DUST Search - [ALL CALL] Dropship pilots

Vulpes Dolosus wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Vulpes Dolosus wrote:

Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage.

Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up.

I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect.

1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash.

I'm not reiterating that fiasco.

I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily.

If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional.

Post-1.7 has not been as bad as you and everyone else has made it out to be. In fact, vehicle balance has been about a balanced as it's ever been. Sure there are some things awry, but I believe they're nothing more than number or mechanic changes. The only other complaint people have is that there isn't much versatility, which can easily be amended by reintroducing mods as needed.

The current model is a much better starting point for balance than pre1.7 would be.

Standard DSs aren't much of a problem, if you ask me. I've made acceptable fits for both and only really have trouble with multiple AVers (which is fine with me). The biggest problems are the turrets which are still a bit buggy and the hardener animation with blocks the view of the gunners. Other than that there's not much else to complain about.

Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6347	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:18:00 - [1] - Quote I need dropship pilots who are familiar with both Chromosome build dropships and with the current ones. One of the proposals on the table for vehicles is a reversion to chromosome vehicles and AV. I remember that Dropships were basically target practice, and they weren't really viable except as a one-way trip. I need people who are familiar with the weaknesses of the chrome dropships to look at the stats posted here and provide feedback on how to make the chrome ships less squishy, and keep a similar TTK to today. All possible solutions are on the table from tweaking base resistances, to increasing fitting and/or slots. I would like to be able to provide a FULL proposal that includes having dropship pilots being more than incidental victims. If you have input, post it here 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 6531	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:13:00 - [2] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships What part of "I need dropship input to unscrew the dropship numbers" do you fail to comprehend? It's going to stay focused on HAVs until I get some data and help with numbers. So far not one damn dropship pilot has provided useful feedback. In case you were curious: useful=actionable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6535	Posted - 2015.01.17 07:25:00 - [3] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: it wasnt much of a build problem but mechanics. There was no WP for DMG, transporting, etc all those things we have now. The main thing was that turret worked better back thing. There was no snap resets, or random rotations. I dont think the turret caused the derpship to lose control either though i could be wrong. Also that link is focused on HAV not derpships What part of "I need dropship input to unscrew the dropship numbers" do you fail to comprehend? It's going to stay focused on HAVs until I get some data and help with numbers. So far not one damn dropship pilot has provided useful feedback. In case you were curious: useful=actionable. I dont mess with numbers anymore, especially not before something exists. Too much wasted effort and useless hoping. Im in a perpetual state of "cant ***** record dust" otherwise id make videos, but I only post ideas if they intrigue me. The whole system is shot because AV parity doesnt exist, so rolling armor is a pain, and if anti shield AV is as strong then vehicles will be totally screwed, and AV would need a nerf. A possible solution would be to add a 4% native resist to shields or armor per level of ADS, sort of like we had in the before time. This would only work with AV parity because otherwise shields OP. I cant hope for CCP to make a big push to elevate their game, so I sit by with popcorn and amuse myself. Remember chrome? You remember my forge gun obnoxia? My intent is to find a method of making an ADS eat two triple modded IAFG forge gun shots before having to worry about crashing. I realize the old shenanigans aren't fun, so im taking them into account. Example, back in the deep dak past I seem to recall you daying the myron and grimses needed about 30% cpu/pg buff to be viable vs av as more than clay pigeons. That accomodation has been included in my numbers. The militia have been similarly buffed by 15%. I'm serious when I say I'm not fking around here. I refuse to submit final proposal numbers where the meta is "dropships fall from the sky like 30 ton hailstones 30 seconds after launch." So if you nerds can help me math these things into something resembling a playable form, everyone wins. Yes I remember almost everything everyone says. Including the standard arguments between AV and V. Especially when the concerns are valid, even when I'm giving those concerned a hard time. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6539	Posted - 2015.01.17 10:40:00 - [4] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Just to poke my head in to say I'll help, but brain is currently mushy, so won't be til tomorrow at the earliest. Fair. I won't be off work till 9 am eastern time anyway. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 11:01:00 - [5] - Quote Leovarian L Lavitz wrote: a grimsness with 4x complex light armor reps can hover right over a swarmer or a forge gunner and chillax. He won't be shot down. now, if that person gets a buddy, then yes, he will have to flay away at his leisure I challenge this assertion. I have never seen a vehicle that can outrep heavy AV. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:40:00 - [6] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. 1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash. I'm not reiterating that fiasco. I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily. If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:16:00 - [7] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Missiles were terrible. Iirc they had like a 1.5m splash and little splash damage. Defenses were terrible too, especially shields. Hardeners were worthless at 10on/30off (they could only be used preemptively and didn't last long enough to stay in one spot). Shield regen was terrible. Base tank was about what we have now, but including everything else (listed above and OP AV) it didn't hold up. I'm still strongly against reverting back to pre1.7. I'd rather adjust current stats and pick-and-choose things from pre1.7 that would help (ex: active repairs, passive hardeners, turret variants, etc). No need to retrogress, especially when it was far from perfect. 1.7 was worthless from a balance perspective. The balance was utter trash. I'm not reiterating that fiasco. I'm focusing more on things like allowing standard dropships to fit 120mm plates and better extenders more easily. If the dropships instapop from AV then they're useless. If you think I'm going to submit numbers that allow a fully skilled dropship to die to solo AV without a significant expenditure of effort you're delusional. Post-1.7 has not been as bad as you and everyone else has made it out to be. In fact, vehicle balance has been about a balanced as it's ever been. Sure there are some things awry, but I believe they're nothing more than number or mechanic changes. The only other complaint people have is that there isn't much versatility, which can easily be amended by reintroducing mods as needed. The current model is a much better starting point for balance than pre1.7 would be. Standard DSs aren't much of a problem, if you ask me. I've made acceptable fits for both and only really have trouble with multiple AVers (which is fine with me). The biggest problems are the turrets which are still a bit buggy and the hardener animation with blocks the view of the gunners. Other than that there's not much else to complain about. Post 1.7 I will be judiciously stealing what works. 1.7 itself can die in a fire. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6544	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:37:00 - [8] - Quote After having poked at swarm mechanics I can safely say I hate them. I can balance for dumb fire. I can balance for "hold the lock." This fire and forget makes it very hard to just number crunch that crap. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6546	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:12:00 - [9] - Quote What I mean is swwarms are a binary equation based on positioning. If you can launch while almost directly under the belly it'spushing foregone conclusion. Minmando reload speeds mean jack on a three shot splash. But a hold the lock setup would allow better control for both the swarm gunner and pilot. I'm not saying I hate swarms by concept or even implementation. I hate crunching the numbers on them because the "always hit" aspect makes my brain crack when fiddling with numbers. Yes I realize always hits is an exaggeration. It's just a pain in the ass. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6550	Posted - 2015.01.17 15:51:00 - [10] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: This is a personal opinion and not facts, I am dealing with facts on balancing 1 vehicle vs 1 infantry scenario. My personal opinion, for however much it is worth, I welcome interaction with A/V but it is no fun if I can not engage infantry when being shot at. This pretty much sums up why I want dropship info for my proposal. Unfortunately, in order to DO anything, I need ideas for hard numbers. There's this thing, called math. I'm actually pretty good at it. I would like to utilize it in your favor, because I'd like to not return to casually destroying dropships because they're unfortunate enough to be seen. I'd much rather it be because they're a threat, strategically or tactically. If I recall from chrome one of the biggest gripes for dropships was fitting. I'm remembering the CPU/PG enhancement mods being pretty much mandatory which cut into survivability. Am I misremembering? Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:39:00 - [11] - Quote My goal is to find fitting numbers for the Python and Incubus that will allow them to field a sufficient tank to not get instapopped by every jackass with an AV gun and and opportunity automatically. My proposal uses chrome vehicles with today's swarm launchers, because Damn. And I figured out how to convert over the PG/CPU which I was stuck on, given that the chrome module resource costs were cheaper. Might be a little overgenerous with the fittings (my proposal re-introduces bonused vehicle skills), but better that than easy meat. Incubus should be able to put on a 120 MM plate and some support fittings, the Python should be able to get decent shield tank in. My goal is not to fix the swarms, my goal is to make dropships not die when hit by an IAFG (chromosome base stats, so hitting well over 2k with skills/mods)in any less than 3 shots (4 for the flying brick transports). I'm also going to recommend an acceleration buff for dropships to try to get up to speed to dodge fire. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:05:00 - [12] - Quote Gabriella Grey wrote: I see what you are trying to do, but from the statistics giving the Incubus and Python more health points to withstand damage is not going to balance dropships with other vehicles, and will inevitably cause more unseen issues like armor hardeners, and shield hardeners produced to withstand A/V attacks. A good example to this is the following two fittings: Python 1 Python 2 Both of these dropships roughly can take the same amount of damage, but the dropship with more shielding is far better than the one with the hardener because of the huge vulnerable down time for the hardener to be ready again. Both of these fittings are max skill python fittings that focus on practicality and have been proven in use, with the top fitting being your current best Python fitting. Oddly enough I'm taking things like that into account. I'm well aware of the limitations of hardeners. I was trying to make sure that I wasn't going to gimp the python or Incubus' ability to load a sufficient tank to survive a reasonable level of attack from a single, skilled Av gunner. If a rail tank gets a bead on you, all bets are off. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6556	Posted - 2015.01.17 17:27:00 - [13] - Quote Bluntly forge guns are the only balanced AV weapon in the game Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6637	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:17:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Snugglz wrote: In terms of modules, derpships should not be able to fit 120mm plates or anything considered heavy. While I cannot give exact numbers i hope this actually helps. Pg/cpu should be designed to where derpships can only fit medium shield/armor (only modules that i know that have different sizes). While HAV should rely solely on heavy modules. This means that base armor/shields will also have to changed as currently if we forced derpships to use medium modules they will be paper airplanes. and of course same would have to be done to hav. add numbers later suppose to be teaching... Someone suggested the invention of 90mm plate to give dropships their own size of plating? Is that something you guys would be interested in? If you give me numbers that aren't batsh*t crazy and I'll add 'em. Medium shield extenders should probably be a thing too. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6643	Posted - 2015.01.21 06:15:00 - [15] - Quote I'm actually proposing 30% increase to fitting for STD dropships. 15% to militia. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley