DUST Search - HAV revamp proposal

shaman oga wrote:

I tend to choose arguments and make single post about them.
This is about armor and shield transport modules, i see you have imagined something like a reptool, honestly i prefer the old style transporters and i would treat them as modules and not turrets.

Armor and shield transport
Lock is something i would not like to see again, unless CCP manage to let us re-lock if we lose it.
I would prefer something like a moving nanohive, when you enter the AOE you are automatically healed.
I don't remember old numbers, but i remember shield transport being very good and armor transport being almost useless, shield transporte was good on both armor and shield vehicles, probably better on armor vehicles.
Armor transporter was quite useless due to very good armor repper with little cooldown and for not being coupled with native reps.

[off post]
Regarding passive reps, i'm not totally against them, but the heaviest passive armor rep module, should rep something between 20 and 40 HP/s, allowing both vehicle to choose between active or passive tank.

Another solution for passive tanking is this, reactive plates for vehicles and shield energizer for vehicle (even with shield energizers there would be the need to buff a little shield recharge rate from old base stats, but less).

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 6391	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:20:00 - [1] - Quote I am working on a proposal involving re-introduction of V/AV balance from chromosome and modify what has frequently been referred to as too short of a TTK in HAV vs. HAV engagements You can find the numbers here. Since I have asked for vehicle driver input repeatedly for advice on numbers so that HAV vs HAV engagements are not too short, and have gotten none.. And since no one has provided numbers and input pertaining to dropship balance... If no one steps up to help me run these numbers for flaws, and to insure that HAV vs. HAV engagements are fun and there are meaningful fights with HAVs and dropships on the field I am setting a deadline. If I have received no meaningful input by 9:00 AM Pacific standard time on thursday the 15th of January, I will take it as your (the vehicle community) blessing to adjust the numbers as I see fit. I need actual numbers and math, not vague suggestions like "it needs to work kinda like..." The HAV bring back initiative is something I want, and it's something that will benefit the game as a whole. But I want pilot input on how this proposal should go. Any suggestion that AV needs to be marginalized will be summarily dismissed, V/AV values are being set at the chromosome build level for the purposes of this propopsal. oh there's theoretical heavy weapon proposals for you sentinel parity spergs. 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 22:42:00 - [2] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Have you given consideration to increasing the Shield Passive Recharge Values from the old Uprising Chormosome stats alongside the Shield Boosters? Those were two reasons I remember that Shield Tanks of the past were inferior to Armour Tanks? If I do they won't be close to current values The 25 second recovery from near death is excessive without active reps 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 04:01:00 - [3] - Quote I do not share your opinion that pre 1.7 is bad. I will be altering passive mods to be viable but less efficient. 3 AV grenades stays. If I'm proposing chrome tanks you get to suffer chrome AV. 1.7 taught the playerbase the importance of AV weapons. I don't think hav dominance will have the same bite. I used to be able to solo chrome marauders. I can teach newbies to do the same. 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 05:47:00 - [4] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: I want AV to be super potent if tanks are going back to the god-mode days of chromosome. Seriously, there needs to be a reason for me to neuter my infantry slaying abilities in order to have a shot at killing someone who can also easily kill me with 1/10th the shots i need to kill them. Id like AV nades returned to their former usefulness so that we have an actual way to say "Stop sticking your blaster in here or you will die." in exchange for infantry slaying power. Current AV nades are lol. Swarms need more damage and range, forge guns i can't comment on as i don't use them, and dropships will need a survivability buff as well. Chrome vehicles means chrome AV across the board. which means that forges and av nades go back to beast mode, just like the sagaris and Surya are beast mode. I will not, howwever be advocating hives being able to generate av nades like they did in chrome 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 6398	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:15:00 - [5] - Quote before skills wiyrkomi swarm is 430 DPS if you include base reloads. Raw DPS is 891.4 this is before skills and damage mods. Ishukone assault forge damage before anything is 600 DPS by the chrome model, at 400 DPS with reloads accounted for. So yes, I consider swarms viable for marauder hunting. Further, the Surya was inordinately more bricky than the sagaris, thanks for providing me fitting numbers to look at. the skill tree I have for HAvs is in my spreadsheet. 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 6398	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:24:00 - [6] - Quote Smoke Jaguar Elemental wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: before skills wiyrkomi swarm is 430 DPS if you include base reloads. Is this also counting the constant 55 EHP regen the Sagaris is accumulating every second of engagement which subracts your effective DPS? It stacks up disturbingly fast. I'm also assuming your numbers are also counting for shield malus penalties that swarms suffer. Granted, the Sagaris is substantially slower then the HAVs we have now, so it would be more committed to engagements. swarms are better for hunting Surya, were it not for the fact that the Surya as written in chrome has far too much EHP compared to anything else besides and MCC. I intend to bring it closer to the sagaris. No, closer does not mean identical. Once I figure these out I intend to begin work integrating enforcers. working on re-introducing shield and armor remote reps as turrets 55 HP/sec reaps shockingly diminishing returns compared to triple damage mods, reload speed, etc. Slow shield regen is a nonfactor. 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 6400	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:04:00 - [7] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Relevant things Maddies were dealable. Honesty the concern point I have is the Surya. Part of the problem in Chrome was there was a cultural inertia where everyone REFUSED to load swarms or forges. But all of the non-marauder HAVs were tacklable solo. The Sagaris if you were a dedicated murder maniac could also be soloed with timing and effort. I think only three or four people ever managed to drop a surya solo, myself among them. It's EHP was entirely too high. the most comparable vehicle we have now is the overtanked gunnlogi, which swallows eight to ten proto forge shots before exploding. I'm basing my numbers off chrome. I'm not following chrome in lockstep. 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 6402	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:25:00 - [8] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Part of the problem in Chrome was there was a cultural inertia where everyone REFUSED to load swarms or forges. "refused" is the wrong word. I remember it like it was yesterday when I had my tripple damage modded proto swarm shooting 6 volleys at an armor tank which didnt really cared about me. then he drove off behind the hill before I could reload to kill him. I would have used my overpowered AV nades but this guy was clever enough not to get close, he didnt had to, his turrets were super accurate and could wreck infantry at range. good old times, right? Surya. I'm well aware of how obnoxious the Surya was. Like I said, if I have my way that HAV's ability to soak fire is going to be dropped back near the sagaris into manageable. 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 6403	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:46:00 - [9] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I'm not the best with numbers all toghether, my suggestion is to work before on vehicles only and then balance AV on them, since AV primary function is to counter vehicles and when we have fixed vehicles number it will be rather easy to balance AV on them. I will look at them and try to give a more proper feedback, but general feeling was that TTK of V vs V was ok, a buff was needed on shield hardeners duration, a slight nerf on proto large missile turret. Also current rail range is fine for me, old 600 meters were too much, allowing rail tank to lock certain maps. You imagined skill tree to be the same old skill tree? After 1.7 changes are not all bad, vehicle maneuverability, isk cost and ammo count/ reload mechanic are actually a good thing imo. all the AV numbers are based on chrome DPS rates and TTK. I'm probably going to nerfhammer the plates because the difference between 120mm and 180mm is more than a 2x multiplier, which accounts for the Surya's Ungodly ability to soak fire. 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 6404	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:54:00 - [10] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Anyway...for helping out the Derpships...expand their PG/CPU to be near HAV levels, this will allow them to fit heavy eHP mods no problem, and largely address their survivabiltiy problems (their slot layout should be fine) as is. (maybe too drastic of a change, but through their PG especially...should help) this is actually in line with my thoughts on the matter. I'm not leaving our dropship buddies to freeze in the cold. On that note I think I have figured out how to add in the ADS. will be giving the standard (troop transport) similar fitting to the madrugar and gunnlogi ADS will get slightly less but that's because it's a bit more fragile. However, it shouldn't lose too much, or enough to drop it's TTK much 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 6405	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:15:00 - [11] - Quote shaman oga wrote: A note on plates: i would give movement penalties based on weight and not on level, this would allow light armored vehicles to suffer less of movement penalty, at the same time people will be encouraged to skill better plates to have more HP for the same penalty. would love to, but... the idea is increasing HP means increasing slowdown. it's a tradeoff thing. You give me a fair way to do it, and I'll listen to it. But the day I post numbers that allow marauders to move as fast as the current tanks will be a cold day in hell. 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 6408	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:27:00 - [12] - Quote passive regen will not be buffed to current numbers. The 20 second recovery from on fire needs to go away. the AV theorycrafting section actually has the swarm numbers I would use. I.E. the ones we have now. 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 6411	Posted - 2015.01.14 15:01:00 - [13] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Any chance you would be in favor of adding shield regen to the extenders (not a whole lot, just divide the hp by the regen time on the base hulls) just enough to maintain a shield recharge time, to provide a resemblance to eve's shield recharge? the only thing I'm going to do in that vein is adapt the current passive modules to these numbers. they will not be remotely as short-term efficient as actual reps and boosters. Nor will they approach current regen values. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:44:00 - [14] - Quote Shaman I appreciate the input but the only way any vehicle will be going from near dead to almost or completely repped in under 45 seconds will be with active reps and external rep assistance. The 20 seconds in hiding to full recovery meta is utter BS. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:51:00 - [15] - Quote I have no issue with escaping to recover. Vehicles should not easily recover in less time than it takes an AV Gunner to travel to a supply depot, repair and reload. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:14:00 - [16] - Quote That looks a lot more reasonable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:49:00 - [17] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Ok i've finished with edititng, please note that i've not calculated everything, i'm more for feelings and personal experience, if you find something horribly wrong, just tell me why it's wrong for you, just like you did with shield recharge a couple of posts ago. Shaman your shield regen #s I'm more than willing to try out. I can see a bit under a minute to recover. That's about how long it takes for me to refit and re-arm. Plugging in higher base shield numbers for the vehicles now. Gallente will, of course, lag sharply. Their shields exist to give them a moment to activate armor modules. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6559	Posted - 2015.01.17 19:56:00 - [18] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I tend to choose arguments and make single post about them. This is about armor and shield transport modules, i see you have imagined something like a reptool, honestly i prefer the old style transporters and i would treat them as modules and not turrets. Armor and shield transport Lock is something i would not like to see again, unless CCP manage to let us re-lock if we lose it. I would prefer something like a moving nanohive, when you enter the AOE you are automatically healed. I don't remember old numbers, but i remember shield transport being very good and armor transport being almost useless, shield transporte was good on both armor and shield vehicles, probably better on armor vehicles. Armor transporter was quite useless due to very good armor repper with little cooldown and for not being coupled with native reps. [off post] Regarding passive reps, i'm not totally against them, but the heaviest passive armor rep module, should rep something between 20 and 40 HP/s, allowing both vehicle to choose between active or passive tank. Another solution for passive tanking is this, reactive plates for vehicles and shield energizer for vehicle (even with shield energizers there would be the need to buff a little shield recharge rate from old base stats, but less). keeping the turrets. Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6560	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:38:00 - [19] - Quote Spkr why do you bother talking when you know I think your attitude is toxic to the game. I'd accept input from a two hour newbie before asking for your opinion. At least most other people have made an effort to be constructive. You don't and you never have. So please fell free to go be bitter and butthurt elsewhere. I'll listen to the input of any other vehicle driver over yours, because all you do is mewl and whine about how everyone else is out to ruin the game for you. I bluntly don't care at this point. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6560	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:39:00 - [20] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: keeping the turrets. Simple reason is to make it harder to have 4 HAVs spider tanking. As a module doing it is entirely too easy. Spider tanking was legit imho, but probably blocking large turret while module is active could be the best solution, it would not let people have too much firepower while being repped, meanwhile you have the freedom to move your vehicle as you wish. With transport turret you only need one or two players as logi/gunner, one if hopping from a tank to the other, defeating your purpose. Also made the fitting cost a buttload more than a blaster. Logi vehicles get a fitting break. HAVs do not. You can do it. You just have to make a sacrifice to do so. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6561	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:02:00 - [21] - Quote it would make orbiting a little less dicey to have a driver focus on keeping the LAV from exploding while the "Gunner gets the allies up and running. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6571	Posted - 2015.01.18 14:51:00 - [22] - Quote 5250 in your back pocket. and I remember what made them bad. Standing on nanohives that'd regenerate twenty of them instead of like two of them. I'm not even going to suggest changing how THAT nerf came off. the grenade regen rate was absolutely insane Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:37:00 - [23] - Quote Also remember the grenade magnetic range was cut down SHARPLY. That reminds me, I need to change the radius values to current as I believe that's how far they will home in. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:44:00 - [24] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You only balance on the basis of heavy with a forge. That isn't the only damn AV suit in the game Breakin. PLC's and Swarms exists, and one of them in a LAV with AV nades and their AV weapon of choice would rip apart HAV's. No. Would you rather I balance based off past swarm performance? The PLC didn't exist in chrome, and at no point has the PLC been capable of enough DPS or individual alpha to fight chrome vehicles. AV grenades stand on their own as interesting things. That's pure chrome copy/paste. If I had based the AV nade numbers off my ranged AV metrics they would cap out at 1500 and you would get four of them. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley