adding roughly over 1000 potential damage (factor in damage mod stacking and you number changes) and removing all draw backs for Forge guns (breach charge wont lock you in place, charge time decreased for all forge guns)...
Current Forge numbers are more than suffcient.
Wirykami breach max skills currently do 2415 damage without damage mods.
Your version would do 2500 base, + max skills 2,875 without damage mods.
Add a new 10% damage mod to that 3162, + 10% damage to armor 3478, Dropships already have a hard enough time as it is, i'd like for you not to have to land one shot to take down a python and two to take down an incubus without having to use damage mods. Fully damage mod stacked on a caldari heavy, one round woud be all you need to clean the sky, thats extremley OP. 3.5 seconds between shots max skills...And you want breach forge guns to roam free? I'm onto you.
The old chrome grenades were extremley OP, and to revert back to them now will negate the purpose of bringing in AV fits to begin with. 5,292 damage in three grenades, why would you even need a swarm fit or a forge gun fit when two squadmates can do 10,384 damage chucking these auto homing things from behind a supply depot or nanite field?
You've already concurred that current swarms have noo need of a buff vs chrome vehicles, i have hard time fathoming why a form of Av with does less damage than current forge gun is capapble, and yet forge guns need to buffed to compensate for new vales?
I think you know by now that I may have a pro vehicle bias, but i do want the game to balanced for everyone. I'd say look at how the stats, play out, and if we end up returning the bad old days of 1.7 then bring the Forge and AV grenades up to spec.
But man, i really dont like the idea of limping along in my incubus after one hit from you proposed forge guns hit takes me from 4274 hp down to 796 hp with one damage mod.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2694
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 11:49:00 -
[1065] - Quote
[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
455
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 12:43:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a
6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless
6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety
6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle
6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6443
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 13:04:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:things and stuff
The forge gun changes are reversal TO chromosome stats as are AV nades.
The prototype AV is viable versus the sagaris and surya, the intended targets.
NOW. That being said, I haven't done much for dropships because I have been asking REPEATEDLY for input on how to set them up to retain their current TTK.
My best idea for the militia and standard was to make them less reliant on fitting modules. I'm not touching the ADS without dropship pilot input.
But as far as my initial impressions I'd jump them up to 5%/level rate of fire but so far I would love to know what fittings you would need in your ADS of either type to not get instapopped.
And the wiyrkomi breach two shots dropships now, so that's hardly a change in status quo.
Current meta for ADS is three hits from an IAFG. Starting there and working up to par is hardly what I consider unfair
Care to collaborate on making dropships not a suicide SP trap like they were in chrome?
Hell if you skype Id be more than happy to explain every single tweak and why.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 14:55:00 -
[1068] - Quote
sure dude, you can find me on skype tesfa514
Back the Forge gun numbers vs ADS, yes it would still be a two shot to the dropship. TTK from the breach wont change so much. Yet, with current stats Prof 5 W. breach (+ 10% damage + 10% bonus to armor) i would still have that extra 1,351 HP on the incubus. I can evade and possibly negate the effect of a swarm missile fired in conjunction. No enough to survive another direct hit, but enought to survive a following strike with swarms.
ROF bonus would be nice, but that doesn't necessarily help with survivability. They are an offensive measure and not a defensive one. Perhaps theory craft an addtional high for inc. For the python, that should be left to the dedicated python pilots, i don't thing they would have much use for another low slot except for another CPU or PG upgrade slot to fit better high slot modules. An extra high on the inc could be used for either a shield extender or shield booster without sacrificing the afterburner.
Hard to say really.
AV grenades, yes i know its the old school chrome grenades, but they were insanely OP even back then. Would not want to go back to those days at all. And the pre 1.7 days, you didn't really need a dedicated AV fit, because grenades were enough on thier own to kill any tank. They should be a finisher, and not the equavalent primary weapon.
Overall though, big two thumbs up, i like what i see.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6449
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 14:58:00 -
[1069] - Quote
I was thinking giving the ADS a buff to acceleration so you can get into evasive maneuvering faster.
Not getting hit > taking it like a champ.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:26:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Evasive manouvers are fine (if you call sweaty nerve racking moments of circling a forge gun on the roof in a fight of attrition fine) vs forges. i'm not a python pilot so i'm used to my flying brick.
I prefer the idea of an active module as a densive counter measure to use as soon as we do get hit. As long as the ADS has to sacrfice slots to fit PG and CPU they will always be minus one low slot, screwing wih the theorcrafting.
To be fair, i havnt taken into consideration how the return of old modules would affect the ADS, mostly i've been looking at things from a tankers perspective. e.g Will the proposed hardener stats hold up? Will Active reppers do well? i have no idea, i was a transport pilot ( loved my gorgon) back then and was trying to spec into the Logi DS.
Certainly will need 5% ROF buff or a rail gun buff to deal with the high ehp tanks. If you've ever seen a dropship try to take out a blaster installtion that cant even move, you know how miserable it may be trying to small rail a 12,k hp Sagaris. which leads me back to the Av nade point.
Why not just up the count to three nades and leave damage stats as they are? Yes i hear ya, The sagaris and suraya have tons of eHP, but the other tanks and LAVs dont. I think of how many people each match pull out core locus grenades, and by only changing the 'nades on the suit, 3 nades will pop anything that wasn't a Proto fit suraya or sagaris, for a minute fraction of the cost. Being an AV should be more than that, and we run the risk of making the suraya and sagirs into what the gulogi is today, i.e. The only viable fit vs AV so thats what tankers run.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6450
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:41:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Valid concerns.
Let's see if we can find an acceptable compromise point shall we?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
711
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:16:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6455
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:17:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Dinner time in eastern europe comrade, will get on when i can
excuses, excuses.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:43:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6456
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:49:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done.
the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Ask me about my v
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:01:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable.
Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6456
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:11:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less?
for me, not for you.
I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:25:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Breakin, currently working on some relative values between HAVs. After that I'll want to do a balance pass to buff/nerf my values against your AV values when I'm done. the closer you keep HAVs to the current meta the more my AV values will have to be adjusted. It's that simple. But it's doable. Im afraid I'm a little confused on what you mean. You're saying there will be more work if I change less? for me, not for you. I can adjust the numbers to match a meta, just need a guideline to follow.
Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6456
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:27:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Well we'll figure something out. Just be aware that what I send has had zero thought in concerns to AV, and is entirely based around balancing between the HAVs and reworked modules, so if the values are wildly off don't be alarmed.
so long as you can walk me through the numbers that you have relative to the numbers we have NOW, I can absolutely do the conversions. I just have to understand from start to finish what's being nerfed, what's being buffed and what the numbers are going to look like in the end.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:32:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Don't worry I intend to do a Current and Proposed comparison so you can easily see the deltas
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6456
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:35:00 -
[1081] - Quote
awesome.
in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets.
have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:40:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:awesome.
in case you guessed I was more than a little tickled when Rattati said he'd like to do heavy racial parity with existing art assets.
have you figured out the logic behind the numbers yet? they share a theme and consistency.
Oh, how did you know that consistancy of design gets me all hot and bothered?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6456
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:42:00 -
[1083] - Quote
you available in skype right now?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4399
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:44:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Not really, I can sneak a forum message in ever so often but the boss is lurking so Skype would be pushing it.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6457
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:50:00 -
[1085] - Quote
fair enough.
used the forge guns as the baseline because LOLswarms.
at each level the Scrambler lance is only 50 DPS from the Assault forge at each level.
the Autocannon is within 50 of the standard forge at each level
the plasma mortar is within 50 of the breach forge at each level.
So there's predictable and consistent performance at all levels.
Fast firing/high DPS run DPS similar to the IAFG, medium fire rate/alpha to the standard forge guns and the slow fire/high alpha to the breach.
I'm letting the damage profiles and the actual differences in firing mechanics do the heavy lifting rather than having wildly varying performances that seem random as hell between weapons.
It also makes creating variants less headache inducing because there's a guideline. so if you wanted the assault plasma mortar, you could start with the 575 DPS range, slightly below the IAFG and work the mechanics outward from there.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 19:10:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:fair enough.
used the forge guns as the baseline because LOLswarms.
at each level the Scrambler lance is only 50 DPS from the Assault forge at each level.
the Autocannon is within 50 of the standard forge at each level
the plasma mortar is within 50 of the breach forge at each level.
So there's predictable and consistent performance at all levels.
Fast firing/high DPS run DPS similar to the IAFG, medium fire rate/alpha to the standard forge guns and the slow fire/high alpha to the breach.
I'm letting the damage profiles and the actual differences in firing mechanics do the heavy lifting rather than having wildly varying performances that seem random as hell between weapons.
It also makes creating variants less headache inducing because there's a guideline. so if you wanted the assault plasma mortar, you could start with the 575 DPS range, slightly below the IAFG and work the mechanics outward from there.
Breakin, do you mind if I borrow your Heavy weapons ideas (adjusted to my numbers ofc) for when I get around to AV theorycrafting?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6458
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 19:10:00 -
[1087] - Quote
feel free. Just bear in mind they need to change based on how your vehicles are set up.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
477
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:05:00 -
[1088] - Quote
1. Logi DS need a kick out button
2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill
2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi
2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer
3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles
4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on
5. Shield passive recharge is constant
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges
7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level
7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes
7b. Some values taken from EVE
7c. Some new modules added
7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance %
7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot
8. Hulls have had certain stats changed
8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values
8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout
8c. Marauder 5/3
8d. Basic HAV 4/2
9. PC/FW before pubs
10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus
11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6461
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:18:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.
You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.
Bravo.
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:23:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Logi DS need a kick out button 2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill 2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi 2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer 3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles 4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on 5. Shield passive recharge is constant 6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system 6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges 7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level 7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes 7b. Some values taken from EVE 7c. Some new modules added 7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance % 7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot 8. Hulls have had certain stats changed 8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values 8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout 8c. Marauder 5/3 8d. Basic HAV 4/2 9. PC/FW before pubs 10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus 11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
To address point 1. Why not X...labelled as Bay doors or something on flying vehicles?
I love the EWAR concept actually having some EWAR now XD...
The Target breaker as you have it could be very powerful...I'd suggest instead a penalty to lock on times instead of just a flat out "No Locking"...I'm fine with it throwing off AV 'nades
Shield Regen numbers look solid.
I'd go with Either or on the Marauder Bonuses...you're increasing it's EHP by a frakton there (or tone down both bonuses, Marauders need to be Tanky as hell, but not unassailable)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
477
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:24:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.
You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.
Bravo.
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman.
1. Obv hasnt read it
2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence
3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
487
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:32:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. Logi DS need a kick out button 2. Specalized hulls work on a role bonus and then a racial bonus, this can be upto 3 skills max - Tweek to the LLAV skill 2a. Either 2 bonus skills for its role and 1 racial or vice versa - This is seen in infantry suits such as the Minmatar Logi 2b. Not sure if Basic Hulls should get anything skill bonus wise to compete and not be made useless compared to Marauder/Enforcer 3. Any turrets which are anti infantry are for killing just infantry and will be useless against vehicles 4. No AV numbers since this is about vehicles, just add in current AV numbers now and tweek from then on 5. Shield passive recharge is constant 6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system 6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area - Changed AOE is for light only, Heavy remote reps are tether still 6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount - Undecided 6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool 6d. Yet to add AOE distance - AOE distances added, same with tether ranges 7. Most modules have been tiered to a certain level 7a. Some modules have lower CPU/PG requirements and lower bonus as a result but not all modules have a module like this - I may add to all for variety purposes 7b. Some values taken from EVE 7c. Some new modules added 7d. Shield/Armor mods same resistance % 7e. Added 2 new modules, Target breaker which stops being locked on for x amount of time and also the module breaks AV nade homing mechanism so to get damage the AV nade require aim and to hit the vehicle - ECM Burst module is passive and increases lock on time, also % chance to break lock - Both high slot 8. Hulls have had certain stats changed 8a. ADS gains 2 slots, will lose all passenger slots, can be a 3man vehicle with 3 turrets, buffed Shield/Armor values 8b. Enforcer 1 main turret, no small turrets but undecided atm, 4/3 layout 8c. Marauder 5/3 8d. Basic HAV 4/2 9. PC/FW before pubs 10. Skills - ECM/Target breaker modules need a skill bonus 11. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml To address point 1. Why not X...labelled as Bay doors or something on flying vehicles? I love the EWAR concept actually having some EWAR now XD... The Target breaker as you have it could be very powerful...I'd suggest instead a penalty to lock on times instead of just a flat out "No Locking"...I'm fine with it throwing off AV 'nades Shield Regen numbers look solid. I'd go with Either or on the Marauder Bonuses...you're increasing it's EHP by a frakton there (or tone down both bonuses, Marauders need to be Tanky as hell, but not unassailable)
1. Current animations has the door opening and closing all the time and they need to be fixed so that if a kick em out option arrives i can hit it and the compartment will flash red and then they get booted like a HALO drop
2. EWAR yea i called it ECM but its EWAR, i want to add more but mainly its because of that SL ive added ECM to it
3. Penalty to lock times is the second module which is passive - I dont see why i cant break lock against the SL since in EVE i have mods which block the enemy from targeting me and i think DS at least need a module like this if the logi DS will be the APC of the sky - Current problem is what bonus to add to the skill book
4. Its a constant passive regen numbers which i plucked out of the sky, frankly shield gets more, armor is limited
5. Rattati does want marauders to be damn strong - If its going to be point defence and slower as a result then it cant escape as quick so its more open to damage over the long run and also the AV weapons are mainly armor based so the surya is weaker until we have parity over the shield av weapons
5a. The way i do see it marauders get taken out by enforcers, this is a HAV vs HAV propsal 1st and HAV vs HAV needs to be like uprising with a variety of options but not 3shot peek a boo crap which makes it so unfun |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2763
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:38:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman.
Paranoid
I hear therapists are good for that.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2696
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:49:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least
6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP.
6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once.
6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no.
6d: Read 6 and 6a.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16599
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:53:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.
You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.
Bravo.
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back
Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do.....
But it wasn't "THAT" powerful.....
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
488
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:56:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a.
6. The rep came out of the turret but you really had to be attached to the target tank which didnt allow much room, in comparision to a rep logi and sentinal i have alot of room
6a. HAV may not be repping vehicles but who is to say they cannot do it? I used to love using mine, put on a basic blaster and enough tank to survive and a few remote reps on were fun times - AOE heavy reps ive sorta gone meh on unless i create a module for the AOE heavy rep
6b. Needs stats for the special infantry rep plus it was inbuilt anyways on it, if lights do the same then tech its a bonus since it has a 2nd rep which can do the job except its AOE
6d. Ranges in game are quite small, i jotted a few numbers down but in game still seems small |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
488
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:04:00 -
[1097] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.
You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.
Bravo.
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful.....
1. History disagrees with you - It was formidable for its time |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16600
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:12:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.
You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.
Bravo.
Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman. 1. Obv hasnt read it 2. Well Rattati does want powerful 'tiger' tanks and also mentioning a laser strike should be needed and also he does want them to be point defence 3. While in your 'proposal' if i can call it that wants the 2k dmg nades, yea im going to have powerful vehicles if you want 3k swarms and 2k dmg av nades back Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do..... But it wasn't "THAT" powerful..... 1. History disagrees with you - It was formidable for its time
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2770
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:16:00 -
[1099] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
Look what I found.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
491
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:22:00 -
[1100] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce
2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it
3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile
4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable |
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16600
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:44:00 -
[1101] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
Look what I found.
Are you actually and idiot Spkr....of course an 88mm Round it ******* bigger than a 75mm Round, it has greater penetrative values, higher muzzle velocity etc.
However that of course came with significant considerations. Horizontal Traversal, Longer Barrel, Barrel more prone to suffering damage, heavy weight meant access to bridges was limited and fording rivers was a necessity, increased armour thickness meant larger and more powerful engines to barely match the speed of British and American Cruising Tanks, and more.
However your infliction assume that larger shell = better.
That depends. The effective armour values on the Tiger 1 varied from between 102mm on the glaces plate to 25mm at the thinnest points. The 75mm gun withM72 AP shells had penetration values of up to 72mm vs Face Hardened Armour and 88mm vs Rolled Homogenous Armour.
However you are comparing a German Heavy Tank with a very diffent design philosophy for the time with an American Medium Tank.
It might be better if you compared the KV-2 or the ISU-122 to the Tiger 1 with its 152mm Howizter..... now Spkr I don't have to do the math here for you which is bigger?
122mm
152mm
88mm
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16600
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:46:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable
More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 21:50:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]
6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance
6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).
6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.
6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.
6c: Agreed.
6d: Read 6 and 6a 6. LLAV wasnt that bad but it was on HAV since it came out from the end of the turret and the repping range was terrible, with a DS was pointless 6a. That is a problem, if i keep the rep that it pops out of the turret then it has to have enough range to rep the target vehicle while i might turn the turret around and kill some AV where as in the old days when i turned the turret 180deg away from the target vehicle i lost lock - Maybe its just easier to extend the repping distance for heavy or maybe have in both versions so more variety 6b. Infantry always move too far and fast so the lock on never worked that well and required the LLAV to be still, AOE changes and solves that problem but a vehicle repper helps repair infantry but at a slower rate can still work, its like an infantry rep tool repping a vehicle 6d. Need AOE numbers for LLAV at least 6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP. 6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once. 6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no. 6d: Read 6 and 6a. 6. The rep came out of the turret but you really had to be attached to the target tank which didnt allow much room, in comparision to a rep logi and sentinal i have alot of room 6a. HAV may not be repping vehicles but who is to say they cannot do it? I used to love using mine, put on a basic blaster and enough tank to survive and a few remote reps on were fun times - AOE heavy reps ive sorta gone meh on unless i create a module for the AOE heavy rep 6b. Needs stats for the special infantry rep plus it was inbuilt anyways on it, if lights do the same then tech its a bonus since it has a 2nd rep which can do the job except its AOE 6d. Ranges in game are quite small, i jotted a few numbers down but in game still seems small
6: It didn't come directly out the turret, although it did come out of the front, and went the other way. It should had went 180, but there was a bug that wouldn't let you. Again, it was a bug. Also, the difference between both is that the HAV's can still be REALLY fast. picture if two sentinels could rep each other, but with a specific setup, could easily move with almost as fast as assaults, but could move with as much freedom as before, and still use your HMG's.
6a: You can. But you would have to deal with not being able to do it as good as other vehicles that are (aka LLV). It's not made as a repping vehicle, so it shouldn't be good at it. That's like asking for a Assault to be as good as a scout at scanning and hiding from scans.
6b: Don't have them. Don't ask me for any chromo stats, all of mine were lost. Anyways, what are you saying at that last part? It made no sense to me.
6d: And they need to stay small. You shouldn't to be able to move freely while repping, as reps are quite strong.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 22:11:00 -
[1104] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. The Tiger's armour designs are not derived from the sloped armour of the Russian T-34 as the Tiger has sheer armour angles. Which I think was very odd.
Dammit True, back on topic.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16601
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 22:23:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Dammit True, back on topic.
My bad..... I like tanks......
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
KILL3R H3LLH0UND
Titans of Phoenix
VP Gaming Alliance
184
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 23:42:00 -
[1106] - Quote
so enforcers and marauders are coming back... WHERES MY SPEC OPS TANKS FORM CLOSED BETA!
Ex-Master Scout Trainer, been falling in love with my Minja again.
I <3 my Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2698
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 00:02:00 -
[1107] - Quote
I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16607
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 00:36:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for.
Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles.
I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself.
In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 02:19:00 -
[1109] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop.
Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16616
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 02:37:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it?
Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 02:47:00 -
[1111] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s.
I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though
Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16616
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 02:58:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have
- Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage....
- Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view.
- View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision?
- How do you intend to have the missile handle?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:06:00 -
[1113] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle?
An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me
Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD.
Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out...and would be heavily dependent on the control system again
and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16616
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:09:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with)
Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired
- Directly into an onboard camera
- Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it)
-Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs)
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:12:00 -
[1115] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with) Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired - Directly into an onboard camera - Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it) -Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs)
"Wire Guided" is probably the easiest to balance...
Directly into an Onboard Camera would be the one I want the most, but would be very powerful by virtue of being able to ignore LoS in a skilled hand
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
16622
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:29:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have - Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage.... - Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view. - View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision? - How do you intend to have the missile handle? An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with) Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired - Directly into an onboard camera - Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it) -Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs) "Wire Guided" is probably the easiest to balance... Directly into an Onboard Camera would be the one I want the most, but would be very powerful by virtue of being able to ignore LoS in a skilled hand
Final question do the fire delay values represent the time between the detonation of the rocket once it finds its target/explodes or the launch of the first rocket.
If the first rocket will it automatically follow the old trajectory along the wire or establish its own wire? in Which case does the first missile explode or continue to follow your guidance until it explodes?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
157
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 03:34:00 -
[1117] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Okay these are my initial impressions from the information you have
- Blast Radius is insanely big. That's fire meters on either side of the initial point of detonation for a total of 315 damage..... which means you don't even need to hit a target to apply damage....
- Velocity if I am not mistake is 144kmph...which seems to me a little fast on the basis that since the rocket is guided by the player it could be potentially very difficult to control depending on how you intend to have the view.
- View is this an on board camera? Is it wire guided from the standard field of vision?
- How do you intend to have the missile handle?
An on-board camera would be awesome, but runs into it's own balance issues (if it could even be implemented)...things like not needing LoS and such...so either guidance system would work for me Missile Handling would be heavily based on the control systems that could be implemented, anything from HalfLife2's Missile Launcher, to a predator missile from CoD. Velocity is something that would actually need to be tested out... and Blast Radius on grenades is still larger, but I see what you mean (especially given the precision this weapon could be delivered with) Also functionally would this weapon ideally be designed to be fired - Directly into an onboard camera - Directly into a "Wire Guided" Camera (keep your cursor on target and its hits it) -Or directly up into the air into an on-board camera. (aka like a Javelin or whatevs) "Wire Guided" is probably the easiest to balance... Directly into an Onboard Camera would be the one I want the most, but would be very powerful by virtue of being able to ignore LoS in a skilled hand Final question do the fire delay values represent the time between the detonation of the rocket once it finds its target/explodes or the launch of the first rocket. If the first rocket will it automatically follow the old trajectory along the wire or establish its own wire? in Which case does the first missile explode or continue to follow your guidance until it explodes?
It represents the minimum amount of time to wait to fire another missile. You launch each Missile Independently, and you can't launch another missile until the previous missile is "detonated" or maybe a trajectory locked in feature. So you would hit a the firing trigger once to fire your first missile, pull it again to lock the missile in on that trajectory (where it accelerates and you loose control) then you could fire again, provided the 4 second time had passed...or that's how I imagined it
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6474
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 10:40:00 -
[1118] - Quote
So. Im trying to decide which is better for the mortar.
1 shot, then 1 sec reload or 1 second shot intervals with a magazine. Thoughts?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Fleen Costell'o
Vacuum Cleaner. LLC
Steel Balls Alliance
504
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 11:55:00 -
[1119] - Quote
my need this http://imgur.com/KgUhDQM
2,5 years waiting SOON TM give my BIG PLASMA CANNON
BUGS514 Find all. I love ksu123 )
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:11:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:So. Im trying to decide which is better for the mortar.
1 shot, then 1 sec reload or 1 second shot intervals with a magazine. Thoughts?
And I figured out appropriate bonusing for sentinels.
Will also alter turret splash to conform to current meta.
I need a guideline on "fair" splash values for vehicle guns. Making the turrets fully AV with no consideration to fighting infantry AV is a large portion of false perception that AV is currently OP in the case of the forge and PLC.
Turrets either just can't land hits or they don't have the engagement range to cope with forges. Plasma cannon versus HAV seems to always stalemate with no real clear victor.
The mortar is a Man-Portable thing right? If so I'd suggest a 1 second reload (or charge up time/reload totalling 1 second, to emulate PLC functionality)
Splash values on large Turrets are something I'm having difficulty figuring out myself...
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6474
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:48:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Splash damage ad dispersion on turrets is literally the difference between vehicles being a dire threat toinfantry and farming infantry for KDR and WP.
It's also make or break for the purpose of vehicles and AV fighting for dominance and AV automatically driving away the vehicles without recourse.
The splash resistance on sentinels was a good compromise but unfortunately it had too much unanticipated effect on infantry ability to eject entrenched fatties.
My thought would be to place turret splash at the halfway point between chrome numbers and current for radius.
I also want to dump sentinel splash and make the role bonus the pg/cpu break on heavy weapons visible. Drop the resists to 10% on both resists and give them a racial weapon bonus. That way they will retain durability but lose unassailability vs. Splash weapons.
It was awesome for surviving railguns but there's too much secondary marginalizing of other weapons.
And I don't think making the bonuses do more DPS vs vehicles would be appropriate because I'd have to rework the AV numbers to account for it. Keeping chrome balance between V/AV is simple. Back engineering for DPS bonuses is not.
More things like the gallente resists plasma splash.
The amarr explodes more slowly as the lance overheats.
Maybe ammo capacity for minmatar or reticle tightening.
The caldari is hardest. I'm inclined to do something like a 3% fitting break on damage mods. The forge gun at this point is pretty tightly tuned. Reducing charge is a no. Reload is already fast enough. Suggestions?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:55:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Splash damage ad dispersion on turrets is literally the difference between vehicles being a dire threat toinfantry and farming infantry for KDR and WP.
It's also make or break for the purpose of vehicles and AV fighting for dominance and AV automatically driving away the vehicles without recourse.
The splash resistance on sentinels was a good compromise but unfortunately it had too much unanticipated effect on infantry ability to eject entrenched fatties.
My thought would be to place turret splash at the halfway point between chrome numbers and current for radius.
I also want to dump sentinel splash and make the role bonus the pg/cpu break on heavy weapons visible. Drop the resists to 10% on both resists and give them a racial weapon bonus. That way they will retain durability but lose unassailability vs. Splash weapons.
It was awesome for surviving railguns but there's too much secondary marginalizing of other weapons.
And I don't think making the bonuses do more DPS vs vehicles would be appropriate because I'd have to rework the AV numbers to account for it.
More things like the gallente resists plasma splash.
The amarr explodes more slowly as the lance overheats.
Maybe ammo capacity for minmatar or reticle tightening.
The caldari is hardest. I'm inclined to do something like a 3% fitting break on damage mods. The forge gun at this point is pretty tightly tuned. Reducing charge is a no. Reload is already fast enough. Suggestions?
Range is always Caldari in Flavor (Base range would need to be adjusted to still be useable without a caldari sentinel, but smaller so a Caldari Range bonus would be powerful enough to compete with other suit bonuses)...movement speed while charging is another option (if you want to amp the FG specifically for it)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6474
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 12:57:00 -
[1123] - Quote
No. Making the forge outrange a large rail turret potentially is bad. I dont want to encourage even more idiots to treat it as a ghetto sniper cannon.
Also the movement penalty would break the balance. The charging movement penalty kept me from shenanigans which would have been utterly unfair and abusive. It needs to slow you while charging.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
492
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:01:00 -
[1124] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:True Adamance wrote:
See above.
The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.
Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.
History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.
1. By 1944 the germans were on the back foot and there usual prey of panthers were running thin and the shermans themselves were easier to mass produce 2. Tiger came out of superior russian armor designs since they needed something to combat it 3. Shermans were medium tanks and more mobile 4. At the time the tigers came out they were formidable More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time. The Tiger's armour designs are not derived from the sloped armour of the Russian T-34 as the Tiger has sheer armour angles. Which I think was very odd.
1. Sloped armor ended up on the tiger 2 and the panthers i think |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:04:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:No. Making the forge outrange a large rail turret potentially is bad. I dont want to encourage even more idiots to treat it as a ghetto sniper cannon.
Also the movement penalty would break the balance. The charging movement penalty kept me from shenanigans which would have been utterly unfair and abusive. It needs to slow you while charging.
Damn forge gun being so finely tuned...and I take it you'd be opposed to nerfing the base range stat and making to where Caldari retained current functionality at Level 5?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
doraa daexploora
Paladin Survey Force
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:04:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Tiger 2s kinda straddled the line between sloped and angled.
Depends on what part of the tank. |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
492
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:05:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
6: It didn't come directly out the turret, although it did come out of the front, and went the other way. It should had went 180, but there was a bug that wouldn't let you. Again, it was a bug. Also, the difference between both is that the HAV's can still be REALLY fast. picture if two sentinels could rep each other, but with a specific setup, could easily move with almost as fast as assaults, but could move with as much freedom as before, and still use your HMG's.
6a: You can. But you would have to deal with not being able to do it as good as other vehicles that are (aka LLV). It's not made as a repping vehicle, so it shouldn't be good at it. That's like asking for a Assault to be as good as a scout at scanning and hiding from scans.
6b: Don't have them. Don't ask me for any chromo stats, all of mine were lost. Anyways, what are you saying at that last part? It made no sense to me.
6d: And they need to stay small. You shouldn't to be able to move freely while repping, as reps are quite strong.
6. It didnt but thats where the stream was and they are vehicles which might be slower depending what Rattati does with them
6a. Well then the LLAV would need a massive bonus to be able to fit the heavy reps on it bit like the bomber in EVE gets a massive bonus to fit cloak where as with the HAV it would have to have enough pg/cpu to fit it - If we compare it to infantry is like a min logi using a rep tool which gets 2 bonuses for its use and an amarr assault using the same rep tool which gets no bonus
6b. Just wanted to know stats, i cant remember what it was
6d. Small maybe i dont want to be parked up the other vehicles back |
doraa daexploora
Paladin Survey Force
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:07:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:No. Making the forge outrange a large rail turret potentially is bad. I dont want to encourage even more idiots to treat it as a ghetto sniper cannon.
Also the movement penalty would break the balance. The charging movement penalty kept me from shenanigans which would have been utterly unfair and abusive. It needs to slow you while charging. Damn forge gun being so finely tuned...and I take it you'd be opposed to nerfing the base range stat and making to where Caldari retained current functionality at Level 5?
That would be like me saying "Im reducing HAV railguns to 100m. You must skill into a caldari hull to make it useful."
Nerfing and creating a fix just bandaids the issue. Ammo capacity in the mag is possible but 9 shots between reloads is one of those facepalm ideas with alpha weapons. |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6474
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:08:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Goddamn my phone sux. Doora is a test alt.
Not a test alliance alt you nubs.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:10:00 -
[1130] - Quote
doraa daexploora wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:No. Making the forge outrange a large rail turret potentially is bad. I dont want to encourage even more idiots to treat it as a ghetto sniper cannon.
Also the movement penalty would break the balance. The charging movement penalty kept me from shenanigans which would have been utterly unfair and abusive. It needs to slow you while charging. Damn forge gun being so finely tuned...and I take it you'd be opposed to nerfing the base range stat and making to where Caldari retained current functionality at Level 5? That would be like me saying "Im reducing HAV railguns to 100m. You must skill into a caldari hull to make it useful." Nerfing and creating a fix just bandaids the issue. Ammo capacity in the mag is possible but 9 shots between reloads is one of those facepalm ideas with alpha weapons.
Not a major nerf to the range stat, maybe reduce it to 350 (I think FG is 400m Currently) meters while giving Caldari suits a 3% per level range bonus (to get 402.5m at LV5)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6475
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 14:04:00 -
[1131] - Quote
320 optimal
320 absolute
Snipers start at 350-450 and they will cry lime little girls if we bring the forge to equal range.
And no nerfing something to make it useful by bonusing a suit is incredibly lazy.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 14:06:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:320 optimal
320 absolute
Snipers start at 350-450 and they will cry lime little girls if we bring the forge to equal range.
So then Reduce it to 280 meter range, and give the Caldari Sentinel a 3% per level (CalSentinel would use it at 322m then)?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6475
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 14:07:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Could accelerate the projectile speed or tighten the reticle.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6475
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 14:08:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:320 optimal
320 absolute
Snipers start at 350-450 and they will cry lime little girls if we bring the forge to equal range. So then Reduce it to 280 meter range, and give the Caldari Sentinel a 3% per level (CalSentinel would use it at 322m then)?
Quit barking up this tree with me. Doing it to any weapon is stupid.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
159
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 14:08:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Could accelerate the projectile speed or tighten the reticle.
Other good options
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6481
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 15:49:00 -
[1136] - Quote
I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants.
Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
192
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 15:53:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants.
Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant?
Variety? Something we lack right now.
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6483
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 16:19:00 -
[1138] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants.
Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant? Variety? Something we lack right now.
I was reading the list wrong, it's exactly like the damn AV weapon lists, only a gigantic clusterf*ck of inconsistent performance.
I HATE numbers that aren't working from a pattern that comes off as sane.
For the chromosome vets: What was an acceptable baseline DPS level for most turrets to be competitive? I need a BASELINE so I can make the turrets perform consistently without havint ONE TURRET TO RULE THEM ALL.
Not high DPS, not low DPS, pre-skills, no damage mods. Just a baseline, ballpark DPS level.
AV baseline DPS before all other factors was right around 500 DPS to be considered viable, roughly depending on which flavor of psycho was running the gun.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
161
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 16:34:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:DarthJT5 wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I think I figured out how to do the heavy turrets so the Rails and Missiles aren't the clearly superior option. this will require me to clean up the turret trees and dump all of the redundant variants.
Most of the different turrets are actually miniscule variations of the same job. Can anyone think of a reason to keep this many turrets that have the exact same DPS within the same variant? Variety? Something we lack right now. I was reading the list wrong, it's exactly like the damn AV weapon lists, only a gigantic clusterf*ck of inconsistent performance. I HATE numbers that aren't working from a pattern that comes off as sane. For the chromosome vets: What was an acceptable baseline DPS level for most turrets to be competitive? I need a BASELINE so I can make the turrets perform consistently without havint ONE TURRET TO RULE THEM ALL. Not high DPS, not low DPS, pre-skills, no damage mods. Just a baseline, ballpark DPS level. AV baseline DPS before all other factors was right around 500 DPS to be considered viable, roughly depending on which flavor of psycho was running the gun. My thought is put HAV turrets 100 DPS ahead of Heavy AV DPS lines
Seems like a solid base to me
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6483
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 16:41:00 -
[1140] - Quote
unless someone has a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm going to run as follows:
Blasters: High DPS, High RoF, Low Alpha (700-ish DPS proto)
Missiles: Mid DPS, Mid RoF, Mid Alpha (600 DPS-ish Proto)
Rails: Low DPS, Low RoF, High Alpha. (500 DPS-ish Proto)
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
498
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 18:51:00 -
[1141] - Quote
1. LLAV now has new skill again - 99% reduction in PG needs of all remote repairers - Basically means it can fit on heavy remote reps too
1a. ECM Burst module skill is 5% reduction to sig profile, target breaker mod has no skill bonus yet
1b. Piloting skill has 2% to agility per level
1c. Vehicle manovering - 2% to accaleration per level
1d. Vehicle command - 2% to max top speed
2. Still missing certain modules, using EVE numbers instead currently
3. Scout LAV may have cloak also EWAR based for scans etc - cloak will be too hard to fit on other vehicles and also penalty added for measure
4. Not sure if marauder/enforcer should have a unique module to it
4a. Want to make basic hulls useful in comparision across all levels - need a role
5. PE detector - module maybe for pilot suit, not standard - currently has sound but by time you hear it you have hit them
5a. SL detector - should be standard in all DS
6. Pilot suits for all races yet to be added complete with bonuses and module ideas
7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
712
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 19:40:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:unless someone has a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm going to run as follows:
Blasters: High DPS, High RoF, Low Alpha (700-ish DPS proto)
Missiles: Mid DPS, Mid RoF, Mid Alpha (600 DPS-ish Proto)
Rails: Low DPS, Low RoF, High Alpha. (500 DPS-ish Proto)
It should be:
Missiles high alpha
Rails low alpha
I can only state this along the lines of current meta for a tank engagement :
Missiles have do have high alpha but have to get involved in the fight. proto VS a shield tank it will take at least 2 full clips. Rails have the longest range and can kill a tank in 4-5 shots out of 9 round clip, Its alpha is already pretty high (you just dont shrug off a rail hit) combining high alpha with the protection of the redline is a deal breaker.
More and more, i'm thining its the -20/+20 profile against armor that hurts tank meta more than just raw DPS. I would love to see them revert back to -10/+10 to more effectivley hurt shield tanks as well as give Armor tanks a fighting chance.
That 10% is the difference between a militia damage mod and a complex one. Add on complex one on top of that, its no wonder armor tanks don't survive, when missiles can do 140% damage.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6494
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 19:46:00 -
[1143] - Quote
the reasons I want missiles in the middle is because their status as near-automatic win button versus armor HAVs.
I want it to be so if the blaster gets into optimal it has the advantage, if the blaster CANNOT get into optimal the other two screwball it.
If I put missiles into the high alpha bracket because of the +20 damage profile that means the TTK of armor takes an inordinately sharp drop as we have all seen in the past.
and I'm making sure the damn railguns are dead meat if a blaster gets the drop on them. Blasters are going to have around a 200 DPS advantage on the rails by intent.
And I'm going to make it so that the damage mods don't have such a humongous effect on the DPS as they did before. They'll be useful, they just won't be able to hit the numbers against armor that rails and missiles have enjoyed in the past.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1295
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 20:12:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range.
The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6494
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 20:13:00 -
[1145] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range.
The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking.
that can be addressed in iteration. there's a lot of projectiles in DUST that move too slow to be effective.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
161
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 20:52:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range.
The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking. that can be addressed in iteration. there's a lot of projectiles in DUST that move too slow to be effective. Whoever designed the damn Railgun, why the rippling HELL did you put TWO firing delay mechanics in together? Thaddeus I have a critique: there's no possible reason to have a 3k+ DPS weapon unless it's intended to be the God-Gun from which there is no recovery. Your various MLRS setups need a bit of checking there hoss. That's about enough firepower to instapop anything, especially when combined with skills and damage mods.
Still working on it (DPS btw is DPS without reload considered), so are supposed to function similarly to the current Missiles Turrets
Got some new numbers on the MLRS for you to check out, and what do you think of the new turret page format?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6495
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 21:01:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Missiles don't have enough velocity, at least currently to be half reliable at any range.
The only chance you have is if the other tank stays completely still, which goes completely against the first rule of tanking. that can be addressed in iteration. there's a lot of projectiles in DUST that move too slow to be effective. Whoever designed the damn Railgun, why the rippling HELL did you put TWO firing delay mechanics in together? Thaddeus I have a critique: there's no possible reason to have a 3k+ DPS weapon unless it's intended to be the God-Gun from which there is no recovery. Your various MLRS setups need a bit of checking there hoss. That's about enough firepower to instapop anything, especially when combined with skills and damage mods. Still working on it (DPS btw is DPS without reload considered), so are supposed to function similarly to the current Missiles Turrets Got some new numbers on the MLRS for you to check out, and what do you think of the new turret page format?
I'm trying to plagiarize your turret table format, but I liked the simpler version better. I need to be able to see all the relevant data per turret type in a block, not stretched out.
So I'm now doing the missiles with your heavy weapons template because I'm a spreadsheet novice.
Welp. If my numbers are good, HAV pilots will get their wish. Engagements will last a bit longer. Between them.
Unless someone decides to go joyriding in an enforcer.
then things get dicey.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6495
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 21:05:00 -
[1148] - Quote
2,766 DPS? At Standard?
I think I found out why Madrugars die when you sneeze on them in HAV vs HAV engagements!
The damn missile turrets are insane.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
161
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 21:07:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:2,766 DPS? At Standard?
I think I found out why Madrugars die when you sneeze on them in HAV vs HAV engagements!
The damn missile turrets are insane.
There's a reason why True Doesn't like them, their alpha would be Ok (see Damage Per Magazine...does need to be slightly tuned down) if they had lower sustained DPS numbers
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6500
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 21:23:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:2,766 DPS? At Standard?
I think I found out why Madrugars die when you sneeze on them in HAV vs HAV engagements!
The damn missile turrets are insane. There's a reason why True Doesn't like them, their alpha would be Ok (see Damage Per Magazine...does need to be slightly tuned down) if they had lower sustained DPS numbers
Guess what already crossed my mind here?
going to annotate a note recommending accelerating the missiles to compensate for loss of RoF
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:23:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I'd like to reiterate that player count and map design are both too small for vehicles to excel, especially transport vehicles, and HAV's, and slightly for LAV's (as in Tech 1 LAV"s) don't really have roles (No, disposable taxi isn't a role).
For the HAV, as I've said before, new installations to be added that could be used, protected, and destroyed by both infantry and vehicles would be a great thing for HAV's, at least T I HAV's to be centered around (obviously T II would be different, being good at doing other things, such as Enforcers being good at killing other HAV's, while still being able to kill structures).
I'm not even sure what to do with regular LAV's. The only thing I could think of is a platform to give a heavy infantry suppression platform, and for that to work, small turrets would have to be good suppression weapons. LLV's as I said can be the king reppers for vehicles, and Scout LAV's can be some sort of EWAR platform down the road.
DS's imo has reasonable roles, being a rapid troop transport, LDS being a rapid troop deploment, and ADS being more of a assault platform while still being able to transport a small fireteam (Although the almost gunship-like abilities imo needs to be toned down), so tweaking is the only thing really needed. However, the maps are WAY too small to really support them. Put it like this: I've crossed some of the smaller maps in a solid 12 seconds. This isn't however in a DS; this was in a HAV (Don't ask). This is a feat pretty much done on any map in a DS w.e a AB. That's uncalled for. Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles. I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself. In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop. Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s. I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets
Question: You described the blasters as having shots per round at either 8 or 12. What are you describing exactly?
I'm just gong to assume shotty turret for the moment and pray that I'm correct, unless it's something cooler.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
161
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:33:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Certainly also worth mentioning with reference to Dust vehicles, mainly tanks, if that they don't really have very realistic range profiles.
I understand the hard cap on the Railgun of 500m is to prevent one player shooting across the map from redline to redline But I honestly think that a hard damage fallout at that range might be better rather than a simple disappearance of the round itself.
In many game I have played with vehicles ranges on the tanks can usually hit a target at up to about 750m and this usually comes with a significant amount of having to account for projectile drop.
Adamance, I've been theorycrafting some numbers for a Guided Missile Turret, any chance you can take a look at it? Okeydoke btw have you considered muzzle velocity as numerical value for these statistics. For example a TOW missile turret if I am not woefully mistaken has a muzzle velocity of 278m/s. I've put the stats on the Large Turrets Page on my overall Proposal...still hammering out the numbers though Yet Another Link To My Spreadsheets Question: You described the blasters as having shots per round at either 8 or 12. What are you describing exactly? I'm just gong to assume shotty turret for the moment and pray that I'm correct, unless it's something cooler.
Yeah, just redid it into a shotty turret a short while ago
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:37:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Thaddeus, read my edit, your welcome.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
161
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:40:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus, read my edit, your welcome.
Fixed, sorry I didn't update that statistic, got distracted by something else
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:54:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus, read my edit, your welcome. Fixed, sorry I didn't update that statistic, got distracted by something else
Oh, very nice. That would do just fine. Can I haz now?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 22:55:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Speaking of turrets, that reminds me: FW turrets are still just AUR turrets, same as vehilces, and on top of that, we're missing my Gal rails. Where are they, huh? HUH?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:02:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Speaking of turrets, that reminds me: FW turrets are still just AUR turrets, same as vehilces, and on top of that, we're missing my Gal rails. Where are they, huh? HUH?
as though people needed another reason to avoid fighting for the Caldari State...yeah...technically FedMarine Railguns should exist, and technically, the Cal/Gal dropsuits/vehicles should get bonuses to Hybrids, not just to rail and plasma...
anyway, I hope we see some new LP vehicle stuff coming down with this...'Specialist' Turrets would be very useful
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
16639
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:13:00 -
[1158] - Quote
What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be?
*"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
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:16:00 -
[1159] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be?
Still trying to work that one out, probably will start with values derived from railguns v blasters on frigates. As for the Projectile Grouping, maybe about as large as the Current Blaster reticule (when 50% dilated) at Optimal?
What's the Rail-Turret's Current Optimal Range?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:45:00 -
[1160] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be?
Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go.
And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions:
1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?).
2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:47:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Speaking of turrets, that reminds me: FW turrets are still just AUR turrets, same as vehilces, and on top of that, we're missing my Gal rails. Where are they, huh? HUH? as though people needed another reason to avoid fighting for the Caldari State...yeah...technically FedMarine Railguns should exist, and technically, the Cal/Gal dropsuits/vehicles should get bonuses to Hybrids, not just to rail and plasma... anyway, I hope we see some new LP vehicle stuff coming down with this...'Specialist' Turrets would be very useful
Hey, it's not my fault only scrubs fight for the squid army. 
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 23:55:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea?
To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun.
A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:21:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. LLAV now has new skill again - 99% reduction in PG needs of all remote repairers - Basically means it can fit on heavy remote reps too 1a. ECM Burst module skill is 5% reduction to sig profile, target breaker mod has no skill bonus yet 1b. Piloting skill has 2% to agility per level 1c. Vehicle manovering - 2% to accaleration per level 1d. Vehicle command - 2% to max top speed 2. Still missing certain modules, using EVE numbers instead currently 3. Scout LAV may have cloak also EWAR based for scans etc - cloak will be too hard to fit on other vehicles and also penalty added for measure 4. Not sure if marauder/enforcer should have a unique module to it 4a. Want to make basic hulls useful in comparision across all levels - need a role 5. PE detector - module maybe for pilot suit, not standard - currently has sound but by time you hear it you have hit them 5a. SL detector - should be standard in all DS 6. Pilot suits for all races yet to be added complete with bonuses and module ideas 7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
Heavy reps on a LLV would be pushing it, it was already doing good without heavy ones.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:24:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles?
So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come.
I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16642
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:29:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles? So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come. I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for.
As long as the slug throwing sized guns have decreased efficiency/ lower alpha/dps than their Larger equivalents that should be fine.
*"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
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:36:00 -
[1166] - Quote
@ Thaddeus-
1: What is your motivation for putting in 90mm plates?
2: What's the difference between mounted DU and the mCRU?
3: nanofibres were a good addition to the game, and were used in quite a few fits. Would you say that bringing them back is a good idea?
4: I'm going to try and make some fits with your current stats at lvl 5 (because as soon as this drops, hopefull I will have lvl 5, or at least real close). I will report to see how the fits goes.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 00:48:00 -
[1167] - Quote
By the way, this is what I'm using to make the fits. You're free to copy and edit as needed, as that's what I'm doing.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 01:35:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus-
1: What is your motivation for putting in 90mm plates?
2: What's the difference between mounted DU and the mCRU?
3: nanofibres were a good addition to the game, and were used in quite a few fits. Would you say that bringing them back is a good idea?
4: I'm going to try and make some fits with your current stats at lvl 5 (because as soon as this drops, hopefull I will have lvl 5, or at least real close). I will report to see how the fits goes.
Ok In Order
1. To assist Small Vehicles (Primarily Dropships) by giving them a higher HP options to put onto their vehicles, for a similar relative cost to what the HAVs get
2: Mounted Drop Uplink would be a Low Powered Slot option, that takes up CPU primarily, but has lower efficacy than the mCRU, primarily to allow use of a Spawn Point on either Shield or Armor based vehicles, without sacrificing primary tank potential.
3. I'm still working on adding the modules, I got caught up in the Large Turrets, so I'll try to bring them back
4. Thanks, I can use help checking my work and telling me where I suggest something completely broken
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 01:42:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:By the way, this is what I'm using to make the fits. You're free to copy and edit as needed, as that's what I'm doing.
You need to change sharing permissions, right now one has to request access, open in up to Anyone With Link can View, or Anyone with Link Can Comment
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 01:57:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:By the way, this is what I'm using to make the fits. You're free to copy and edit as needed, as that's what I'm doing. You need to change sharing permissions, right now one has to request access, open in up to Anyone With Link can View, or Anyone with Link Can Comment
Here. I'm afk now, so I can't keep on going, can you?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6535
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 07:14:00 -
[1171] - Quote
I derp'd.
Feel free to ignore this post.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
501
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 12:54:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:1. LLAV now has new skill again - 99% reduction in PG needs of all remote repairers - Basically means it can fit on heavy remote reps too 1a. ECM Burst module skill is 5% reduction to sig profile, target breaker mod has no skill bonus yet 1b. Piloting skill has 2% to agility per level 1c. Vehicle manovering - 2% to accaleration per level 1d. Vehicle command - 2% to max top speed 2. Still missing certain modules, using EVE numbers instead currently 3. Scout LAV may have cloak also EWAR based for scans etc - cloak will be too hard to fit on other vehicles and also penalty added for measure 4. Not sure if marauder/enforcer should have a unique module to it 4a. Want to make basic hulls useful in comparision across all levels - need a role 5. PE detector - module maybe for pilot suit, not standard - currently has sound but by time you hear it you have hit them 5a. SL detector - should be standard in all DS 6. Pilot suits for all races yet to be added complete with bonuses and module ideas 7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml Heavy reps on a LLV would be pushing it, it was already doing good without heavy ones.
1. Gives the LLAV the true logi role, Light for AOE effect on infantry but can still put on a heavy for vehicles in the team |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6550
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 15:57:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval.
kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:08:00 -
[1174] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:What range with this turret have? How large will its projectile grouping be? Another two questions I was wondering. I assume tight enough to hit a HAV within 20-30m (usual fighting distance from the good HAV fighting days), and the optimal to match would be about right. And yes, I'm serious when it is that range. If you don't believe me, test it on a emptyish match and a objective at ground level, and act as it's a HAV, orbit it and **** and see how far out you go. And speaking of blasters, I was just speaking to Breakin (Well still talking), and I've came to a couple conclusions: 1: Although I would say that I wouldn't approve of still keeping tiers, seeing as we're trying to get HAV's as well as DS's and LAV's in at least a workable state, making them tiered doesn't matter. I will say though that I don't particullarly like some of the adjustments of your turrets in the tiers (what's with the seats being taken away?). 2: I also don't like how there's only two per class, but again, we're trying to get it to a working state, and three is better than one. However, I've thought of two that you could possibly add. First is a fit saving blaster that is reduced in efficiency, but easier to fit. Also, Breakin came up with a idea of having a almost slug like blaster, still firing in full auto, but only doing two shots per second, with a high amount of damage (can't remember what numbers he decided on however) per shot. Would you say this is something we could add into your idea? To address the queston of Seats being taken away, instead of having a module to add seat (like what breakin has in his) I added base seats to the HAVs for transport purposes, that get taken away when you fit a "larger" gun. A Solid Slugthrowing blaster would be Ok to add, I'll just take a little while to generate statistics...as for the reduced fitting one, there are Specialist Variations of infantry weapons, why not for vehicles? So to balance the fact that HAV's will for the meantime become both HAV's and MAV's? Okay, I'm fine with that, IF that gets thrown out the window as soon as MAV's come. I can wait (been waiting a month + to get more info on the Pokey front. As for specialist turrets, pretty much what I was asking for. As long as the slug throwing sized guns have decreased efficiency/ lower alpha/dps than their Larger equivalents that should be fine.
Slightly higher alpha, lower DPS, as you've combined the entire shot into a single slug. I'd say even lower the rounds per mag at that point, and raise the heat.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6550
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:12:00 -
[1175] - Quote
the way I'm working it is blasters have the highest overall DPS, Missiles are middle ground, Rails are the Alpha kings.
I'm removing the ability of a heavy missile turret to close on a madrugar or Surya and LOLarmorshotgunmissileblap the damn things. Missiles are going to be a medium sustained rate of fire rather than being able to saturate a target with 2700 DPS all in one giant frontload of death.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6555
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 16:55:00 -
[1176] - Quote
added python and Incubus.
Don't panic over the PG/CPU "nerf." the modules and turrets in chrome (and thusly this document) were cheaper fitting-wise.
Yet More gratuitous numbers
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 19:12:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:the way I'm working it is blasters have the highest overall DPS, Missiles are middle ground, Rails are the Alpha kings.
I'm removing the ability of a heavy missile turret to close on a madrugar or Surya and LOLarmorshotgunmissileblap the damn things. Missiles are going to be a medium sustained rate of fire rather than being able to saturate a target with 2700 DPS all in one giant frontload of death.
Which is how it was before, you bombarded a HAV constantly until it died.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
508
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 19:24:00 -
[1178] - Quote
1. Adding Pilot suits stats - Slots worked out, Only Sidearm slot, no grenade slot, no equip slot,
1a. Pilot suit role bonus skill - Possibly 1% per level to Shield/Armor HP - Cant do PG/CPU because cant call in invalid vehicles
1b. Racial skill bonus will have to effect modules in certain areas such as shield/armor/turret and speed
1c. Pilot suit modules - Generally if its availble to vehicles then its availible as a suit module, HP module excluded
1d. Pilot module tiering - Milita - 1%, basic 2%, adv 3%, proto 4%
2. Rigs - Will work like in EVE, bonus and drawback
2a. Hav -3, DS - 2, LAV - 1
2b. Rigs will also be a variety of current modules but with a weakness
3. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml |
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:03:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval.
kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval.
Do you still need it?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Racro 01 Arifistan
Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd.
495
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:17:00 -
[1180] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote: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 guns are anti armor
I know their anti armour but the sheer alpha damage it does hurts shields quite abit.
Elite Gallenten Soldier
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6560
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:24:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval.
kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval. Do you still need it?
Yup.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 20:25:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Thaddeus, can I get you to give me a table that does a burst fire setup? I need a charge time, burst shot count and burst interval.
kinda like if you added a forge gun charge to the combat rifle. only without the burst interval. Do you still need it? Yup.
I added a new sheet, it that what you needed? Also, how can I find you on skype, would be easier to get specifics if you need me to set up calculations (without flooding the forums that is)?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2699
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 21:04:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Okay, that fitting tool is not usable for this, so I've decided that I'm making one. Give me your numbers, and I'll test them out
(note: It's going to take awhile to finish it, maybe a couple days up to a week, so they won't be done for awhile, but as far as fits goes, I can show you what you can fit on there, that includes skills that you made, and this will be done in a couple hours.)
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6561
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 21:04:00 -
[1184] - Quote
gimmie a skype handle and I'll contact ya
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 21:14:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:gimmie a skype handle and I'll contact ya
Try searching for this Character name, should be in quotes between my first and last name
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
16649
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 02:36:00 -
[1186] - Quote
I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 03:52:00 -
[1187] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16649
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 04:09:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage).
I'm not saying it doesn't and holistically I like the suggestions Thaddeus, Breaking, and Pokey Dravon have suggested however I disagree with Thaddeus's "Shotgun" Blaster idea. Not because I think it is bad but simply not quite "right".
A Shotgun in a fundamental manner would not be good at dealing with penetration of things (do correctly me if I am wrong) due to its design being to project a grouping of fragments/pellets at a target also because the calibre of the pellets is small and not designed for long distance projection and thus would suffer against solid surfaces.
If I am also not mistaken Shotgun can fire Slug Rounds which are designed to penetrate targets.
Now again we have never truly had the fundamentals of Vehicle Shield and Armour operation in Dust 514 properly confirmed but I don't believe a "Shotgun Turret" would function efficiently.
Though arguably my own suggestion is rather similar to Thaddeus' own in the sense that the Blaster I envision is a tri-barrelled electron accelerator that fires three almost simultaneous hybrid charges containing specific atoms suspended in a plasma state.
This ideally would function in the same manner as a tandem warhead.
The Three rounds fire directly and with minimal dispersion in a triangle sharped grouping. In terms of gameplay these rounds would almost land simultaneously each with its own small splash damage zone, the three in total comprising the equivalent of a full Railgun Volley, albeit with a slightly shorter reload to ensure DPS supremacy but not a huge supremacy.
The design of which sees the three hybrid charged detonate in close proximity to one another one after the other hopefully achieving increased penetrative power.
Fundamentally you could argue this is a shotgun weapon..... which.... it kind of is.
http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpg
If you have ever seen this picture..... you'll see what I mean.
Honestly and I'll put it out there. I'd like to see every large turret in Dust 514 become a Main Battle Cannon. And I believe this can be achieved while keeping in mind the identity of the weapon, its functionality, and its characteristics according to CCP's designed in EVE online.
Not an hour ago I was in a match chasing a scout down a hill with an Ion Canon and put rounds into him at about 40m. I was honestly thinking to myself how much more badass this would have been if my turret had been a railgun or an Electron Cannon.....as such the experience was cheapened by how easy the Blast ripped this poor guy apart.
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:28:00 -
[1189] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:I genuinely await the moment CCP Rattati extends this vehicle feed back into large turrets..... something also needs to be done about the large blaster..... it's just..... too easy to use..... even account for the shots I miss due to poor luck.....
Logged in for the first time in months and played 3 rounds in my Soma, and one in my Gunnlogi (mainly to test the mobility profiles which honestly I don't feel I can complain about) snagged 37 Kills (4 of which were enemy tanks) for the loss of one Soma (and the accompanying Officer Fit I was in simply to oblige whoever killed me with a juicy ISK efficiency rating).
Rails and Missiles easily beats the **** out of a blaster fit, and Thaddeus's blaster solution solves it imo. it's more of a large scale weapon it seems (having a low ammo count, and not being such a fast ROF weapon, but still doing a good amount of damage). I'm not saying it doesn't and holistically I like the suggestions Thaddeus, Breaking, and Pokey Dravon have suggested however I disagree with Thaddeus's "Shotgun" Blaster idea. Not because I think it is bad but simply not quite "right". A Shotgun in a fundamental manner would not be good at dealing with penetration of things (do correctly me if I am wrong) due to its design being to project a grouping of fragments/pellets at a target also because the calibre of the pellets is small and not designed for long distance projection and thus would suffer against solid surfaces. If I am also not mistaken Shotgun can fire Slug Rounds which are designed to penetrate targets. Now again we have never truly had the fundamentals of Vehicle Shield and Armour operation in Dust 514 properly confirmed but I don't believe a "Shotgun Turret" would function efficiently. Though arguably my own suggestion is rather similar to Thaddeus' own in the sense that the Blaster I envision is a tri-barrelled electron accelerator that fires three almost simultaneous hybrid charges containing specific atoms suspended in a plasma state. This ideally would function in the same manner as a tandem warhead. The Three rounds fire directly and with minimal dispersion in a triangle sharped grouping. In terms of gameplay these rounds would almost land simultaneously each with its own small splash damage zone, the three in total comprising the equivalent of a full Railgun Volley, albeit with a slightly shorter reload to ensure DPS supremacy but not a huge supremacy. The design of which sees the three hybrid charged detonate in close proximity to one another one after the other hopefully achieving increased penetrative power. Fundamentally you could argue this is a shotgun weapon..... which.... it kind of is. http://www.univers-virtuels.net/imgs/gc12/ccp/DUST514/Art/ConceptArt/Vehicles/caldari_HAV_GallenteTurret.jpgIf you have ever seen this picture..... you'll see what I mean. Honestly and I'll put it out there. I'd like to see every large turret in Dust 514 become a Main Battle Cannon. And I believe this can be achieved while keeping in mind the identity of the weapon, its functionality, and its characteristics according to CCP's designed in EVE online. Not an hour ago I was in a match chasing a scout down a hill with an Ion Canon and put rounds into him at about 40m. I was honestly thinking to myself how much more badass this would have been if my turret had been a railgun or an Electron Cannon.....as such the experience was cheapened by how easy the Blast ripped this poor guy apart.
That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them.
And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works.
As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because
1: They are ******* space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense
2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts.
3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations.
4: Specifically for the AC, why in the **** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss).
5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16649
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:38:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them.
And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works.
As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because
1: They are ******* space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense
2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts.
3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations.
4: Specifically for the AC, why in the **** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss).
5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all.
As I've said I don't deny Thaddeus suggestion I a Good one. It is. I've just been talking about it with him and I can argue both ways about it for and against.
I simply think mine is better. I've a means to balance all turrets to roughly similar DPS values, differing alpha's, forms of fire, etc all that good stuff while keeping the fundamental identity of the weapons themselves while keeping them roughly to a single shot long reload (arguably realistic) model.
Now sure when it comes to rounds there are canister rounds that fire shells that fragment on impact and assuming Thaddeus rounds work like that (which I know they don't since he told me he wants them in a magazine something I am somewhat opposed to) that would be fine since it ensures relatively accurate delivery of the fragments.
However I simply think that the Gallente could achieve a better anti tank gun (and hell I think in my suggestions Thaddeus actually altered the Void rounds so they fired in his shotgun manner) by firing three subsequent hybrid charges with a closer grouping for better accuracy even if their shot has a noticeably falloff.
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 05:56:00 -
[1191] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
That is a argument of lore, which is silly tbh (@ Kane, THIS is what a argument of lore looks like). You're quite literally arguing for less shells with higher damaging shells. Hell, seeing as we have the maching gun now, and has existed in the lore, yet can eat through armor, I don't want to hear "a shotgun might not be able to eat through the armor". As for it not penning jack, I've heard of tanks being fitted with cannons that took cluster shells (basically a oversized shotgun shell), Sabot and HE/HEAT rounds had lots of fragmentation to act as sort of a shotgun effect of small pieces spreading through the tank, and I saw a canister shell going through a wall once, so yea, you can say that there is tanks that has shotguns on them.
And plasma is plasma, it seems that if the bigger the amount of plasma is thrown, the more damage you do, and in that case, this works.
As for making blasters (or AC's, or any laser) into actual cannons like a rail, no. That is a silly thing to do. It makes sense that blasters are like that in EVE, because
1: They are ******* space ships, so large caliber shelling makes sense
2: when you are in close range, and is moving fast, you don't want to have a precision weapon, as every shot counts.
3: Turrets would have different ranges, And it's a hell of a lot easier to engage someone from a distance AND run away in Dust than it is in EVE, regardless of fit. He who engages first always has the advantage in those situations.
4: Specifically for the AC, why in the **** would a AC be a cannon? By definition it can't be. Even on the model of the Autocannon ingame it fires more than one shot (which makes little sense, I guess they either all hit or all miss).
5: That would cut off much of the variation possible in the game. You could say sure, why not have a variant of the blaster that fires a slug, or a really tight shot (in which I named the compressed blaster), but saying "only cannons are allowed" is just ridiculous. Hell, as said above, it makes the AC make ZERO sense, and by logic, wouldn't be a large turret at all.
As I've said I don't deny Thaddeus suggestion I a Good one. It is. I've just been talking about it with him and I can argue both ways about it for and against. I simply think mine is better. I've a means to balance all turrets to roughly similar DPS values, differing alpha's, forms of fire, etc all that good stuff while keeping the fundamental identity of the weapons themselves while keeping them roughly to a single shot long reload (arguably realistic) model. Now sure when it comes to rounds there are canister rounds that fire shells that fragment on impact and assuming Thaddeus rounds work like that (which I know they don't since he told me he wants them in a magazine something I am somewhat opposed to) that would be fine since it ensures relatively accurate delivery of the fragments. However I simply think that the Gallente could achieve a better anti tank gun (and hell I think in my suggestions Thaddeus actually altered the Void rounds so they fired in his shotgun manner) by firing three subsequent hybrid charges with a closer grouping for better accuracy even if their shot has a noticeably falloff. If we are talking AutoCannons..... I think Thaddeus and I just agreed that you ideally wouldn't fire auto cannons to a tank when a large calibre artillery piece would simply do better. However I am not saying I don' want AC and such in the game. I simply see them in a different place.....perhaps mounted to Dropships, Fighters, LAV, or MAV or maybe even as Light Turrets.
I get that you think his is good, and that you think your idea is better. I'm saying your idea doesn't make any sense, as
1: It tries to be realistic, as in modern day
2: It doesn't consider the ranges that you would be at with each gun, as well as how the vehicle itself is operated.
3: Instead of having a widely varying experiences yet still balanced, it leads to a although technically balanced, not really, as everything is very similar, but one does the experience better than everything else (kind of the FOTM situation with the rifles). It doesn't really lead to balance, but rather, it leads to the same situation of old and of now, where the best is used, and the rest is forgot about, and that I hate. I generally don't want that to return, like ever.
As for saying that AC's shouldn't even be a large turret, That would mean that there would only be one racial turret for Winmatar, versus two for every other race. Your response?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:03:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Huh, apparently there's AP shotgun shells. Never seen them before.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:16:00 -
[1193] - Quote
@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:30:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent?
A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done).
and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly
Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:31:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Also, I see you took the EVE way of going about balancing Hulls. Nice.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16650
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:37:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Though I hate using bullet pointed numbers I kinda have to reply.
1.) I do not think the Shotgun turret as Thaddeus has outlined it to my understand is necessarily reflecting modern day technologies or particularly realistic. I say this due to the method of the delivery of the fragments. To my understanding he intends for the rounds to fly free from the muzzle of the main gun. I would argue this is probably an inefficient means of delivering the rounds as energy would burn off during the delivery wouldn't it? If he suggested the shot gun was fired initially from a canister and then fragmented at range to reduce the spread and energy burn off then I think I could perhaps better accept it. Also yeah there are Cannister rounds that fire those fragmentation balls you were talking about but again would suggest they'd be ineffective against tank armours for the most part and simply better for the depiction perhaps of an anti personell round of a smaller calibre cannon. Especially when drawing from modern examples and honestly "logical process" (I understand this is subjective) I would think the technologies that go into tank production in New Eden would account for smaller calibre charges from the main weapons of the four empires and disperse the forces at work across a wider area.
I certainly think the Shotgun shell could work as a variant ....like I Thaddeus may well have intended when he put that into the original excel sheet but would function as a less effective cannon type in terms of direct/accurate damage application.
2.) I would think its the opposite in some respects. It's much easier to penetrate armour up close than it is at longer ranges. I would suggest that Tanks in Dust really shouldn't be the kinds of vehicles that continue to roll about on top of one another as they do right now. Honestly I see the slower rates of fire and more accurate rounds as a positive thing for vehicles.
Ideally it makes tanks main guns feel, sounds, and function in a more powerful fashion.
Ideally it would open up a place in the game for speed tanking and use of terrain features as proper forms of cover so that tanks don't just go off gallivanting around madly rushing everything they feel like killing.
Ideally it reduces our impact on infantry combat in a significant manner. We can still kill them with accurate shots and splash damage but not as often or as prolifically as we can now.
3.) In Dust that is arguably true. Currently all that matters is DPS and how long you can sustain it. Usually all modules do is slow down the DPS values of the other tank and the winner is usually who engages first and has their modules active soonest and bring to bear their gun.
Honestly I don't like that. I don't really feel like it accounts for player skill. You don't usually get time to manoeuvre greatly and the activation of modules now is passive and reactive at best rather that something you actively choose to use at a specific time of the combat scenario.
I think with the adjustments and fundamental change to tanks main guns bringing them all into a specific function of specific attributes that alters their function in some manner would do wonders to balance tanks and draw away from this ideals that the greater DPS will win the combat.
E,g- In the suggestion Blasters have the fastest reload time and one of the lowest alpha's. But ideally would fire with AoE splash and a moderate falloff on the projectile.
The Railgun fires a moderately high alpha shell with the least noticeable fall off over distance, smaller more compact AoE, and a longer reload time.
The Laser Fires two beams/projectiles with 0 fall off, has no ammo, is slightly less alpha-y than the Railgun, but also has 0 splash.
Artillery has the largest AoE and alpha values but the longest reload time, lowest splash damage, and has a more noticeable fall off somewhere between the Blaster and the Railgun.
4.) That's the fundamental reason I did not include it. I believe it is better suited as a Small and Medium Turret Type since it allows for the smaller vehicle hulls to have access to rapid firing splash/anti infantry damage options.
5.) Variation is the name of the game still. You still have your modules, you still have your hulls, the only things this changes is the fundamental role of HAV from "Kill Anything" to "Primarily Kill Vehicles". I feel if players wish to spend their time using rapid fire weapons with splash damage they should be able to do it and to do that they can use light turrets on tanks, light turrets on LAV, Medium/ Light Turrets of Dropships, Assault Dropships, Fighters, MAV, etc. All of which might perhaps be designed specifically for those roles.
As for the Turret Types for each race. That's something to consider. As you know I love the lore, I also love EVE-Dust consistency...... but the more and more I think about HAV and vehicles the more I consider that it's worth bending lore around them for the sake of functionality.
As for the Amarr arguably you could say I've only given them one kind of Large Turret.... a Dual Focused Beam Laser or a Dual Focused Pulse Laser. I honestly don't see a need for two types for the Amarr if they function somewhat similarly in the end.
However since all Races including the Gallente use Missiles/ have ships with missile bonuses (stealth bomber torp bonuses) you could consider any Large Missile Turret an example of a secondary Large Turret. Moreover the Caldari and Gallente would then technically have 3 Large Turrets, Blasters, Railguns, and Missiles.
In time depending on how things progress an Amarrian Arc Cannon could be introduced and a Minmatar Mortar could be introduced. Eventually you could do something like a Twin Barreled Auto Cannon that could fire two 125mm rounds at the same time and have a much faster reload time or something more tasteful.
Who knows?
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:38:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option
It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully.
Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_-
You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:49:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully. Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_- You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for.
Well...the MD needs a better way to sight as well...but a sight for both of them that's something like this...with practice it can be very very accurate.
Wait...do you want Tiered Turrets or do you want to Tiericide Turrets?
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 06:57:00 -
[1199] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Though I hate using bullet pointed numbers I kinda have to reply.
1.) I do not think the Shotgun turret as Thaddeus has outlined it to my understand is necessarily reflecting modern day technologies or particularly realistic. I say this due to the method of the delivery of the fragments. To my understanding he intends for the rounds to fly free from the muzzle of the main gun. I would argue this is probably an inefficient means of delivering the rounds as energy would burn off during the delivery wouldn't it? If he suggested the shot gun was fired initially from a canister and then fragmented at range to reduce the spread and energy burn off then I think I could perhaps better accept it. Also yeah there are Cannister rounds that fire those fragmentation balls you were talking about but again would suggest they'd be ineffective against tank armours for the most part and simply better for the depiction perhaps of an anti personell round of a smaller calibre cannon. Especially when drawing from modern examples and honestly "logical process" (I understand this is subjective) I would think the technologies that go into tank production in New Eden would account for smaller calibre charges from the main weapons of the four empires and disperse the forces at work across a wider area.
I certainly think the Shotgun shell could work as a variant ....like I Thaddeus may well have intended when he put that into the original excel sheet but would function as a less effective cannon type in terms of direct/accurate damage application.
Now there's an idea, if we could have that functionality, I'd be all for it...
My turret suggestions are mostly based on existing weapons so they could be more easily implemented, but any additional functionality people suggest I'll try to record in comments on the sheet itself.
Also, Godin, you mentioned wanting a Solid Slug Blaster variant? What kind of stats did you have in mind? (Relative DPS values, refire rate, etc)
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
16651
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:00:00 -
[1200] - Quote
I'll just say two more things before the conversation reverts back to what CCP Rattati actually asked for,
The First is that I do understand that Dust is not a conventionally military shooter game and therefore does not have to follow what I/we might consider to be conventional shooter game designs however what I find interesting about vehicle and tank use in other games that I do not in Dust is that they are grounded in the conventional even if the premise of the tank is not e.g the T85 Levkov from Battlefield 4 or the Magrider from Planetside 2, even the Starwars Battlefront 2 Hover Tanks which allowed you to fire anti infantry blasters but had slow firing rocket pods as your main damage dealer.
It's something that can be recognised by players universally and it means that its a solid platform for CCP to later say "Hey you guys know what?"
Also I see it as a move closer to EVE. In EVE as you know your turret modules are always cycling. Firing. Then Cycling again. Much like my proposed ideas. Also I see it as a chance to remove damage modules entirely form the game and let CCP base their base values which can be modified with things like Reload Speed Modules which do what Gyrostabilisers, Heat Sinks, Accelerators etc do in EVE.
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:38:00 -
[1201] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Stuff about turrets
If there was a more efficient way of doing this, tell me and we can do it.
1: Yes, and that's why they would have such a short range. I would agree with you if they were further away, but they are not. Remember, in his idea, the blaster is essentially firing multiple rounds at once, instead of just one in a rapid firing manner. Technically, they should have the same range as now, assuming they are the same charge, and the same or similar energy is given to each shot (which seems to be the case, seeing as the damage per shot is similar still).
Anyways, no, not canister shells (those are AP rounds, not AT), cluster shells. It's a shell sent at a target that sends smaller rounds into it mid flight, kinda like this, more or less (most likely less, unless there's nuclear warheads involved). They are in fact workable as far as killing tanks goes, and I was told there's shells like that for tanks, and that's newer tanks. Sure, a traditional AP round will pen more (and that's why a rail clearly has more direct damage than this), but this would be much easier to aim and hit with, especially when on the move and in closer ranges (assuming there's no guidance computers involved).
This is still a lore argument by the way, but it is interesting.
2: There's two parts to this:
A- Lots of people, not just myself, has grown to like the close range action that blasters, or anything of similar traits gives. If you want to play long range, hang back, grab a missile (and a actual missile, not these ******* rockets), rail, beam laser, or arty and let us do what we do.
B- tanks naturally get close to each other. It's bound to happen. Even with the ridiculous ranges that WWII tanks had (at least later in the war), they STILL got into close ranges with each other (a friend of my gramps shot the gun or a Sherman, and he told me how often he would get in close to the Germans, which apparently happened a lot). So far, I haven't seen any different in any game generally, and Dust is no exception.
C- This would mean that, again, Blasters, AC's, Pulse Lasers, Rockets, and anything else that COULD happen won't, because everything has to be a long range cannon. Even if they did, they would be useless, because everything long range would just snipe them down. On top of that, only the best long range turret (since they are all similar in nature, slow ROF cannons) would be used, creating a situation that we have now.
Speed tanking would exist MORE with good close range turrets. It makes zero sense with a long range turret however. Why would you even possibly need speed when you're not going anywhere very fast due to sniping things? Also, terrain is already used to advantage people, and was used even more when smart people played.
Shotgun turret with a lower ROF and a way smaller mag and reserve mag, and you go around killing infantry, even higher heat, and you go around killing infantry. Cool, your choice.
3: Changing the guns so it's everyone sniping at everyone would change jack. We trying to balance the hulls and raise the TTK back to old Uprising levels is in fact making that player skill return. As for your desc's of each turret, the way they work aside, that's generally what people is pushing for minus the splash (it varies). Otherwise, that is a VERY limited list of turrets to choose from, and a even more when you look at it from the above perspectives, so I'd rather not.
4: And that sill is valid. Looking at Thaddeus's AC, it looks like something to kill a HAV or a turret with, not infantry. the Barrage AC's would be the worst thing to kill infantry with, seeing as missing shots is probably easy enough to do, and you only get a grand total of three bursts before you've seized up. That is just unwieldy as hell for fighting infantry, but on a bigger target that you won't miss, that 1k DPS looks real nice.
Also, your point is to remove variation?
5: No, it is not. People build fits for situations they plan on getting into. They also play how the fit is built for (skilled people anyways). a MAJOR part of that is the turret. If everything turret is very similar, people would build their fits around very similar things, making only a couple fits per hull (hell, some hulls might even be useless compared to others, and entire ideas for hulls would be even cut out, and not just for HAV's; LLV's are best on amobile HAV, and worst on a hiding, camping HAV). This would have the opposite effect of variation, aka what we have now.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:40:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully. Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_- You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for. Well...the MD needs a better way to sight as well...but a sight that's something like this...with practice it can be very very accurate. Wait...do you want Tiered Turrets or do you want to Tiericide Turrets?
What exactly am I looking at above?
Tiercide, what confused you?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:49:00 -
[1203] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I'll just say two more things before the conversation reverts back to what CCP Rattati actually asked for,
The First is that I do understand that Dust is not a conventionally military shooter game and therefore does not have to follow what I/we might consider to be conventional shooter game designs however what I find interesting about vehicle and tank use in other games that I do not in Dust is that they are grounded in the conventional even if the premise of the tank is not e.g the T85 Levkov from Battlefield 4 or the Magrider from Planetside 2, even the Starwars Battlefront 2 Hover Tanks which allowed you to fire anti infantry blasters but had slow firing rocket pods as your main damage dealer.
It's something that can be recognised by players universally and it means that its a solid platform for CCP to later say "Hey you guys know what?"
Also I see it as a move closer to EVE. In EVE as you know your turret modules are always cycling. Firing. Then Cycling again. Much like my proposed ideas. Also I see it as a chance to remove damage modules entirely form the game and let CCP base their base values which can be modified with things like Reload Speed Modules which do what Gyrostabilisers, Heat Sinks, Accelerators etc do in EVE.
Scifi shooters that has it imo has problems of their own, and I think are lazy by only having such turret types (and all three of those games has conventional tanks, so meh).
As for recognizing it right away, nobody said that you had to have such a thing. Whenever something is not in fact like the norm, and is done well, that usually ends up being a good thing, a really good thing in fact.
And as many have already said, we don't need to copy EVE onto Dust and make it a FPS. Things in EVE works (mostly) because EVE is made in a specific way. Things carbon cpoied into Dust however wouldn't, because Dust is made in a specific way. This should be clear to you now.
But you are right, we should get back onto business, but I think this conversation would help Master Splinter (All of it mind you, even the bits and pieces about WWII cannons shells ) make us better vehicles. Back to business then, shall we?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
162
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:49:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:@ Thaddeus- What do you mean by giant MD? You have quite long ranges on your Arties, but MD's are known for being really bad at long range. How do you plan on fixing that? A fast flying shell, or indirect fire? Also, why is it full auto with such a long interval between shots?
Also, I was thinking that I didn't like the idea of reintroducing tiers, but I get using vehicles as a starting point. However, in EVE, the differences of the sizes in class of the turrets was stronger for less tracking. Is this your intent? A giant Mass Driver with a faster shell and a less eccentric arc to address Range Issues, but anything to give them artillery functionality (I was just suggesting a simple method for modifying an existing weapon so not much new has to be done). and Full Auto mainly because of Auto-fill, I'll update shortly Tiered Turrets are already part of DUST, but I would like to see downsides to using larger ones, in my current suggestion, you sacrifice transport capacity for higher stats...but lower tracking is also an option It'd also need a way better sight than the MD (because you know, MD has that terribad hip sight, and even worse actual sight) too. As for the desc, I did see that, I was just wondering for more of a elaboration. So faster shot. I'd like to see indirect fire tbh, but as you said, lots of work would need to be done. Maybe later on hopefully. Okay. Damn autofill messing up people -_- You misunderstand, I mean rather than tierciding them, putting back in tiered turrets. I forgot about the seat thing, but as we discussed before, that would only be temporary, until the devs can put in more things for HAV's to do as well as more importantly MAV's in which these new seats is supposed to make up for. There would still need to be a "Other" thing it could possibly make up for. Well...the MD needs a better way to sight as well...but a sight that's something like this...with practice it can be very very accurate. Wait...do you want Tiered Turrets or do you want to Tiericide Turrets? What exactly am I looking at above? Tiercide, what confused you?
Ok, So, I'd be fine with a tracking penalty being added into the more powerful turrets just as it is in eve. (I was confused because I was saying that I'd be open to have tracking penalties associated with the larger turrets)
The image linked is an artillery sight in a shooter that is very effective at being an artillery sight
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
16651
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 07:51:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Stuff about turrets
If there was a more efficient way of doing this, tell me and we can do it. 1: Yes, and that's why they would have such a short range. I would agree with you if they were further away, but they are not. Remember, in his idea, the blaster is essentially firing multiple rounds at once, instead of just one in a rapid firing manner. Technically, they should have the same range as now, assuming they are the same charge, and the same or similar energy is given to each shot (which seems to be the case, seeing as the damage per shot is similar still). Anyways, no, not canister shells (those are AP rounds, not AT), cluster shells. It's a shell sent at a target that sends smaller rounds into it mid flight, kinda like this, more or less (most likely less, unless there's nuclear warheads involved). They are in fact workable as far as killing tanks goes, and I was told there's shells like that for tanks, and that's newer tanks. Sure, a traditional AP round will pen more (and that's why a rail clearly has more direct damage than this), but this would be much easier to aim and hit with, especially when on the move and in closer ranges (assuming there's no guidance computers involved). This is still a lore argument by the way, but it is interesting. 2: There's two parts to this: A- Lots of people, not just myself, has grown to like the close range action that blasters, or anything of similar traits gives. If you want to play long range, hang back, grab a missile (and a actual missile, not these ******* rockets), rail, beam laser, or arty and let us do what we do. B- tanks naturally get close to each other. It's bound to happen. Even with the ridiculous ranges that WWII tanks had (at least later in the war), they STILL got into close ranges with each other (a friend of my gramps shot the gun or a Sherman, and he told me how often he would get in close to the Germans, which apparently happened a lot). So far, I haven't seen any different in any game generally, and Dust is no exception. C- This would mean that, again, Blasters, AC's, Pulse Lasers, Rockets, and anything else that COULD happen won't, because everything has to be a long range cannon. Even if they did, they would be useless, because everything long range would just snipe them down. On top of that, only the best long range turret (since they are all similar in nature, slow ROF cannons) would be used, creating a situation that we have now. Speed tanking would exist MORE with good close range turrets. It makes zero sense with a long range turret however. Why would you even possibly need speed when you're not going anywhere very fast due to sniping things? Also, terrain is already used to advantage people, and was used even more when smart people played. Shotgun turret with a lower ROF and a way smaller mag and reserve mag, and you go around killing infantry, even higher heat, and you go around killing infantry. Cool, your choice. 3: Changing the guns so it's everyone sniping at everyone would change jack. We trying to balance the hulls and raise the TTK back to old Uprising levels is in fact making that player skill return. As for your desc's of each turret, the way they work aside, that's generally what people is pushing for minus the splash (it varies). Otherwise, that is a VERY limited list of turrets to choose from, and a even more when you look at it from the above perspectives, so I'd rather not. 4: And that sill is valid. Looking at Thaddeus's AC, it looks like something to kill a HAV or a turret with, not infantry. the Barrage AC's would be the worst thing to kill infantry with, seeing as missing shots is probably easy enough to do, and you only get a grand total of three bursts before you've seized up. That is just unwieldy as hell for fighting infantry, but on a bigger target that you won't miss, that 1k DPS looks real nice. Also, your point is to remove variation? 5: No, it is not. People build fits for situations they plan on getting into. They also play how the fit is built for (skilled people anyways). a MAJOR part of that is the turret. If everything turret is very similar, people would build their fits around very similar things, making only a couple fits per hull (hell, some hulls might even be useless compared to others, and entire ideas for hulls would be even cut out, and not just for HAV's; LLV's are best on amobile HAV, and worst on a hiding, camping HAV). This would have the opposite effect of variation, aka what we have now.
I think there is positive variation and negative variation.
Positive is the kind that you can talk about with your fellow pilots for days....negative is where there is so much is muddles the water and makes balancing a role difficult.
I love CQC combat but 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.
*"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
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 08:20:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Doing some initial fitting, it now does in fact matter that you're skilled. Without skills, it's impossible to even fill the low slots on a Maddy with assorted enhanced and complex things, you'll cap out really quick. Going to see about a full basic fit now, unskilled
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 08:49:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 09:35:00 -
[1208] - Quote
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?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1298
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 14:02:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Also, why can't we have assault weapons? What's the point of saying no to them? What's so wrong about assault guns?
More BS for CCP to fail at balancing doesn't sound like all that great of an idea.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6572
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 15:19:00 -
[1210] - Quote
assault guns are easy enough to build. The problem is the conceptual clash between "I want a machinegun turret" and "I want a cannon."
It's why my turret builds are set up to accommodate both.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
163
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 16:59:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer).
I just upped the fitting slightly, see if that changed anything...if not I'll look into armor mods efficiency vs shield mods more carefully
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:24:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:assault guns are easy enough to build. The problem is the conceptual clash between "I want a machinegun turret" and "I want a cannon."
It's why my turret builds are set up to accommodate both.
Well, for the most part, Thaddeus's are not in fact machine gun turrets, but hard hitters that does good on big targets, but not much else.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2701
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:32:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Update: even with the basics fully on, you can't fit a unskilled Maddy. fit is 2 armor hardeners, a 60mm and 120mm plate, and a heavy armor repairer (not the hull repairer). I just upped the fitting slightly, see if that changed anything...if not I'll look into armor mods efficiency vs shield mods more carefully
Well, that might take awhile, because the entire fitting tool deleted itself. Not sure how, but it's gone.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
1439
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:38:00 -
[1214] - 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.
TYPO underlined.
I think you meant "Madrugar" not "Marauder". :)
Retired
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2702
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 17:59:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Jathniel wrote: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. TYPO underlined. I think you meant "Madrugar" not "Marauder". :)
We are 61 pages in, and THIS is what you point out?
Get on topic, or I will end you
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6574
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 18:21:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:We are 61 pages in, and THIS is what you point out? Get on topic, or I will end you
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Ok you just made my day.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16656
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:10:00 -
[1217] - Quote
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.
*"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
6574
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:13:00 -
[1218] - Quote
alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16656
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 20:18:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
They freaking well do.
Took an 88mm to side armour on my (76) Sherman M4 scared the balls out of me so I started an angled reverse down the hill....... right into a KV-1................
*"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
6575
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:01:00 -
[1220] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him.
You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16659
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:03:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas
Can't sorry.
Squee me!
I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does.......
*"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
6575
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:09:00 -
[1222] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Can't sorry. Squee me! I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does.......
Since I'm pretty much done with core things... You really should open the racial parity tab
I'm just doing things for FUN now.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16659
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:12:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:alpha weapons are more likely to make enemy HAV pilots panic and make mistakes.
They freaking well do. Drove my Gunnlogi for the first time in a while. Saw a Rail tank and reversed up. Ate a round and reversed into a box..... for some reason I was lucky my opponent either wasn't very experienced or suffered the lock up glitch. Which let me get the advantage and saw me zig zag around him. You should get on skype. Now. I want to show you something that might make you squee like a five year old girl given a pony for christmas Can't sorry. Squee me! I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does....... Since I'm pretty much done with core things... You really should open the racial parity tabI'm just doing things for FUN now.
Why does the Amarr HAV at a standard level has less armour than the gallentean counter part?
I mean you were some close to the stats I was going to suggest to you of
800 Shields and 3200 armour
*"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
6575
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:15:00 -
[1224] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Why does the Amarr HAV at a standard level has less armour than the gallentean counter part?
I mean you were some close to the stats I was going to suggest to you of
800 Shields and 3200 armour
Because I math'd wrong. good catch!
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6576
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:24:00 -
[1225] - Quote
fixed.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16661
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:29:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:fixed.
Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even?
Even Numbers > Odd Numbers.
*"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
6576
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:35:00 -
[1227] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:fixed.
Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively.
because I'm hashing out average baseline differences between armor values and shield values. I had to use the Surya as the baseline.
then I'm finding the HP baseline for the Gungnir. then I'm changing the hull shield/armor/cpu/PG of the minmatar vehicles based on the percentages of change between the types of amarr hulls so the progression is even. I'm currently rounding off and am going to clean up the values so they aren't oddball numbers when I finish. rounding up or down as needed.
I'm not done yet
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16662
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:38:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:fixed.
Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively. because I'm hashing out average baseline differences between armor values and shield values. I had to use the Surya as the baseline. then I'm finding the HP baseline for the Gungnir. then I'm changing the hull shield/armor/cpu/PG of the minmatar vehicles based on the percentages of change between the types of amarr hulls so the progression is even. I'm currently rounding off and am going to clean up the values so they aren't oddball numbers when I finish. rounding up or down as needed. I'm not done yet
I just took the 580 difference between the Madrugar and the Surya. Added them to the based 3200 I suggested and it worked out nicely. My projected Amarr HAV sits at a little over 11K eHP with one Hardener Active due to the passive 25% resistances I'd have.
*"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
6576
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:38:00 -
[1229] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:fixed.
Now the only question is are those base values sans the SP investments and why dem numbers odd and not even? Even Numbers > Odd Numbers. If say you operated at 800 Shields (Standard and Marauder Hulls) and 3200 Base Armour on the STD and 3780 Armour on the Marauder you'd have 1000 Shields + 4000 and 4725 armour respectively. Assuming that hopefully I could fit 180mm Poly Crystalline 1x Heat Sink 1x Damage Control 1x Passive Armour Hardener 2x Active Hardeners 1x Heavy Repper
We'll see. I'm literally bashing numbers relative to the Surya for the amarr and the sagaris for the minmatar for the marauders, then doing alterations to lesser/enforcer hulls based on percentages of change between the gallente hull values between tier/classes.
Hard to explain. I buggered up the armor, but that's fixed. with skills you should be able to get a reasonable fitting capability without trying to nova knife yourself.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6576
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 21:47:00 -
[1230] - Quote
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.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
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 Numbers1) 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
|
|
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
783
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 16:50:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote: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
As i thought its all based on every 1's ideas that are beeing thrown in here. There is no use of discussing this further until we get a update from CCP.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:00:00 -
[1262] - 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?
Define "STD HAV"
The turret doesn't decide the fit, so a better question would be how long to do it (generally, min, max) to dislodge a Marauder.
**** no. Large turrets are not machine guns. They should be made for killing big ****, like installations and other vehicles.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:06:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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.
Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles.
Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight.
Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6602
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:14:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote: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. Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles. Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight. Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?
adds a few seconds to the kill time. the only fastball killers should be when you get into CQC with a blaster. The others should be a bit more sane.
But then I intended for knife fights to be bloody and brutal.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
533
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:48:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote: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. Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles. Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight. Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?
1. Pre Chrome i think was 2 shots with a proto rail and 3 dmg mods
2. Uprising was longer and better having some good long fights where your skill/experience/fit all played a part
3. What we have now is 5seconds and its dead which also means smaller vehicles die quicker so a 30% increase will do literally nothing |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2708
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:51:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote: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. Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles. Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight. Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly? adds a few seconds to the kill time. the only fastball killers should be when you get into CQC with a blaster. The others should be a bit more sane. But then I intended for knife fights to be bloody and brutal.
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6606
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:54:00 -
[1267] - Quote
That's nice godin. I'm not balancing for pre chrome. I didn't play then.
What I have heard about it from everyone except a few HAV drivers doesn't make me want to try, either.
If you want minute long tank engagements do your own balance sheet.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2797
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 17:58:00 -
[1268] - 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.
Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
537
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 18:08:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:That's nice godin. I'm not balancing for pre chrome. I didn't play then.
What I have heard about it from everyone except a few HAV drivers doesn't make me want to try, either.
If you want minute long tank engagements do your own balance sheet.
Besides I prefer frigate fights, the talos, oracle, naga and tornado.
I like a fight in which a resolution is reached, not dragged out like a torture session.
1. Frigate fights - Proceeds to name battlecruisers which do not die in 5seconds flat in 1v1
2. I have had frigate fights in EVE last longer than HAV battles do now |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2798
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 18:30:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?
He doesn't know and won't tell you because he's not a pilot.
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
4421
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 18:41:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first).
You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
540
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:17:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.
1. Uprising was a game of chess
2. Low TTK does not make it a game of chess, it makes it a game of twitch and who sees who 1st with the modules to go but other than that you might aswell not have modules
3. With Uprising Skills/experience & fit all played a role - It may have took 30sec-1min in a contested HAV fight but it was fun trying to work out there fit, when there modules were on and off and how far through the cycle they were - You baited and switched with each other until it was in your favour but your experience and skill could get you through - It was a true tank vs tank battle, it felt like you were trying to kill an armored fortress
4. If TTK is too low then smaller vehicles like a DS go back to being 1 shotted |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6606
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:22:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: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. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair.
cry harder. My tear bucket still has room.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
164
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:33:00 -
[1274] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: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. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair.
7802.04 base Damage with an Explosive Damage Type in 8.1225 seconds assuming they where in a proto minmando with dual complex damage mods (only counting the first 5 volleys)....and had absolutely perfect timing with their locks
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
541
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:36:00 -
[1275] - Quote
1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
2. Tweeked a few more numbers and fiddled with skill bonuses
3. Rigs next on the agenda which basically will be taken from EVE and also a few modules converted for the pilot suits use which has slot layout and basic shield/armor values, no CPU/PG values yet |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:38:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16676
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:39:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: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. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair.
Hmmmm is there a fire rate delay between shots?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:39:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: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. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. cry harder. My tear bucket still has room.
I'm crying tears.
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.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:40:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: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. Got annihilated by a forum scrublette in just 5 volleys from a Minmando, with the 6th already on the way by the time I died. How much was that? 7000 damage in literally 5 seconds. Of course, you think that's fair. 7802.04 base Damage with an Explosive Damage Type in 8.1225 seconds assuming they where in a proto minmando with dual complex damage mods (only counting the first 5 volleys)....and had absolutely perfect timing with their locks
Dual swarms, so not that long.
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
4424
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:40:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear*
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16676
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:44:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear*
Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid.
Quiet peasants!
*"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
4424
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:46:00 -
[1282] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid. Quiet peasants!
He just falls into the common fallacy that if someone doesn't agree with him, then they must not know what they're talking about.
I think what makes him so adorable is how he makes demands like he assumes I actually care what he thinks.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:47:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear*
Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience.
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.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:49:00 -
[1284] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid. Quiet peasants!
lolwut
I took a tank out practically every match I played last night. I may have lost 3-4, including one match where the enemy team most likely know who I am, and took out 3 shield-rail tanks to combat my armor-rail tank. Have you ever seen me in a match?
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.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:
He just falls into the common fallacy that if someone doesn't agree with him, then they must not know what they're talking about.
I don't care if people don't agree with me. If they don't have the experience, then their opinion means next to nothing.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16677
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Arguably Spkr does't tank and hasn't in a long time according to himself..... I tanked yesterday and therefore only my opinion is valid. Quiet peasants! lolwut I took a tank out practically every match I played last night. I may have lost 3-4, including one match where the enemy team most likely know who I am, and took out 3 shield-rail tanks to combat my armor-rail tank. Have you ever seen me in a match?
Nope which is why I take everything you say with two grains of salt.
*"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
4427
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:50:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience.
I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time.
Is that clear enough enough for you?
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2799
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:52:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you?
Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16677
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:53:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
Meh at least Pokey seems to comprehend balance......
*"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
4427
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 19:56:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
So we have a difference of opinion, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a tanker or that I don't know what I'm talking about.
People disagree. That's ok. You would do well to accept that and move on.
I really don't know why you're so aggressive about it. Do you feel threatened? Are you worried that my ideas will be taken more seriously than your own? Like I honestly don't have an issue with your difference of opinion, I just wonder why you feel the need to be such a douche about it.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6613
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Because none of us want tanks to be untouchable god-engines.
Any thread where someone suggests that HAVs should be destructible he threadcraps it up to try and remove any chance of constructive discussion till everyone else goes away except the very tiny minority of the HAV pilot population who want to be the kings of the game.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
718
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 20:02:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data.
Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16677
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 20:06:00 -
[1293] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data.
Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost.
Actually Tesfa I've been wondering. Since you are a pilot....(which kind of vehicle I am not to sure but DS and HAV seems to resonate) could you remind me about your opinions on the subject of rebalance/ redesign?
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
718
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 20:36:00 -
[1294] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:
You know since you've been away this thread has been a much better place. comprimise, people working together, sharing data.
Just please, please, just leave it alone. Go back to GD or something. There must be somewhere else on the internet where you can ishpost.
Actually Tesfa I've been wondering. Since you are a pilot....(which kind of vehicle I am not to sure but DS and HAV seems to resonate) could you remind me about your opinions on the subject of rebalance/ redesign?
I've talked with Breaking about some of this stuff.
Dropships:
Dedicated Inc pilot, i have the SP in place to run a proto python, but its jst not my thing.
VS Infantry AV
Dropship pilots just want to have a functioning counter to swarms. Not afterburn straight into the air to go back to the " lol swarms" days, or keep things as we have now. VS forges right now its all good.
VS Tanks
Its the pilots engagement to lose, even if the pilot cannot win. large turrets shouldn't reach so high, but i would love the small turrets on top of the tank to give a better angle for tank AAA defense. Not 90 degrees but perhaps 80 degrees might work.
Slight buff to ROF or (as i think others have pointed out) a seperate designation for ADS small turrets. So we wont have two mini tank killers on the nose of a gunlogi or higher, but enough punch so that the inc wont be scared to engage the new heavy tanks.
Tanks:
VS Infantry AV
I run both a gunlogi and madrugar, and shield tanks are in an excellent place right now. Regardless of what Spkr says, VS 1 swarmer i can switch on a hardener and drive around a corner. There is an option to drive away that some havent caught on to yet. Despite the complaints about no shield AV i've run into Plasma cannons over the last couple days that have given me a very rough time. It just that plasma cannons aren't popular to use. If they were as popular as swarms, man, shield tanks would be having a rough time of it. But hey, for my guni AV ignorance is bliss.
Blasters however are pretty ineffective. They just need a few tweeks to be honest. Right now they are merley OK for killing infantry and the worst of the three for fighting other tanks. You are better off going only anti tank, and not running the blaster.
VS Tanks
Missiles are OP vs Armor tanks but very UP vs other shields. 2 clips of every missile hitting to kill another gunlogi, no other large turret requires 2 clips for a kill. That said, it hardly takes more than one burst to kill any armor tank. This is why i would rather up the armor tanks defenses rather than nerf missiles.
in short i agree with pokeys basis for balance. Vehicle fights should be long enough to recover from an ambush if you are properly fit, but not so long that it becomes a fight for attrition or punishes the patient player who set up a proper ambush. Really, it all comes down balancing engagements within a few seconds. As long as we can give everyone a fighting chance (no to the rock paper scissors whay of doing things) then i'm down.
I've told breaking before though, i can only give feedback based on my current experience and use that to try to work out if your hypotheticals may work or not.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 22:00:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.
A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6618
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 22:05:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not.
Highest base railgun DPS: 652
Highest base Missile DPS: 750
Highest base blaster DPS: 850
all unskilled, no damage mods of course.
in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4429
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 22:25:00 -
[1297] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not.
Well I wont argue exact numbers, but my point is that if the rail engaged the blaster tank in a suboptimal location, the TTK needs to be long enough for the Blaster to get behind cover and reposition itself. Incidentally the TTK can't be so long that the rail is incapable of killing the Blaster, even if its positioning is optimal.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:15:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Well I wont argue exact numbers, but my point is that if the rail engaged the blaster tank in a suboptimal location, the TTK needs to be long enough for the Blaster to get behind cover and reposition itself. Incidentally the TTK can't be so long that the rail is incapable of killing the Blaster, even if its positioning is optimal.
Well, even with the 30 second TTK, that's how it was. I don't remember anyone saying that that was too long of a TTK in the first place...........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4430
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:21:00 -
[1299] - Quote
I dont think it ever took 30 seconds of sustained fire to kill a vehicle with a railgun... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:22:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
If you don't tank, I don't want to see you talking about vehicles.
Or you'll do what? Flame me to death? *cowers in fear* Like I said, if you're not a pilot and have never been one, closed beta doesn't count, open beta doesn't count, every single build and major patch up to 1.7, and have lived through the abomination that was 1.8, vehicles getting nerfed yet again, then your opinion literally doesn't count because you don't have all that experience. I've speced and played tanks in every single build since the start of this game. Every single one. I've experienced every single build, as a tanker, for all types of tanks, every single time. Is that clear enough enough for you? Your ideas for vehicles are garbage. You also make the pilot suits worthless, with any bonuses having direct disadvantages to that bonus. You're essentially trying to achieve a 1.7 with 1.8 nerfs thrown in.
What the ****?
Sparky, you're doing a CharChar right now. Quit it, and argue in a civilized manner. Back on topic, or I end you.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:24:00 -
[1301] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you trying to balance vehicle fights to preform like infantry fights? 10-13 seconds (or in some cases even less) isn't a good vehicle fight. As I've said before, when people actually liked vehicle vs. vehicle fights, they lasted 30 seconds or more, not this short time thing.
A few seconds doesn't change the outcome of a fight at all. That's why people liked it before. Equally skilled players could have enough time to change the tide of a fight. That is why it worked, and that is also why larger ships in EVE has much longer fights than smaller ships. Larger scale combat just works better that way.
Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first). You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead. A 10 second TTK makes it to where anything with some range vs. anything with a short range, the long range will win (as we see now) as the ranged thing has plenty of time to take out the short ranged thing before it gets there. It would just turn into what it is now, rails sniping at other Rails (That's why they were nerfed to blaster TTK's in the first place), and that is just boring, and I'd rather not. Highest base railgun DPS: 652 Highest base Missile DPS: 750 Highest base blaster DPS: 850 all unskilled, no damage mods of course. in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin. OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it?
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:27:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I dont think it ever took 30 seconds of sustained fire to kill a vehicle with a railgun... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying
It didn't, but a railgun never consistently hit for a perfect DPS situation either. 30 seconds considered reps, hardeners, missing, pilot error, skills, etc. Fights ended up lasting between good pilots much longer than 10 seconds, in which now and during Chromo they really did last 10 seconds or less, even accounting for all those things.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16692
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:45:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side.
As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not.
But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range......
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
720
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 00:53:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Highest base railgun DPS: 652
Highest base Missile DPS: 750
Highest base blaster DPS: 850
all unskilled, no damage mods of course.
in close the blaster will rip your balls off. Rails will still hit the hardest by a wide margin.
OH NO! Justification for the weapons to not overheat as fast! Who'da thunk it?
What about damage bonuses?
+10% -10% to shield for blasters
-10%+10% rails?
-20% +20% missiles is for sure.
Highest base railgun DPS: 652 would get a 586 / 717.2 spread
Highest base Missile DPS: 750 or a 600 / 900 spread
Highest base blaster DPS: 850 or a 935 / 765 spread
Also, becare full about the upclose blaster thing, its nothing for an armor tank to fit a speed booster and wreck you upclose. You dont need any stratgey you'll just charge in firing , and with the size of plalabe area on some maps being extremely small, its not something i would encourage. Thats how they fought rail tanks and lived to tell the tale, which only encouraged rail tanks to seek the saftey of the redlone to get out of blaster optimal. With the bonuses it looks like a close fight between the shield missile vs armor blaster.
A blaster can still take on railtanks and win, but we have to watch out between balancing blasters for armor tanks, and see them equiped on a gunlogi. I've said this before, before you are sure something is balanced according to how you think it should be run, you also have to consider of all the bastardized ways someone else can put them together.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 02:17:00 -
[1305] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range......
2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV.
Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16699
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 02:35:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly.
Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma.
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion
Amarr Empire
2320
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 02:43:00 -
[1307] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range.
It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere?
That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do.
Home at Last <3
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16701
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 02:52:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Fizzer XCIV wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do.
As I've said it seems counter intuitive to fire plasma directly. Inefficient, dangerous, and illogical. However if you fired charges that delivered the plasma to the target before detonating or that covered a fair amount of the distance before detonating you'd not only get more range but greater destructive power.
As such firing a machine gun of plasma rounds doesn't work well. But firing a Canister Shot of Suspended Plasma Particles would net you better range, accuracy, and energy release on impact.
*"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
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 03:33:00 -
[1309] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range.
First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed.
That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient.
Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 03:35:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Fizzer XCIV wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. It travels that far in a vaccuum, sure. But in an atmosphere? That heat is going to get stolen by the air really quickly when its traveling as fast as they do.
Also this. Make sense True, you should be good at this.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16705
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 04:21:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
If only the forums had a face palm emoticon.
Do you realize that blasters are only good in close, right?
They don't have to be limited too greatly in that manner Dust side. As I've said before the Blaster is simply be an accelerator for a Hybrid Charge. The Charge itself likely had fair projection abilities as on Ships of various sized they can be projected out anywhere from 2.5-25km in Dust that would have to be lessened due to gravity and what not. But assuming we're just projecting plasma willy nilly yeah kinda short range...... 2.5-25km with the lowest damaging shots that you could use, and that's for entirely different sized turrets, all of which fire VASTLY larger and more powerful turrets than ones on a HAV. Also, as you pointed out, it's plasma. You're not going to get rail turret range out of a blaster. That's just silly. Blasters fire charges just like Hybrid Rails do. I see no reason that to achieve a superior effect you could not simply fire the charged itself and have the charged detonate on impact rather than inefficient direct acceleration of plasma. Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small. Thus a Blaster has an effective range of 1,800m with a 2,500m fall off. Even accounting for the fact that in Dust we have gravity to deal with I have no doubt that its possible to project a plasma round/hybrid charge out to a fair range. First off, do you realize how much energy it takes to make it to where you could even heat material up to a plasma state, and then some to make it worth actually throwing at our defenses? Also, seeing as you want them to become how while mid flight, almost at your target, so you're going to have to heat each shell, and faster than usual, so more energy is needed. That is inefficient and costly, which makes it even more inefficient. Also it has been noted that EVE's smalls are XL turrets (You know, the one's on MCC's) already. So no, you're wrong. They are actually quite smaller.
As I said that seems inefficient to me.
Rather than heat it up simply store the required number of charges (the containers that house the suspended particles in plasma state) and accelerate the changes so that they are what is fired and so that when they break apart on impact the energy in those charges is fully released.
Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts.
*"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
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 04:36:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts.
[/quote]
That is arguing based on size of the charge itself. And in clase range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Oceltot Mortalis
51
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 05:20:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Are we still in an era where dropsuits are advanced enough to have a native repair, but giant mechanical war machines aren't?
In life, I have this to regret. That too often, when I acquired ISK, I did not have enough of it.
-everyone in EVE, ever
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6620
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 05:33:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Yes godin I realize that blasters have the shortest range. Get too close and they eat you.
Tesfa, I didn't write the turrets with the idea that people wouldn't play mix'n match. Even at 850 DPS the blaster is still 150-1900 DPS slower than the turrets we have today or in chrome.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16705
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 05:38:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Even if that wasn't the case then it would still make more sense to store the charges on board the tank, heat them to plasma state rapidly then fire the charge and use that charge to direct the plasma itself rather than attempting to stream it into a series of rapid small density bursts.
That is arguing based on size of the charge itself, or rather if the charge splits up into many pieces or stays into one (depending on looking at machine gun, cannon, or shotgun) And in close range situations that relies on manual aiming, it makes much more sense to have a system of spreading out the charge over a area rather than firing it in one lump. It's better to do some damage than none. At least you're realizing that this is how it generally works, because the charges are stored on board the HAV, and then heated to a plasma state rapidly, and then launched. Assault Turret delivery method just works better in the end of it, because it gives you much more room to breathe in.
But requires **** all aim, skill, or thought.
*"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
6620
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 08:12:00 -
[1316] - Quote
I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again?
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1309
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 08:18:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again?
nubs that want to farm infantry
All jokes aside, blasters need a further falloff it feels so abrupt. There's no point in between "full damage" and "holy **** I'm doing no damage ccplease"
Dual tanking is for bad players.
Come play a better game.
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6620
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 08:37:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16705
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:04:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks.
Shame Dust doesn't have any.
*"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
6621
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:06:00 -
[1320] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any.
Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
720
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:14:00 -
[1321] - Quote
@ Breaking yeah, mix and match is somehing that will have to be dealt with seperatley depnding on the tank fits. The more i think about it, the less i think it is the responsiblity of you to come up those proposals. Its something that tankers with experience should comment on after any changes got implemented, not really before. Any sort of random fits found to be rediculously overpowered, like the dual afterburners on a DS can be fixed later, maybe with a module cap or something. So don't bother with it.
True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:46:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again?
That's not even the point. Seeing as you want extremely low TTK's, I won't even be able to approach the redline rail in time to kill it. That's like simple logic.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:47:00 -
[1323] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm still wondering why godin objects to blasters having the highest DPS.
If it doesn't, and it's the shortest range, exactly what point is there to having it again? nubs that want to farm infantry All jokes aside, blasters need a further falloff it feels so abrupt. There's no point in between "full damage" and "holy **** I'm doing no damage ccplease"
Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list.
Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:49:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope.
The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6626
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 12:41:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best.
This statement tells me you can't do math.
I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close.
I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
722
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 13:31:00 -
[1326] - Quote
speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 13:55:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all.
1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 13:57:00 -
[1328] - Quote
1. Any chance of Rattati updating that spreadsheet before he gets busy with the various PC threads he made today? |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
722
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:00:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails
The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:06:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them.
1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked
2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time |
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
722
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:25:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time
The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand.
Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:35:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either.
1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range?
2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same
3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens
4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
722
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 14:53:00 -
[1333] - Quote
1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range?
No.
2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same
SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range.
3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens
I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it.
4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved [/quote]
Problem hasn't been solved, but lets not compound the problem even futher.
By the way, to be clear, are you saying you want the 600m rail turrets to return?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 15:09:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range?
No.
2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same
SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range.
3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens
I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it.
4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved
Problem hasn't been solved, but lets not compound the problem even futher.
By the way, to be clear, are you saying you want the 600m rail turrets to return?
[/quote]
1. So max range for everything is 300m then
2. Even if lock on is 175m all volleys are gone by 4seconds which is far too quick and to get out of 400m range for a ground vehicle is like asking it to fly let alone getting away from 175m anyways or find decent cover
3. Large missiles - Swarms need deleting or big injection of skill and aim and since swarm missiles can do 400m then the large should be able to do 300m
4. The redline for me will always be a problem
5. 600m rails now means they are in there spawn more than before due to redline changes, i think the rail should be the turret to fire the furthest out of the current 3 and also fire further than the handheld FG |
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6631
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 15:43:00 -
[1335] - Quote
without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more.
Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all.
I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
551
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 15:49:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more.
Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all.
I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything.
1. No redline ruins games
2. Well 400m SL missile is getting dropped back to 300m flight range for my propsal
3. Dynamic spawns were uplinks, bandwidth nerfed it to hell |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
565
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 19:22:00 -
[1337] - Quote
1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
2. Added most rigs - Havnt added weapon rigs
3. Rest of it is mostly done and dusted - AV i havent changed yet but will most likey add in notes like SL working like it should ie no lock on through cover
3b. Turrents havnt changed - Except fragmented missiles are for killing infantry
3c. Modules added and tweeked with numbers - Most chrome numbers stay since it means a armor vehicle can actually fit useful things
3d. Hulls mostly same |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:33:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want.
It doesn't matter what the TTK is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:36:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Maybe I LIKE HAVs that can fight back when I jam my forge up their tailpipe.
I like tanks. Shame Dust doesn't have any. Dust needs more cannons. Help us Matari artillerists, you're our only hope. The best large turrets is a Railgun right now, and how you're structuring it, you want rails to still be the best. This statement tells me you can't do math. I cannot correct the redline. I can only propose numbers. Railgun DPS is dropping. Sharply. That way you have a chance to close. I could revert them back to 1000 DPS if you really want.
It doesn't matter what the DPS is if you want them to kill anything in around 10 seconds.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 20:38:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?
I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all. 1. Move back the redline, the problem was the redline it never was the rails The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them. 1. If the redline was moved back 500m for both sides then they would have no option but to come out - Open to being flanked and 500m can be a rough time to get back to the redline when you are getting whacked 2. Some of these propsals still want 400m SL and 3k damage all which require 0 aim which for me is much much worse than a rail which requires aim and take into account the small amount of projectile time The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand. Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either.
Which is why I have a massive issue with a low ass TTK. Kiting is a thing after all.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 22:45:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Breakin has explained his numbers in detail to me, what I described is now a non issue (unless someone seriously tries to use those numbers, in which case **** off, no.) in terms of his own idea, so far anyways.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1313
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 23:07:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list.
Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it.
It's nothing about you, just a stab at the general idea most selfish infantry have towards people who want to tank.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
21 day EVE trial.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16717
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 23:44:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over.
I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m.
If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models.
*"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
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:10:00 -
[1344] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
Are you a idiot, or just that dishonest. Show me where I've said either of these things in the want list.
Also, that's how blasters are. That is the very nature of them. Deal with it.
It's nothing about you, just a stab at the general idea most selfish infantry have towards people who want to tank.
Oh. **** my bad bro, I couldn't hear you that well.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2709
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:15:00 -
[1345] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models.
It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV.
Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16718
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:39:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........
They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles.
My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes.
*"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
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 01:50:00 -
[1347] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Considering the size of the Dust 514 Tank being designed to 2.5m Tall Super Soldiers I doubt the sizes of turret are vastly different in terms of our Large = EVE's small.
.
just for something anecdotal to this but completly unreleated to most of the thread, i was a bit surprised to find out dropships are significantly larger than tanks. Shouldn't be, because i'm sure a real life blackhawk would take up more space than an abrams but uh, yeah. anectdote over. I would think a Dust 514 HAV is between 8-10m long, roughly 4.5-5m in width, and reaches a maximum height of possibly 3.25m. If the DS is biggest it must be huge when you pace it out.. However that seems conservative to me since I remember a dev a long time ago saying tanks dwarfed our real world models. It would be quite easy to measure a HAV, just park it in the center from a marker, then walk the length of it. Do the same for the width and height and you got a decent est. of the demisions of the HAV. Still doesn't mean that the large turret is EVE's smalls when Devs have said otherwise........ They aren't much smaller..... plus Godin you and I both know CCP is far behind in their lore and very contradictory with it. However this does not mean that does not mean rounds in Dust need be limited to the incredibly short ranges.... honestly it's more fun talking about the mechanics behind potential weapons than is currently is preparing to face another boring X months of automatic railguns, Blasters, and instant kill missiles. My only hope is that if a laser turret is ever made it's not a larger version of the ScR or the Laser Rifle......good god I hope that day never comes.
So a XL turret being said several times as the equivalent of small EVE turrets (aka on models made for the game, models ingame) are lies because of dated quotes (which mind you haven't been changed due to new data, like ever)?
Cool story bro. Also, if that's the case, then I should be able to shoot OB's at things.
And the difference between XL and L turrets is massive (iirc XL missiles are Large 4 missiles put together), I don't want to here that they are only slightly larger.
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16719
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 02:19:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds.
In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters.
*"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
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 02:51:00 -
[1349] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters.
If it's still ****** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions.
Do you not know what min maxing is?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16721
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:04:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
And due to actual updated lore plus game mechanics plus just physics, yes, they actuually do need to be short ranged. Otherwise you would be changing generally how Gallente as a WHOLE does combat, generally.
Not really at all to be honest. A weapon that fires a fair distance but has greater projectile drop over distance and a rapid cycle time would still be vastly more useful in close combat than one that has a very slow cycle time and a lesser projectile drop off with slower traversal speeds. In the end every race should be capable of producing a technology that can at least project its fire power out to 500 or more meters. If it's still ****** in all ranges but close (as is how a PLC or anything of the sort ends up being), then what is the point of trying to cppy that style in the first place when there is FAR better CQ solutions. Do you not know what min maxing is?
It's not that a turret is ****** at range merely less effective that the other based purely on the arbitrary racial predispositions.
Yes the Gallente typically do up close and personal work with rapid firing high damage blasters. Thus their turret cycles faster than others, achieve a respectable damage, but might have a greater projectile drop than specially designed rounds of other races, however with compensation the rounds can still remain accurate.
Yes the Caldari typically like to keep themselves at a range with slower firing high alpha Railguns. Thus their turrets cycle a bit more slowly, their rounds do not fall off a much as other weapons, and have high alpha damage, But their barrels are bulk and traverse more slowly.
Etc
Because when you consider the fundamental premise of a tank and a tank turret both of which specifically state in the definition of the concept the nature of the primary gun as large calibre you cannot effectively achieve the intended role for a tank using a ******* machine gun.
There is a reason historically tanks have not been fitted with short range rapid firing turrets. This is because they cannot penetrate the armours of the vehicles they are targeting unless they have significant force, power, etc behind them.
Even accounting that the projectile being fired is a small amount of plasma we are talking super dense materials, specialised armour designs,technologies which harden the armour and shielding, graphine based technologies in incredibly advanced manners etc.
There is quite literally no justification in using a smaller calibre rapid firing turret when a larger calibre comparatively slower firing weapons achieves a better result. Now I'm not saying that all turrets are going to be exactly the same, that would be pointless, however the core functionality of a tank turret is power, accuracy, and rate of fire.
You can achieve all three of these via the conventional tank turret with an Auto Loader producing a cannon with 15-17 RPM.
There is a specific reason these are mounted on top of heavily armoured main battle tanks and not in their place 25mm Auto-cannons.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
|
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15294
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:38:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:47:00 -
[1352] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15294
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:53:00 -
[1353] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable?
The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid.
That fit.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Golden Day
Y.A.M.A.H
883
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:54:00 -
[1354] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit.
The fits that were used commonly in 1.8???
HAHAHAHA
Im not crazy......
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 03:56:00 -
[1355] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
There is a reason historically tanks have not been fitted with short range rapid firing turrets. This is because they cannot penetrate the armours of the vehicles they are targeting unless they have significant force, power, etc behind them.
Even accounting that the projectile being fired is a small amount of plasma we are talking super dense materials, specialised armour designs,technologies which harden the armour and shielding, graphine based technologies in incredibly advanced manners etc.
There is quite literally no justification in using a smaller calibre rapid firing turret when a larger calibre comparatively slower firing weapons achieves a better result. Now I'm not saying that all turrets are going to be exactly the same, that would be pointless, however the core functionality of a tank turret is power, accuracy, and rate of fire.
You can achieve all three of these via the conventional tank turret with an Auto Loader producing a cannon with 15-17 RPM.
There is a specific reason these are mounted on top of heavily armoured main battle tanks and not in their place 25mm Auto-cannons.
I'm just going to start here, the rest I already covered
You say penetrate, when the balls of plasma can in fact penetrate. hell, a ******* Plasma Rifle could (if the shields kept down) pen a armor of a HAV. This is a known fact. You say "We have advanced armor!" That is bullshit, as I said, Plasma Rifles. Then you say "But historically" I can stop you right there. Real life, a story made up tens of thousands of years in the future, and where defensive systems work VASTLY different than our own, yet you try to actually say that that is a valid reason why a sub par turret that seeing as you're an Amarr RPer I assume would hardly even use, it seems to me that either you don't know what the **** you're even talking about, or that you're doing this to make Gallente purposefully worse.
Also, nowhere have I said that keeping machine gun type blasters is good. Stop misrepresenting me.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16722
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 04:02:00 -
[1356] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit.
Fit 1
Gunnlogi
2x Hardeners
1x Complex Extender
1x PG Extender
1x 120mm Advance Plates
Prototype Turret
Fit 2
Gunnlogi
2x Complex Extenders
1x Hardeners
1x PG Extender
1x 120mm Advanced Plates
Prototype Turret
*"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
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 04:08:00 -
[1357] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit.
You mean for current? If so, what True said.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
164
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 04:19:00 -
[1358] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit.
The ones that True linked are the Meta Fits (minor alterations exist depending on the specific user and weather or not they want small guns)...I'd hardly call them unbeatable, but they are the current meta
all other slots are pilot preference (although armor plate and pg upgrade are the preference for solo users)
Either:
Gunnlogi
Proto Large Gun
2x Extenders
1x Hardener
or
Gunnlogi
Proto Large Gun
2x Hardener
1x Extender
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15299
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 04:19:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. You mean for current? If so, what True said.
all right and Maddies?
and there is no single best Turret ?
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:07:00 -
[1360] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. You mean for current? If so, what True said. all right and Maddies? and there is no single best Turret ?
Large turrets
VS Armor tanks, missiles is the best turret, then rails and blasters last
VS shield tanks, Rails, blasters, then missiles
VS Dropships Rail, missiles, blaster
VS infantry, blasters, rails a close second (ohk) ad missiles third
So it depends on your test, but most competent tankers will have fis with all three turret variants and will bring the right one for the right job.
"OP "Madurgar:
Ion turret
Fuel injector
(leave second slot open to acount for low fitting space
Plate
Repper
(add in module of choice here, probably either a second plate or a hardener)
Maddies, well, the only thing going for them is the Ion Turret. Other than that meta wise they are far too flexible (if they dare get on the field) to come up with one OP fit. My own madrugar fit isn't popular. Also, i'll leave the "op" python fits to the python pilots.
As an incubus pilot, this is the fit i run the most, and have fought the most.
1 complex Afterbuner
Proto turret: (Rail or missile, this depends on situation though it doesn't change survivability. hunting tanks means i'm flying just as low as i need to to hunt infantry, and are thus succeptable to infantry AV as well )
1 complex PG
1 complex 120 mm plate
1 complex light repper
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15300
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:15:00 -
[1361] - Quote
I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
785
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:27:00 -
[1362] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
To be honest good fits should not require any CPU/PG mods regardless if its armor or shield. Sadly its impossible to make good fits without them with the current skills and stats.
Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:39:00 -
[1363] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
? In regads to the redline gunnys, not asking for a nerf, just pointing out a very dangerous fit most don't consider. 4.4 K armor and 3.6 K shield + rail turret + damage mods, very leathal tank.
just some side commentary, For vehicles the fitting philosphy is all about balancing survivability and costs, and whats the most powerfull turret you can fit with your prefered level of security. Cant really glass cannon it the way you would say an assault Ak/1 with two damage mods and a viziam, becuase the pro large turrets alone cost more than 250,000 isk. Thats why the meta has switched to shield tanks, they have the most survivability.
In terms of having one good module, it is a bit restrictive.
Maybe having multiple good modules but you can only keeping one active at a time. Two damage mods, sure, but instead of getting +40% damage output, your stuck at +20 consistently.
Personaly, i would cap hardeners at two, and restrict damage mods to only having one active at a time.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
DeathwindRising
ROGUE RELICS
VP Gaming Alliance
810
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 05:42:00 -
[1364] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
It just changes things around. A month or two and we will have new fits. The big issue for me is that maddys always come out to stomp infantry. But the guy that comes to kill the maddy doesn't use a maddy. He uses a gunnlogi with missiles and dual hardeners. When the maddy dies he comes back with a gunnlogi rail fit. The first gunnlogi goes back to the redline and swaps out for a gunnlogi rail fit.
Any other tank that gets called in at this point will be the same thing because the rail lets you engage other tanks without having to get into range of av infantry, and also because blasters and missiles suck at long range against shield tanks. There is no other option for large multi tank battles.
Both tanks have crap fitting space and should be addressed |
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15302
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 06:05:00 -
[1365] - Quote
The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 06:26:00 -
[1366] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike.
Reagarding tanks fights, dont worry, most of this already is current meta. Gunlogis are very bad a turret tracking close range, and even missile tanks need to get that first shot in before the armor tanks can react. Nitrous booster will make a blaster tank dance around a rail gunlogi. Its armor tanks exended survivabliity vs missiles and infantry AV thats led to the current meta.
regarding enforcers,
I think in some proposals, they compensate the enforcer for a little less HP but a small bonus to damage outpput and speed. get in fast hit hard and then attempt to drive away, but if the enemy tank sees you first your a goner.
Regarding dropships vs tanks:
high speed and manuverable enough, just need a tweak to damage output. Tank small turrets should be angle high enough to counter ADS to compensate.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1943
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 06:43:00 -
[1367] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
Vehicles fit more like sentinels than assaults - all the stats are on the 'suit', your only choices are like 2 modules and a weapon.
They used to fit more like assaults than sentinels where you had huge numbers of slots but needed to skill into the modules to really 'make' a fit.
There is almost no one I'm aware of that likes the current 'sentinel' style fitting model, as it devalues investment when the majority of stats are on the hull.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Evan Gotabor
Prima Gallicus
132
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 07:40:00 -
[1368] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
It took you more than ONE year to figure it out ??? Damn... (I know, sarcasm don't help, but...)
As for the fits you require, there are PC fits like this :
The fits I take come from zkillboard, the 2 kill reports for each tanks are very good fits (or I consider so).
Gunnlogi
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43922035/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43703009/
Their aim is mainly to destroy dropships and tanks.
Madrugar
https://zkillboard.com/kill/42906665/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/42852149/
The aim of thoses is more anti-infantry, but can also serve as AV support.
As for dropships, there are some variations, but main fit is : Python.
I personaly prefer the shield booster to the hardener, but outside that, this is the typical python fit for more than 80% of the community.
For the Incubus, fits are a bit more different as people play it with missiles or with rails (so depending on your gameplay and turret, you will play it more for tank or for agility).
There are not enough kills in the killboard to give you any indication. However I share with you my favorite fitting.
Prima Gallicus diplomat
Eve 21 day Trial
|
Skybladev2
LUX AETERNA INT
RUST415
168
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 07:41:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Tank small turrets should be angle high enough to counter ADS to compensate.
And large rail turrets should be angle little enough.
<[^_^]>
|
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
Capital Punishment.
3156
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 10:29:00 -
[1370] - Quote
True Adamance gave the Gunnlogi's fits that are pretty much "use these as they are simply better." There are also Glass Cannon fits but they are far, far less common than the more standard Double Extender-Hardener or Double Hardener-Extender with Double Extender being more common among them. This is more the result of Shield Boosters needing a ridiculous amount of PG and overall not being super useful.
Madrugars are what I am far more comfortable with as I have used them until somewhat recently. There are a few Madrugar fits but they all share two things:
1. Every single one has a fuel injector. This is the biggest advantage to being a Madrugar; you can fit a fuel injector without sacrificing your precious defense.
2. Every single one uses at least one Armor Repairer.
Again, because of the fitting difficulties, the Madrugar really only has templates. You can't throw in all Complex as easily so if you are using a Prototype Blaster, you are pretty bound to using mostly Advanced. Here are the templates:
"The Original": Plate, Hardener, Repairer. This gives quite a high amount of burst protection. Ion Blaster and Basic Fuel Injector likely means Complex Hardener and Advanced Plate-Repairer. Putting in a Railgun lowers CPU so the Hardener is lowered while the Plate which uses less CPU is increased.
"The Immortal": Double Repairer, Hardener. A single Complex Plate gives more EHP than a Hardener without Plates but the Effective Healing on this one makes it more suited for taking light AV damage. This is especially good against Blasters. Complex + Advanced Repairer with max skills is 237.5 repair a second. Turn the hardener on and it is 316.66 EHP a second.
"The Immortal v2": Double Repairer, Plate. See above for how a single Plate is worth more EHP than a Hardener. It gives up the Hardener's "circumstantial bonus" for the Plate's "permanent bonus."
That is really about it. Most of the fitting comes from trying to optimize DPS loss to Defense gain. Using a Basic Turret with better Defensive modules is better against Infantry attacks but is usually worse against other tanks aside if it is a Missile Tank that is suddenly unable to one shot you or if it is an inexperienced tanker using a Railgun and you can trick them into overheating on your "much tougher than it looks" body.
Really, Tanks have been ultra limited from the get-go. Despite what people will like to say about all the options in Chromosome or pre-1.7 there has only ever been one go to fit simply because it was vastly superior.
Chromosome: Blaster Madrugar, Triple Staggered Prototype Hardeners, Complex Repairer, Complex Plate, basic Heat Sink. That tank was simply the best. There was no comparison in it. It was more difficult to use, staggering the hardeners to keep 2 up at all times and 3 up a lot of the time, but it gave the best results of any other tank. You could swap Blaster for Rail obviously.
Uprising Pre-1.7: Madrugar, Double Staggered Hardener, Complex Repairer, Complex Plate, basic Heat sink, 1 complex PG extender. I tried ALL the other fits when PG was nerfed, even going to Gunnlogi's. Still, the old fit with 1 less Staggered Hardener was superior to the rest.
At least in 1.7 there were multiple different Madrugars: Triple Repairer, Double Hardener-Repairer, Plate-Hardener-Repairer, Double Repairer-Hardener.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6643
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 11:18:00 -
[1371] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike.
So are my numbers barking completely up the wrong tree?
If so I can find other things to do.
If they're potentially viable for your purposes I'll finish.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
LudiKure ninda
Dead Man's Game
RUST415
186
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 11:24:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Im just gonna leave this link here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KNSdD8PYgY
( -í° -£-û -í°)
SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6643
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 11:34:00 -
[1373] - Quote
I remember fights like this.
That damn Surya. The Sagaris was evil the Surya was ridiculous.
those red dots. not a single solid AV gunner among the lot of them. with that many swarms, one Wyrkomi or IAFG would have turned that Surya into slag with the supporting fire.
Solo? not as much.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
570
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 13:54:00 -
[1374] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
1. Gunlogi - 2x Complex Hardeners, 1x Complex Extender - 1x PG Extender, Armor Plate of choice or Complex Ammo Expansion Unit with Complex CPU Upgrade this is if you want small turrets on - Prototype Turret of any choice
2. Gunlogi - 2x Complex Extenders, 1x Complex Hardeners - 1x PG Extender, Armor Plate of choice or Complex Ammo Expansion Unit or Complex CPU Upgrade this is if you want Small turrets on - Prototype Turret of any choice
3. PC Gunlogi - 2x Complex Hardeners, 1x Complex Damage Module - 1x 120 Complex Armor Plate, 1x Complex CPU Upgrade - Prototype Railgun Turret (can go glass with all damage modules or 2 and 1 hardener)
4. Madrugar - Really any fits are quite terrible mainly because you end up leaving 1 or both high sloys empty but here goes - 2x Complex Light Repairers, 1x Armor Plate of choice - 1x Nitro or Scanner if for AI fit - Blaster turret of choice (If you need CPU you can drop the scanner or drop the blatser turret/armor plate to a lower tier)
5. Python - Prototype XT-1 Missile Launcher - 1X Complex PG Upgrade - 1x Afterburner, 1x Enhanced Heavy Shield Extender with either another Light Extender or a Shield Hardener or Shield Booster if it can be fit depends on tiers
6. Incubus - Prototype Railgun - 1x Afterburner - 2x Complex Light Armor Repairers, 1x 120 Basic Armor Plate
7. Myron - 4x Enhanced Shield Hardeners - 1x Complex CPU Upgrade, 1x Complex PG Extender
8. Grimsnes - 4x Complex Light Armor Repairers - 1x Afterburner
9 Grimsnes - 3x Complex Light Armor Repairers, 1x Basic Light Armor Repairer - 1x Afterburner, 1x Basic MCRU - 1x Small Missile
10. Grimsnes - 2x Complex Light Armor Repairers, 1x Complex 120 Armor Plate, 1x Complex PG Extender - 1x Afterburner (free slot or put a turret on)
11. These can be debatable but i do not see many normal DS about apart from reaching a roof and the PC vehicles are mainly the python/incubus and the PC gunlogi |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
570
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 14:01:00 -
[1375] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
1. PG/CPU modules are a must for quite a few fits - If you intend for the hulls to be tiercided then we need the ability to fit on all proto like i can do on quite a few suits or at least adv and proto - If it is not going by tiercide then we need adv/proto hulls but currently try fitting all proto on the madrugar and both high slots are empty
2. ADV hull? We have Basic HAVs only the ADS you could call ADV at best but even then the Python struggles to fit without a PG module
3. Not a fan really - Take the Saga II which has a shield hardener but a short activation time and long cooldown time which makes it worthless
4. Stacking penalties are more than enough - In EVE only certain modules i cannot stack such as propulsion modules but you only use 1 at a time anyways and plus you do have the option of rigs and implants to further customize your ship where as we have modules and if we are lucky some skills and skill bonuses and that is all |
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
570
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 14:06:00 -
[1376] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike.
1. Currently we seem to have that now
2. The madrugar can circle a gunlogi at the current speeds without a nitro which just improves straight line speed and does hinder turning since you end up going wider on the turn than usual so keeping it tight is harder
2a. The Gunlogi has a very poor gun depression so with the madrugar is also has terrain as its advanatage since it can engage on a hill or even in little dips where the gunlogi cannot look down
3. The gunlogi is best when it engages from range and where it can land the most without any misses and it has to pick and choose more carefully to begin with since it can look down that far and missiles do have travel time and can miss |
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15322
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 14:25:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike. So are my numbers barking completely up the wrong tree? If so I can find other things to do. If they're potentially viable for your purposes I'll finish.
Absolutely not, please continue
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
CELTIC TARON
Murphys-Law
General Tso's Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 14:49:00 -
[1378] - Quote
*Warning this may turn out to be fairly lengthy*
Ok so I had to log in for this however rare that might be. Speaking as a person who has 30 million SP in tanking and ADS, (and about 50 million as infantry on my other character so yes I am experienced with all forms of AV as well)
Also note I speak from the prospective of someone who has hundreds of PC's under their belt...I do not mention all this to toat my own horn only to note that I am far from an inexperienced player when I mention below.
As stated before True gave a good build for the logi and the other varent would be two extenders and one harder with pg and armor plate.
As for maddy well lets just say due to lack of module diversity and the difficulty of fitting requirements due to the PG and CPU currently. One of the issues with the maddy currently is since the nerf to reps it is more beneficial to run complex light reps on most builds rather than heavy reps because of the huge difference in PG and CPU not to mention the very moderate difference now since the nerf between the light and heavy reppers.
I won't get into builds as many good fits have already been mentioned however I will touch on one other big topic, and that is on turrets. Current Problems that should be addressed is:
Rail--In good place currently although turret rotation speed per point should be reviewed
Missile--In good place although missile reload speed per point AND turret rotation speed per point should be reviewed.
Blaster-- SEE BELOW
Oh where to start on blaster turrets. Quite frankly now that I look back it all boils down to the dispersion being way too high. A bunny hopping little scout you have next to no chance of killing even with an ion blaster *assuming the scout is not like some and just stands around in a single spot lol ). Lets also touch on forge guns...A blaster gets hit by a fg from the ground it's time to run cause even if you are close you won't kill an even average level fg if it's proto before you lose your tank.
Currently the dispersion is the killer that makes blasters not really worth using any longer in competitive play. It has boiled down to more RNG and Luck of the bullet spread than skill which is not how it should be. I will admit the old blasters was OP
MY PROPOSAL ON BLASTER TURRETS:
Have a skill within the tree that reduces dispersion of the bullet spread. Although I would also note that it should not be reduced down to the point it used to be but somewhere in between which obviously would take some devs testing time to figure out a better middle ground. Or even a module that say takes the spot of a small turret that reduces dispersion although that would be more difficult to implement as a programmer myself, I do understand how it works to a degree (since I don't work there obviously lol)
I won't touch on the issues with AV other than to say swarms need reviewed don't get me wrong I love my swarms but any Cal or Min commando with swarms will single handedly shut down pretty much all tanks and drop ships. So if you have 3 tanks/dropships and that 1 person can shut them down *yes inf may kill them then they re spawn and destroy a few more tanks/dropships* that there would not be in line with what CCP has intended based on their prior posts.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
In the end when it comes to tanks it's a shear lack of variety since all our modules was taken away from us. Striking balance between everything is always going to be an issue to some degree or another. That being said though the biggest issue right now is even with the much cheaper costs of tanks/ dropships than what it used to be even if you don't lose said vehicle you end up spending the majority of your time running from av.
*****The big factor that I personally believed that changed is when points was implemented for partially doing damage to tanks and dropships. This one simple change (although I understand why and do like it don't get me wrong as much as I hate it) makes a bunch switch to AV the second a tank or dropship comes out. Why you ask? See senerio below:
EXAMPLE:
Triple rep maddy although glass against another tank can help fend off swarm attacks pretty easy from a single person. So the example is a person switches to AV and hits you twice waits *reloads* and does it again and again and again. They have no intentions of killing you just keeping you useless while they farm a ton of points in the process. So you put your tank away well guarantee some blue will bring a new one out and the person will do the same even if it's on a soma.
The points for just doing damage is one of the problems currently as everyone wants those free points. That being said AV needs rewarded though for having aided in the destruction or making of a tank / dropship run away. For this I am afraid I have no suggestion at this time.
For the few who may read this line thank you for taking the time to read the long winded post of a person who normally reads but never posts in the forums lol. I will however reply to any post that addresses this post I am making here excluding trolls :p
PC Tanker AND PROUD! Especially When I Shove A Missile Up Your Arse!
Long Live Tanks :)
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6643
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 14:55:00 -
[1379] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike. So are my numbers barking completely up the wrong tree? If so I can find other things to do. If they're potentially viable for your purposes I'll finish. Absolutely not, please continue
Excellent.
All I care about is getting vehicles fun to drive and fun to fight again.
I need to go back and bang out militia mods as well as many other things. I thought this would be simple.
You may all point and laugh at my naivete.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Brush Master
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1401
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 17:33:00 -
[1380] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Prometheus
High Slots (2): Scanner, Booster
Low Slots (4): 2 Heavy Reps, PG expansion, Heavy Armor Plating
Turrets: 1 Adv/Proto Missile (previously would have been 2 as we could not remove turrets)
For defensive support dropship it would be something like this. You would go for high reps, a bit more armor and then support modules in high slots, based on how the cpu/pg would work out would determine how much armor/reps you go for. Ideally the armor logistics dropship should be able to have a bit more reps and higher base armor to survive 1 more railgun/fg blast than a standard of the same fit.
Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ?
True Logi. Flying DS from the start.
@dustreports
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 18:33:00 -
[1381] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
I don't know what you mean by undebatable fits, but we don't have "PRO" fits for tanks and dropships. We don't have PRO hulls, thus we can't have PRO fits. If you want a PRO turret, you need to sacrifice some defense for it. If you want the best defense you can fit, you have to sacrifice damage. Infantry doesn't have to do this since they get the best of both. I'm able to fit an assault Gk0 with a Balac's and Cala's with great defense, and I've even beat a sentinel with it in a PC.
Here's some of my fits:
For Madrugar:
Ion Cannon
basic NOS
complex damage mod
2x armor rep
CPU or PG upgrade, don't remember which
Particle Cannon
basic NOS
complex damage mod
2x armor rep
CPU upgrade
Particle Cannon
basic NOS
complex damage mod
armor rep
basic hardener
CPU or PG upgrade, don't remember which
Gunnlogi:
Particle Cannon
2x damage mods
1 hardener
1 armor plate
1 PG upgrade
Particle Cannon
1 shield extender
2x shield hardeners
1 armor plate
1 PG upgrade
XT-201 Missile
1 shield extender
2x shield hardeners
1 armor plate
1 PG upgrade
There really isn't anything else that's viable. All variety was lost when 1.7 deployed. We used to be able to passive tank both hulls, using passive hardeners for fewer modules to worry about, or we could go for a strong tank with all active modules.
I have a few more fits that I can't remember. I'll post exact fittings later.
Vehicles are in a sorry state right now. I'm surprised there are still some pilots left.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
918
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 18:45:00 -
[1382] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Grimsnes and Myron are not PC-capable, so take any posted fittings with a grain of salt.
In case you're wondering why:
Even if all fitting space is committed to defense both NDS still die to any reputable AV (a damage modded pro rail delivers 9k hp damage in 4.2 seconds from anywhere on the map). Even if you can survive three damage amped pro rail shots and have the AB to dodge the fourth you don't have the offense to kill an HAV.
All of this can potentially be solved through minor (!) CPU/PG bumps though. Fittings for DS are diverse and interesting due to the 4/2 and 2/4 layout.
In that context, allow me to link this thread.
Anyway, if it helps you:
Here's my favorite Grimsnes: Link
(7.2k ehp against rails + AB and a prototype turret of your choice)
And my favorite Myron: Link
(7.4k ehp against rails + AB and a prototype turret of your choice)
CCP Rattati wrote:Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options. Some differences:
- Never fit 60 mm plates or light shield extenders. On any vehicle. If you do this, you have a bad fitting.
- Never fit non complex hardeners. On any vehicle. If you do this, you have a bad fitting. |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
729
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 18:57:00 -
[1383] - Quote
@ Breaking
I occured to me that though we are dropping our fav fits for the current build we ought to go over beast mode fits from your spreadsheet.
The same goes for True, pokey, thaddeus and the like.
Anybod with proper chrome or Pre 1.8 tank fits for enforcers and maruaders ought to put up thier favorite ones as well.
Put it in your signature or something guys, I can't keep scrolling through near 70 pages of comments.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Lazer Fo Cused
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
582
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:16:00 -
[1384] - Quote
1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
2. Hulls added and upto date with stats including rigging stats and bonuses
3. Modules tweeked and new modules added with varients
4. Skill tree overhauled with a range of new skills
5. Turrets mainly unchanged for now except fragmented missiles
6. Pilot suit and bonuses added, pilot suit modules not done but tiered bonuses are 1/2/3/4% respectively
7. ECM added to an extent
8. Rigging added and stats to all vehicles with callibration numbers/slots for vehicles and rigs have all bonuses
9. No AV numbers - Chrome FG im fine with but i would say AV nades go to todays damage numbers and the SL also goes to todays damage numbers while retaning the 175m lock range |
shaman oga
Dead Man's Game
3741
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:33:00 -
[1385] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
It's both a hull and skill tree problem.
Hull stats are not very good and skill tree does not help us unless we invest a incredible amount of SP in a single turret, but even with that SP invested, it only helps fit that turret.
Situational awareness also known as passive scan.
Minmatar omni-merc
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6644
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:36:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:@ Breaking I occured to me that though we are dropping our fav fits for the current build we ought to go over beast mode fits from your spreadsheet. The same goes for True, pokey, thaddeus and the like. Anybod with proper chrome or Pre 1.8 tank fits for enforcers and maruaders ought to put up thier favorite ones as well. Put it in your signature or something guys, I can't keep scrolling through near 70 pages of comments.
Link's too long, I need a bigger character limit for my sig.
Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6644
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:08:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Rattati at least should appreciate the names I put on the minmatar dropships, if he makes the connection to what they are.
VHCL
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16724
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:12:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Never drove in Chrome. I spend all my time in armour tanked Assault Suits learning to be Amarr before Uprising.
The only Enforcer Build that I was planning to skill into was one another player built before a couple of tankers talked down the Enforcers so hard I didn't end up skilling into it.
Active Heat Sink II
F45 Damage Contro0l
Vehicle Scanner I
120mm Armour Plate
1x Carapace Armour Hardener
1x Voltaic Armour Hardener
2x Heavy IGL Polarized Armour Repairer / Large Inefficient Heavy Armour Repairer
Scattered Ion Cannon
Shields- 1000
Armour- 6016
*"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
6644
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:58:00 -
[1389] - Quote
Update: Changed Nanofiber plates to polycrystalline plates, renamed the third tier of plates Rolled Tungsten.
Re-adding nanofiber plates as the ferroscale analogs as soon as my brain is up to kit-bashing them.
Unless anyone can think of a reason not to I'm going to use the percentage differences between dropsuit plates and dropsuit ferroscales.
Nanofiber plate movement penalty intended to be 50% of standard plates.
Will hammer the numbers when I get home from work tomorrow morning.
VHCL
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7936
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:04:00 -
[1390] - Quote
I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since).
Just my amateur feedback:
Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi.
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16725
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:05:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Update: Changed Nanofiber plates to polycrystalline plates, renamed the third tier of plates Rolled Tungsten.
Re-adding nanofiber plates as the ferroscale analogs as soon as my brain is up to kit-bashing them.
Unless anyone can think of a reason not to I'm going to use the percentage differences between dropsuit plates and dropsuit ferroscales.
Nanofiber plate movement penalty intended to be 50% of standard plates.
Will hammer the numbers when I get home from work tomorrow morning.
Super Dense Rolled Tungsten Armour (SDRTA) the new RHA vs Armour Piercing Super Dense Iridium Discarding Sabots (APSDIDS)....... me likey.
*"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
6644
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:12:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since).
Just my amateur feedback:
Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi.
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
First point: I occasionally drive a maddy. on the RARE occasion I get a rail Gunnlogi dead to rights I watch his turret, it's traversal is slower than my HAV, so if it stops moving I stop at a 180 degree angle from it. So long as that barrel is pointed elsewhere I'm safe, and it's massively obvious where he's pointing it.
Second point: Turn speed gimmicks are only effective if the Rails continue to have a higher DPS value than blasters. This is something that's needed correcting since beta.
Third point: Because the armor tanks have the short range weapons. They have to be able to get within optimal while eating the punishment delivered getting there.
And I tend to agree to a point about shield tanks, long range yadda yadda yadda.
The answer isn't to make them more vulnerable to swarms and forge gunners. The answer is to take rattati up on his stated intent to make anti shield AV weapons using existing art assets. That way weapons can be balanced so rails and projectiles actually do perform poorly versus shields, and lasers and plasma perform similarly poorly versus armor. This means that whenever we introduce heavy AV weapons for projectiles, plasma and lasers, I am of the opinion that the turrets for the lasers, and cannons, both small and large, should be introduced together.
VHCL
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16725
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:17:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since).
Just my amateur feedback:
Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi.
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
The underlined is already done. With comparatively slow tracking Railguns and Missile you can effectually increase your turret tracking by turning as well ensuring your opponents never gets to your rear armour.
The bolded is rather true. In Dust we're basically cannibalising what likely comes right out of EVE and trying to apply that to Dust. However when it comes to tanks (and I don't mean to draw from history again) the weight of the tank likely determines the kind of engine and drive system it has. An M4 Sherman would move at top speed between 40-48 kmph while a 20 tonne heavier tiger could also move in open country at 45 kmph.
*"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
6645
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:29:00 -
[1394] - Quote
I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
2: Some dispersion reduction to Blasters. Not because of Infantry per se, that's only part of it, but because they're going to need to be able to consistently slam shots accurately into vehicle sized targets all the way out to their optimal cutoff.
3: Increased splash radius to missiles. If he goes with my numbers you aren't going to be able to machinegun the damn things anymore, so they'll need something to make them viable. they will also need to have the actual projectile accelerated so they can HIT targets outside blaster optimal.
I say this as an AV gunner:
HAVs, while they should not be lazily farming Infantry kills, SHOULD retain the capacity to both fight back against hostile infantry AV, and provide meaningful fire support to suppress enemies in support of an Infantry push.
Simply making HAVs anti-vehicle is a rather shallow role with only so much battlefield utility. We need to broaden the perspective or the role will stagnate again.
VHCL
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16726
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:33:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool!
*"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
6645
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:35:00 -
[1396] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool!
I also updated that post with additional info adamance, re-read.
VHCL
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:39:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
If you read the Advanced Hybrid Rail Charges you'll see that only one of them is actually a Sabot, the other is a cannister round that fires pellets. I just use Sabot's because I like running off the APFSDS acronym. Sounds amazingly cool! I also updated that post with additional info adamance, re-read.
That's cool. Either way I'll likely be waiting to see what Rattati does with plans to semi permanently move on to other games. Again I keep saying to people and I don't understand why they don't grasp the concept.... you can still have single shot main battle turrets and massacre infantry..... it just requires you aim a little bit more.
*"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
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:43:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. The ones that True linked are the Meta Fits (minor alterations exist depending on the specific user and weather or not they want small guns)...I'd hardly call them unbeatable, but they are the current meta all other slots are pilot preference (although armor plate and pg upgrade are the preference for solo users) Either: Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Extenders 1x Hardener or Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Hardener 1x Extender
I'd also like to that that usually a rail is added to that fit
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6645
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:44:00 -
[1399] - Quote
things with splash should never have been rapid fire. That's pretty much the long and short of it. the faster it shoots, the less it should be exploding and doing collateral damage at point of impact.
Removing splash wasn't the answer, slowing down the rate of fire a bit was.
VHCL
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:44:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Hi everyone,
can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by undebateable? The true meta, not some opinionated ideas that result in arguing. FOTM, PC fit, whatever you call it. The fit noone calls stupid. That fit. The ones that True linked are the Meta Fits (minor alterations exist depending on the specific user and weather or not they want small guns)...I'd hardly call them unbeatable, but they are the current meta all other slots are pilot preference (although armor plate and pg upgrade are the preference for solo users) Either: Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Extenders 1x Hardener or Gunnlogi Proto Large Gun 2x Hardener 1x Extender I'd also like to that that usually a rail is added to that fit
Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank".
All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played.
*"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
6645
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:47:00 -
[1401] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank".
All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played.
rather like with dropsuits, bricktanks are often the meta.
VHCL
|
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
1321
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:50:00 -
[1402] - Quote
I was a fan of the hybrid tanked Vayu with 7K shields, and a little "teamwork" if you know what I mean
This, however, was only tested in the early bits of Uprising and not Chrome.
Dual tanking is for bad players.
21 day EVE trial.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 21:50:00 -
[1403] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
I'm pretty sure people get that.
As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16727
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:01:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
I'm pretty sure people get that. As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point.
They had 15 second cool downs didn't they.....? I wouldn't call that long ass.....
*"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
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:05:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
1: They can, but they're not as fast, so they'll be using a gimped ass fit compared to the Gallente hull.
2: Gallente =/= Amarr. They don't sit still, they rush and pound. Sitting still is silly in those cases.
3: Both of the above things existed in Uprising up to 1.6, and I didn't have a issue pounding Cal vehicles.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:10:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm thinking if Rattati uses anything resembling my DPS values we're going to need to SEVERELY consider the following due to the damage slowdowns I am proposing:
1: Some splash returned to rails, representing a hybrid charge with a warhead load rather than a straight tungsten sabot. Most of what I'm doing is slowing the rate of fire. We might want to give thought to severely reducing or removing the heat penalty from rails if we go this route of slow fire alpha. No point penalizing HAV drivers for having at baseline slightly more DPS than a forge gun (Your skills will still take your numbers much higher though, the alpha on the proto, unmodded has the potential to hit 2,187 Alpha before any damage mods are accounted for. upwards around 838 DPS if double-modded. Enforcers are going to hit harder than breach forges easily).
2: Some dispersion reduction to Blasters. Not because of Infantry per se, that's only part of it, but because they're going to need to be able to consistently slam shots accurately into vehicle sized targets all the way out to their optimal cutoff.
3: Increased splash radius to missiles. If he goes with my numbers you aren't going to be able to machinegun the damn things anymore, so they'll need something to make them viable. they will also need to have the actual projectile accelerated so they can HIT targets outside blaster optimal.
I say this as an AV gunner:
HAVs, while they should not be lazily farming Infantry kills, SHOULD retain the capacity to both fight back against hostile infantry AV, and provide meaningful fire support to suppress enemies in support of an Infantry push.
Simply making HAVs anti-vehicle is a rather shallow role with only so much battlefield utility. We need to broaden the perspective or the role will stagnate again.
1: iirc heat was to balance for high amount of ammo they could fire out. since ammo is a thing now, I would agree that heat should be taken away.
2: Well, if we can't do shotty blasters (that would be a primary thing to do imo) fixing the ones we have now would be cool. I'd say reduce the dispersion, slow the ROF, make it hit harder, and add a little splash radius to each shot. As for "hitting to the optimal) That is a non issue even now, as regardless of ranges of the blaster, even before, optimals was at at best 40m, and that's while not even moving.
3: This would need to go with, as I said before, a reduction in damage. I'm not sure why they buffed both or nerfed both at the same time in the first place.............
Also, yes, they need more range. Rockets are silly being THIS short of a range, when even in EVE they have moer range (or anything similar to the rocket archetype, like assault missiles).
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:22:00 -
[1407] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Are not the commonly accepted "highly competitive" anti tank fits fully plated up Gunnlogi with multiple damage modules? Or is this the commonly accepted "best tank".
All I know is that these are the commonly accepted Pub Tank fits I've come across while driving in the last few sessions I've [played.
It's pretty much the same in PC as far as I've been told.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:23:00 -
[1408] - Quote
THUNDERGROOVE wrote:I was a fan of the hybrid tanked Vayu with 7K shields, and a little "teamwork" if you know what I mean This, however, was only tested in the early bits of Uprising and not Chrome.
Enforcers didn't exist in Chrome
that Vayu would get broke in half by a Maddy HAV 1v1, or seeing as you said support, 3v3.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:24:00 -
[1409] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.
When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.
Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.
Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?
I'm pretty sure people get that. As for your second part, stacking used to be fine (as in, 1.6 and back). About the only problem was active reps doing slightly too much to the point of not raising your TTK, it made you against certain things a brick that couldn't be killed (blasters had this problem), and nerfing them slightly would solve that. HArdeners weren't OP, as they had a long ass cooldown, so popping a lot of them owuld mean a long ass downtime due to very low tank, and having only one wouldn't give you much of a added tank difference (this was especially bad on Squid HAV's due to their very low active times). Plates and extenders were a non issue for stacking, especially plates and the speed reduction that came with them. etc. etc, you get my point. They had 15 second cool downs didn't they.....? I wouldn't call that long ass.....
lolwut?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6645
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:29:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:
lolwut?
60 seconds of uptime followed by 15 seconds cooldown.
the cooldown was never huge. The primary reason a lot of that stuff was nerfed was...
The Surya. Even with hardeners up the Sagaris could be splashed out of existence, it was just an unrighteous pain in the ass doing it. But combined with the Surya's EHP and short cooldown reps and things could get a little out of hand.
VHCL
|
|
|
Brush Master
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1401
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:30:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Stefan Stahl wrote:
...
Some differences:
- Never fit 60 mm plates or light shield extenders. On any vehicle. If you do this, you have a bad fitting.
- Never fit non complex hardeners. On any vehicle. If you do this, you have a bad fitting.
I agree with light plating/shielding being next to useless with the current AV numbers, in most cast it does't even enable you to last any longer.
Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ?
True Logi. Flying DS from the start.
@dustreports
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:33:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
lolwut?
60 seconds of uptime followed by 15 seconds cooldown. the cooldown was never huge. The primary reason a lot of that stuff was nerfed was... The Surya. Even with hardeners up the Sagaris could be splashed out of existence, it was just an unrighteous pain in the ass doing it. But combined with the Surya's EHP and short cooldown reps and things could get a little out of hand.
This chart that I found must be wrong then, or got numbers mixed up or something. It's saying 35 second cooldown
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2710
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 22:57:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Just a suguestion for you my Lord Master Splinter, although having nothing to do with HAV's, but LAV's (to be honest, we need to cover all vehicles, not just HAV's): Play The Crew, and use raid spec vehicles. THAT is a good model of how a LAV should handle imo.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Pseudogenesis
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1352
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 23:24:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:You may all point and laugh at my naivete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctr9ZfeyvXg
Stabby-stabber extraordinaire Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ
I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
|
killian178
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
80
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 01:43:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I haven't dabbled in HAVs much (used to in closed beta when we had the Surya and what not but not since).
Just my amateur feedback:
Assuming that we're sticking with the whole 'Armor Blaster circles the Gunnlogi' bit, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from just chilling in one spot? I think I mentioned it before but if the Gunnlogi only has to worry about what he's aiming at, and the Maddie has to worry about what he's aiming at -AND- where he's driving, it seems a little skewed in favor toward the Gunnlogi.
Just as well, what is to stop a Gunnlogi from abusing the turn speed gimmicks? You can always just turn the vehicle itself to increase tracking speed. The Gunnlogi would have to have -really- slow turn/tracking speed if we're expecting him to not be able to fight back against a faster armor tank.
Another concern I have is why we're trying to make the Armor tank the one that focuses on manueverability when armor is naturally supposed to be slower, and further weighed down by plates makes this even worse?
I like the concept provided but I'm just concerned that it'll be too hard for armor tanks to engage in Anti-Tank gameplay as opposed to just being infantry killers. If that's what their design is, then I have no problem with it, but if that's the case Infantry needs to be able to have an easier time taking out Gunnlogis since most Infantry AV weaponry is geared toward armor. We need a healthy rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
He was talking about the enforcer class tank in general, not the maddie, right?
Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15371
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 03:23:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Rattati at least should appreciate the names I put on the minmatar dropships, if he makes the connection to what they are.
I do and they are awesome
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
16745
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 03:45:00 -
[1417] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Rattati at least should appreciate the names I put on the minmatar dropships, if he makes the connection to what they are. I do and they are awesome
I'm trying to find out some similar stuff for the Amarr but my original searches using breaking Judaic angels theme led me into Assyrian and Babylonian creationism myths.
Anshar/Anshur - was the name for a tank I came up with. It's means literally "sky pivot" but is composed of the words An- Heaven and Shar/Shur- Horizon or End
Kishar/Kishur is the opposite and means Earth Pivot composed of Earth and Horizon or End. In Amarr it could mean something similar such as Earth Horizon, "temporal end", gate to heaven.
Etc
I find the Amarr hard to name for since their cultural basis isn't immediately obvious.
Karkadan and Kargadan, or KhaRga represents a mythological carnivorous creatures that was like the apotheosis to the unicorn, and often depicted as a Rhinoceros.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
730
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 05:01:00 -
[1418] - Quote
[quote=True Adamance]
Karkadan and Kargadan, or KhaRga represents a mythological carnivorous creatures that was like the apotheosis to the unicorn, and often depicted as a Rhinoceros.
/quote]
My Amarr tank karkadan Kardashian and my Amarr dropship, kargadan Cardigan....
Has a ring to it. I might rename my Incubus to Kardashian. Big rear, depends more on looks than actual talent.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P
C C P Alliance
15375
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 05:02:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Everyone, this has been pain and pleasure.
Let me manage expectations a little bit.
I will now post a Turret thread where we can discuss exact finetuning of existing Turrets. I have been reviewing the numbers and there are a few questions we need to answer, define purpose exactly and then lock them down.
I will also post my preferred progression of vehicle hulls in another thread, and my preferred modules to bring back, in line with the design intent.
I am locking this thread now, but I have all the spreadsheets and you can contact me directly at [email protected]
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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] |