DUST Search - Vehicle reintroductions, is it dead?

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicle reintroductions, is it dead?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1241	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:17:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Can you at least acknowledge that there's been some quality feedback that's not part of that train wreck of a thread? Some of us vehicle pilots have given some actual feedback outside of the BBHI thread...this is just, "vehicle users didn't contribute," all over again... Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Rowdy Railgunner Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 511	Posted - 2015.01.10 06:54:00 - [32] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Can you at least acknowledge that there's been some quality feedback that's not part of that train wreck of a thread? Some of us vehicle pilots have given some actual feedback outside of the BBHI thread...this is just, "vehicle users didn't contribute," all over again... And why should we contribute? Last time people contributed CCP did the exact opposite to what people wanted to happen. Then they lost 60% of their player base and even now they are still feeling the effects of that day. I know that my Colonel ass isn't putting any more money into this game. Neither are any of my Captain and Lieutenant alts.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10701	Posted - 2015.01.10 07:20:00 - [33] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. So no Dust update for the Proteus release? Proteus? New Eve patch coming on Tuesday. Ah I'm not an EVE pilot, so I wouldn't know. https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy If you ever decide to want to try out Eve Online, you can click on this link and accept my open invite. You'll get a 21-Day trial instead of the normal 14-Day trial. You'll find some Dust players in there as well especially if you join a Faction Warfare corp in Eve where you can provide Orbital Bombardments in FW and get LP for blapping mercs with a destroyer. If you ever need some resources to help you out... https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rookie-resources/ On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1241	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:01:00 - [34] - Quote Rowdy Railgunner wrote: And why should we contribute? Last time people contributed CCP did the exact opposite to what people wanted to happen. Then they lost 60% of their player base and even now they are still feeling the effects of that day. I know that my Colonel ass isn't putting any more money into this game. Neither are any of my Captain and Lieutenant alts. Maybe you misunderstood my post: some vehicle pilots, myself included, have given the feedback that Rattati has asked for (in my case, I was looking at small missile variants) as well as others who have given more comprehensive feedback (Pokey Dravon, Tesfa and Vulpes come to mind) yet seem to get lumped in with the vocal minority of people spouting rubbish in the one thread. There are vehicle pilots giving good feedback, I just want those people to get recognition such that when Rattati eventually decided to just pull vehicles entirely he can't point fingers at pilots et al. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1864	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:52:00 - [35] - Quote For the most part, I like some of the stuff that pokey has been providing (I also like true's redesign of the blaster turret). If we got a bit more feedback from ccp in regards to things though we might be able to progress the discussion a bit more, as of right now it feels like we're just retreading a lot of the old arguments with all the vitriol that was the loyalty ranks titles. Mute the people who just want to argue, I want to see vehicles in a healthy place and a lot of the damage that happened in 1.7 fixed. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Atom Heart Mother Nazionali Senza Filtro 139	Posted - 2015.01.10 09:23:00 - [36] - Quote 1.2 million? you kidding right?, sorry to ruin your expectations man, if you really want to spec on vehicles you better start saving at least 25 million SP, and that wont be enough yet

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 14404	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:10:00 - [37] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Rowdy Railgunner wrote: And why should we contribute? Last time people contributed CCP did the exact opposite to what people wanted to happen. Then they lost 60% of their player base and even now they are still feeling the effects of that day. I know that my Colonel ass isn't putting any more money into this game. Neither are any of my Captain and Lieutenant alts. Maybe you misunderstood my post: some vehicle pilots, myself included, have given the feedback that Rattati has asked for (in my case, I was looking at small missile variants) as well as others who have given more comprehensive feedback (Pokey Dravon, Tesfa and Vulpes come to mind) yet seem to get lumped in with the vocal minority of people spouting rubbish in the one thread. There are vehicle pilots giving good feedback, I just want those people to get recognition such that when Rattati eventually decided to just pull vehicles entirely he can't point fingers at pilots et al. Absolutely, there is a learning period for us devs to figure out the the real contributors, and it's clear to me who they are. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vitharr Foebane Terminal Courtesy Proficiency V. 2177	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:15:00 - [38] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Rowdy Railgunner wrote: And why should we contribute? Last time people contributed CCP did the exact opposite to what people wanted to happen. Then they lost 60% of their player base and even now they are still feeling the effects of that day. I know that my Colonel ass isn't putting any more money into this game. Neither are any of my Captain and Lieutenant alts. Maybe you misunderstood my post: some vehicle pilots, myself included, have given the feedback that Rattati has asked for (in my case, I was looking at small missile variants) as well as others who have given more comprehensive feedback (Pokey Dravon, Tesfa and Vulpes come to mind) yet seem to get lumped in with the vocal minority of people spouting rubbish in the one thread. There are vehicle pilots giving good feedback, I just want those people to get recognition such that when Rattati eventually decided to just pull vehicles entirely he can't point fingers at pilots et al. Absolutely, there is a learning period for us devs to figure out the the real contributors, and it's clear to me who they are. Sooo how bout dem Amarr vehicles? I'm running out of Amarr things to skill Amarr Omnisoldier: Assault, Commando, Logistics, Scout, Sentinel at V My faith is in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 776	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:21:00 - [39] - Quote Atom Heart Mother wrote: 1.2 million? you kidding right?, sorry to ruin your expectations man, if you really want to spec on vehicles you better start saving at least 25 million SP, and that wont be enough yet yea man after i completed both the vehicle and turret skill trees, i had just enough SP left to proto one suit and weapon. vehicles take a crap ton of SP
Nirwanda Vaughns 1200	Posted - 2015.01.10 11:42:00 - [40] - Quote as long as when we have racial vehicles we have at least some form of a Gallente Plasma Forge gun. otherwise players will just stick to the shield tankers becuase of the lack of shield AV. my idea for the tank 'profiles' would be Amarr - High armour HP, very slow moving. good for prolonged bombardments of objectives but struggles to 'run away' from a fight. Caldari - High shield HP, long range/low damage, almost used as mobile Anti-Air Gallente - pretty much as it is but perhaps needs higher base HPs and to either lose a low or tweak PG/CPU to reduce amount of reppers. or change armour reppers back to active to cut back on 'invincible' rep maddies. Minmatar - probably how the ships operate in EVE, fast moving, great turn circles in order to literally run rings around an Amarr tank. nothing that'll last extended HAV vs HAV battles but if a couple gang up they can become pretty devastating Never argue with an idiot. they bring you down to their level and beat you through experience proud C-II bpo owner

Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 411	Posted - 2015.01.10 12:01:00 - [41] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Check trello out Vehicle Based Objectives ,Lets give Vehicles Gameplay Objectives also besides killing foot soldiers. https://trello.com/c/8HBjPXFW/382-vehicle-based-objectives
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2973	Posted - 2015.01.10 12:05:00 - [42] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Rowdy Railgunner wrote: And why should we contribute? Last time people contributed CCP did the exact opposite to what people wanted to happen. Then they lost 60% of their player base and even now they are still feeling the effects of that day. I know that my Colonel ass isn't putting any more money into this game. Neither are any of my Captain and Lieutenant alts. Maybe you misunderstood my post: some vehicle pilots, myself included, have given the feedback that Rattati has asked for (in my case, I was looking at small missile variants) as well as others who have given more comprehensive feedback (Pokey Dravon, Tesfa and Vulpes come to mind) yet seem to get lumped in with the vocal minority of people spouting rubbish in the one thread. There are vehicle pilots giving good feedback, I just want those people to get recognition such that when Rattati eventually decided to just pull vehicles entirely he can't point fingers at pilots et al. Absolutely, there is a learning period for us devs to figure out the the real contributors, and it's clear to me who they are. I might give CCP a hard time sometimes but I have to be honest, I do not envy your position Rats. Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 690	Posted - 2015.01.10 12:08:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. It would be better if you did declare your intentions for Vehicles Reintroduction back on that thread. Some of the guys on there have spent a ton of of thier own freetime proposing things coming up with various ideas and fits, and you really ought to adress some of what they proposed. If you are not going to take their ideas let them know, and if your are postponing for a much longer period than you let on, then you can wrap up your internal balance as per usual. A dev presence in that conversation is whats needed now. Otherwise, these guys are wasting their time proposing things that may not even be looked at. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 400	Posted - 2015.01.10 12:56:00 - [44] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 1. Both sides have been at it 2. I would rarther see what CCP comes up with 1st and then move on from there because right now the current spreadsheet is a bit meh without it being updated and giving a clear direction of where CCP wants to see vehicles go 3. Some ideas in the thread are just terrible and if its between working with bad ideas and have CCP doing it internally then either way i may never be happy anyways
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 647	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:40:00 - [45] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Well like I said a little while ago man, if you or anybody else is able to tell us some more specifics, like a concrete slot layout, then stuff will be easier to work with. And I would imagine we're all 100% in agreement that the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills need to be back to what they used to be, and that is 5% per level. It would make such a huge difference in fitting capability. The Madrugar needs to be brought up to the Gunnlogi's level, not the Gunnlogi nerfed to the Madrugar's level. Hell, I had a game a couple hours ago where some MLT red dot was firing his MLT flaylock at me when I was in a Maddy - it got me to 1020 shield, and stopped my regen. That just shouldn't happen. We got the ballpark, now we need a bit of the strategy. With that, we can all move forward at a little faster pace to getting vehicles back to where they should be. PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). What i think needs to happen is the Maddy has to be given a fitting buff cos right now the gunnlogi is better in everyway, it also needs a turning speed increase cos right now it is too slow to turn. I also think that the Armour hardener needs to be giving 30% resist, and if the old passive resist mods come back, the adaptive plating should give around 16% base resist which could be improved with a skill at 5% per level so at level 5 it gives 20% (value could be lowered if it is too much for passive). and DCU (like this mod) could give around 10% resist to shield and about 12% for armour.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 403	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:07:00 - [46] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Well like I said a little while ago man, if you or anybody else is able to tell us some more specifics, like a concrete slot layout, then stuff will be easier to work with. And I would imagine we're all 100% in agreement that the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills need to be back to what they used to be, and that is 5% per level. It would make such a huge difference in fitting capability. The Madrugar needs to be brought up to the Gunnlogi's level, not the Gunnlogi nerfed to the Madrugar's level. Hell, I had a game a couple hours ago where some MLT red dot was firing his MLT flaylock at me when I was in a Maddy - it got me to 1020 shield, and stopped my regen. That just shouldn't happen. We got the ballpark, now we need a bit of the strategy. With that, we can all move forward at a little faster pace to getting vehicles back to where they should be. PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). What i think needs to happen is the Maddy has to be given a fitting buff cos right now the gunnlogi is better in everyway, it also needs a turning speed increase cos right now it is too slow to turn. I also think that the Armour hardener needs to be giving 30% resist, and if the old passive resist mods come back, the adaptive plating should give around 16% base resist which could be improved with a skill at 5% per level so at level 5 it gives 20% (value could be lowered if it is too much for passive). and DCU (like this mod) could give around 10% resist to shield and about 12% for armour. 1. Infantry says no armor and shields while they have 5% per level for armor and shields - Pilots had this skill before 1.7, they had these skills back in chrome and affect all vehicles not just HAVs but DS/ADS/LAV which are light on HP
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 16:15:00 - [47] - Quote calm down laser, I should have a spreadsheet with proposed stats for people to look at and comment on based on the stats from chromosome in a couple days. This will include the vehicle skill trees, which I just 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 16:32:00 - [48] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). flaylock is 50%, higher than the HMG. However, I think you're off base with the assertion that vehicle pilots shouldn't benefit from their skills in similar fashion to dropsuits. They aren't scaled, or operated like dropsuits. 5k armor on an HAV does not mean the same thing that 5,000 armor on a dropsuit would. It can be balanced, it just requires a few changes to the hulls. CCP had, at one point, an excellent balance between V/AV and with Rattati working on changing the focus of vehicle heavy turrets you don't have quite the same worry as you used to about vehicles ripball farming infantry casually. I'm working on compiling the vehicle stats and AV stats I'd like to see in play, along with the vehicle skill tree. Vehicle skill trees with bonusing and less focus on the primary hulls and more focus on the fittings allowed Vehicles to be more diverse, dynamic and unpredictable. Part of the problem right now that most pilots have is there's very little variation possible. I have a problem with it too as an AV gunner because it's little more than a math equation in my head on what I need to do to kill an HAV. I also have a theorycrafted AV weapon I might include for a look if the whole thing gels together based on Rattati's statement that he'd like to use current assets to fill out the heavy weapon parity. But blanket statements about what is fair and unfair, on both sides, is what got us TO this mess. So screw it, I'll bust out the calculator and use the math. if you're going to say that HAVs having 5k HP is unfair by all means please explain your reasoning, but don't expect it to be taken seriously if ALL you say is X is unfair because :reasons:. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
killian178 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 72	Posted - 2015.01.10 16:48:00 - [49] - Quote If all the old modules get brought back, well have much more V vs V fights again, as long as we can stay away from those pesky min mandos lol Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 16:50:00 - [50] - Quote passive rep mods got nerfed. go ahead and triple rep a madrugar now. You'll get two-shotted by an IAFG. Potentially one-shotted by a wiyrkomi breach. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

LUGMOS Quafe Premium 1425	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:22:00 - [51] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: passive rep mods got nerfed. go ahead and triple rep a madrugar now. You'll get two-shotted by an IAFG. Potentially one-shotted by a wiyrkomi breach. I gues thats how its suppossed to be... Any rep tanked suit/vehicle is extremely prone to high alpha, but just not be one or two shotted by it... Thats just rediculous. Official QuafeGäó Advocate Anti-FoTM Prof. V Forum Scavenger Prof. V
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:33:00 - [52] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: passive rep mods got nerfed. go ahead and triple rep a madrugar now. You'll get two-shotted by an IAFG. Potentially one-shotted by a wiyrkomi breach. I gues thats how its suppossed to be... Any rep tanked suit/vehicle is extremely prone to high alpha, but just not be one or two shotted by it... Thats just rediculous. triple rep madrugar means all of the lows have rep mods, no plates. it's one of the very, very few times where damage mods on a forge gun would actually matter. IAFG does a base 1500 damage every 2.25 seconds. After skills and depending on my mood I can spike the bugger to about 2100 every 2.25 seconds against armor. And the madrugar is an armor tank. this math does not support the triple repped maddy very well. The triple rep maddy is a paper tiger that's only effective in hit 'n run against academy newbies. It's an imaginary threat, like the chupacabra and slayer logi (the latter went extinct the build after the caldari logi was introduced) EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14977	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:50:00 - [53] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: I gues thats how its suppossed to be... Any rep tanked suit/vehicle is extremely prone to high alpha, but just not be one or two shotted by it... Thats just rediculous. I don't think it's ridiculous, as they're filling every slot with the same type of module. Personally I believe that you should be forced to fit your vehicle with more than just 1 type of module. In comparison to Dropsuits, put nothing but Repair Mods and watch as even a Starter Fits takes you down with ease. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6261	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:56:00 - [54] - Quote Atiim wrote: LUGMOS wrote: I gues thats how its suppossed to be... Any rep tanked suit/vehicle is extremely prone to high alpha, but just not be one or two shotted by it... Thats just rediculous. I don't think it's ridiculous, as they're filling every slot with the same type of module. Personally I believe that you should be forced to fit your vehicle with more than just 1 type of module. In comparison to Dropsuits, put nothing but Repair Mods and watch as even a Starter Fits takes you down with ease. Oddly enough it actually works for some playstyles. Rep mods are better when running AV in a gallente or amarr suit for fast recovery from AV engagements. You're dead anyway vs. infantry unless you're slick, so worrying about the lost HP is pointless. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2707	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:22:00 - [55] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: If you ever need some resources to help you out... https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rookie-resources/ Thanks but no thanks, I already have enough games and none of them are subscription based. 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 18:48:00 - [56] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Well like I said a little while ago man, if you or anybody else is able to tell us some more specifics, like a concrete slot layout, then stuff will be easier to work with. And I would imagine we're all 100% in agreement that the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills need to be back to what they used to be, and that is 5% per level. It would make such a huge difference in fitting capability. The Madrugar needs to be brought up to the Gunnlogi's level, not the Gunnlogi nerfed to the Madrugar's level. Hell, I had a game a couple hours ago where some MLT red dot was firing his MLT flaylock at me when I was in a Maddy - it got me to 1020 shield, and stopped my regen. That just shouldn't happen. We got the ballpark, now we need a bit of the strategy. With that, we can all move forward at a little faster pace to getting vehicles back to where they should be. PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). What i think needs to happen is the Maddy has to be given a fitting buff cos right now the gunnlogi is better in everyway, it also needs a turning speed increase cos right now it is too slow to turn. I also think that the Armour hardener needs to be giving 30% resist, and if the old passive resist mods come back, the adaptive plating should give around 16% base resist which could be improved with a skill at 5% per level so at level 5 it gives 20% (value could be lowered if it is too much for passive). and DCU (like this mod) could give around 10% resist to shield and about 12% for armour. Well then why does infantry get 5% for armor and shield? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2477	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:49:00 - [57] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Echo 1991 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Well like I said a little while ago man, if you or anybody else is able to tell us some more specifics, like a concrete slot layout, then stuff will be easier to work with. And I would imagine we're all 100% in agreement that the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills need to be back to what they used to be, and that is 5% per level. It would make such a huge difference in fitting capability. The Madrugar needs to be brought up to the Gunnlogi's level, not the Gunnlogi nerfed to the Madrugar's level. Hell, I had a game a couple hours ago where some MLT red dot was firing his MLT flaylock at me when I was in a Maddy - it got me to 1020 shield, and stopped my regen. That just shouldn't happen. We got the ballpark, now we need a bit of the strategy. With that, we can all move forward at a little faster pace to getting vehicles back to where they should be. PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). What i think needs to happen is the Maddy has to be given a fitting buff cos right now the gunnlogi is better in everyway, it also needs a turning speed increase cos right now it is too slow to turn. I also think that the Armour hardener needs to be giving 30% resist, and if the old passive resist mods come back, the adaptive plating should give around 16% base resist which could be improved with a skill at 5% per level so at level 5 it gives 20% (value could be lowered if it is too much for passive). and DCU (like this mod) could give around 10% resist to shield and about 12% for armour. Well then why does infantry get 5% for armor and shield? Infantry are dealing with far lower numbers than wedo. 5% of 4000 is way more than 5% of 250. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2710	Posted - 2015.01.10 20:37:00 - [58] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Echo 1991 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Well like I said a little while ago man, if you or anybody else is able to tell us some more specifics, like a concrete slot layout, then stuff will be easier to work with. And I would imagine we're all 100% in agreement that the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills need to be back to what they used to be, and that is 5% per level. It would make such a huge difference in fitting capability. The Madrugar needs to be brought up to the Gunnlogi's level, not the Gunnlogi nerfed to the Madrugar's level. Hell, I had a game a couple hours ago where some MLT red dot was firing his MLT flaylock at me when I was in a Maddy - it got me to 1020 shield, and stopped my regen. That just shouldn't happen. We got the ballpark, now we need a bit of the strategy. With that, we can all move forward at a little faster pace to getting vehicles back to where they should be. PG and CPU yes, not armour and shields. You shouldn't have 5K armour just cos you skilled into something, 3% seems more reasonable. Also, I dont think a flaylock would do enough damage to stop the regen (I think it only has a 30-40% effeciacy against vehicles, but i maybe wrong). What i think needs to happen is the Maddy has to be given a fitting buff cos right now the gunnlogi is better in everyway, it also needs a turning speed increase cos right now it is too slow to turn. I also think that the Armour hardener needs to be giving 30% resist, and if the old passive resist mods come back, the adaptive plating should give around 16% base resist which could be improved with a skill at 5% per level so at level 5 it gives 20% (value could be lowered if it is too much for passive). and DCU (like this mod) could give around 10% resist to shield and about 12% for armour. Well then why does infantry get 5% for armor and shield? Infantry are dealing with far lower numbers than wedo. 5% of 4000 is way more than 5% of 250. Big deal, answer my question. Why does infantry get 5% per level, and we don't? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2369	Posted - 2015.01.10 21:04:00 - [59] - Quote @Spkr Alena did answer your question, you chose to dismiss the answer. Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks) ^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6288	Posted - 2015.01.10 21:13:00 - [60] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: @Spkr Alena did answer your question, you chose to dismiss the answer. I can't believe I'm doing this. Alena answered but failed to give reasons beyond "I think it's unfair." Using an abstraction between the differences in HP between dropsuits and HAVs is irrelevant because they are scaled differently. The weapons that can damage vehicles can one-shot a dropsuit, thus necessitating comparative bonus increases to the armor/shields of an HAV in order to survive the incoming fire. Now that I have agreed with spkr, I must go cleanse myself. With napalm and fire. I will never feel clean again. By the way, my spreadsheet for vehicles is up. I'll be adding the modules I just found that I couldn't earlier later tonight. It's on the last couple pages of the HAV debacle. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

Official QuafeGäó Advocate