DUST Search - HAV revamp proposal

All Channels

General Discussions

HAV revamp proposal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:38:00 - [2] - Quote 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? *"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 320	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:40:00 - [3] - Quote Math? You're already limiting yourself on input right there. Talk to the EVE forum peeps. They'll be more likely to be the math nerd types. http://vimeo.com/65921206 I'm better than laser focused; I'm hybrid focused.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6392	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:42:00 - [4] - 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:51:00 - [5] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 See above for the numbers on Thaddeus 90 Second Shield Regen model applied to the old Choromo Stats. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 5473	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:54:00 - [6] - Quote Does that mean that you want modules to work like they did before, as well (i.e. active reps)?
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16554	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:59:00 - [7] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Does that mean that you want modules to work like they did before, as well (i.e. active reps)? Yup that's the plan. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3595	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:19:00 - [8] - Quote Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age? When tanks roamed the map near unkillable? If you want to balance vehicles you need to, 1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle 2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
xavier zor Rogue Instincts 401	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:27:00 - [9] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age? When tanks roamed the map near unkillable? If you want to balance vehicles you need to, 1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle 2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars. It was the 'fun' age....for tanks 5v5 tank battles, where they were trying to kill other tanks and infantry was a side-dish, with enemy tanks as the main well...i have nothing to say
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16560	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:32:00 - [10] - Quote xavier zor wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age? When tanks roamed the map near unkillable? If you want to balance vehicles you need to, 1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle 2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars. It was the 'fun' age....for tanks 5v5 tank battles, where they were trying to kill other tanks and infantry was a side-dish, with enemy tanks as the main I think arguably it also had fair balance for AV but as many players were new to the game and didn't understand the importance of AV it was left by the way side. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 103	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:38:00 - [11] - Quote Not the 3 AV grenades. I can't accept that. They were OP before okay, they really really were. So much so that they gave me cancer. And what, you want the breach forge gun to 1 shot every ADS from the sky? Specialization: Making typo's.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16560	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:41:00 - [12] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: Not the 3 AV grenades. I can't accept that. They were OP before okay, they really really were. So much so that they gave me cancer. And what, you want the breach forge gun to 1 shot every ADS from the sky? face palms...... Have you not seen his posts asking for AD pilot feedback? "He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 104	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:44:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: Not the 3 AV grenades. I can't accept that. They were OP before okay, they really really were. So much so that they gave me cancer. And what, you want the breach forge gun to 1 shot every ADS from the sky? *face palms...... Have you not seen his posts asking for AD pilot feedback? yes yes but i'm far too tired atm Specialization: Making typo's.
Yokal Bob Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 630	Posted - 2015.01.14 00:45:00 - [14] - Quote math? doesnt exist here, just gimme a gun /{o.o}/ ---L Inflatable hammer strikes again
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1694	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:52:00 - [15] - Quote Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: Math? You're already limiting yourself on input right there. Talk to the EVE forum peeps. They'll be more likely to be the math nerd types. http://vimeo.com/65921206 I understand the premise but this is what's wrong with this game , the forum and the community as a whole ... THIS IS DUST and while yes it is in the EVE universe , some might look at this response as what's wrong with this game in the fact that the OP mentioned that he didn't get any feedback . Now some might not have known about it , no matter how long it's been up ... some might not have wanted to give any input because of fear of being insulted or feeling inferior like saying that you put this in the wrong forum . To me that's like saying that what you might have to say is just not important or if the problems of Dust get fixed , it will be from the EVE side not the Dust side . Now while I myself am not the sensitive and could give a frack less what someone else thinks , just that display alone can stifle any progress from people who 1 : have to deal with it more then an EVE player would if this is their only link to New Eden and 2 : already feel like their ideas and feedback are not important because they look and see who the DEV's or the CPM feel are important in their responses or the lack there of in the forums . Most of the dual ( EVE / DUST ) players get the attention deserved in their topics , hell they create troll post that get blue tagged . If your looking for feedback then you have to be wiling to wait for it , not too many will give you numbers and spreadsheets full of collected data because console players just play the game but that doesn't mean that they can't give you a comprehensive report or a discussion on and about what's wrong with a game and the fact that they just play , makes it easy for them to do that but they won't number crunch . You have to have a discussion where you actually listen and help them to understand that your trying to build something with then and not exclude them which happens so much in these forums . Like this post OP you have to help these people understand what your trying to do and include them but you have to allow them to do just that . Help them to help you to allow you to help them . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed .
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2798	Posted - 2015.01.14 02:02:00 - [16] - Quote I started writing a post picking out everything that was wrong and I came to this conclusion: Pre-1.7 was bad and should stay dead. I say let's keep and improve on current numbers and stats and picki and choose add ons from pre-1.7. For example: Let's keep passive armor repairersGÇª BUT dramatically reduce their repair amount and add a new module that's essentially an active repairer. Armor Repairer: 45-50hp/s, passive, low fitting requirements (CPU mainly) Ancillary Armor Repairer: 375hp/pulse, 8 pulses (on per sec) (3,000 armor total), fitting comparable to a plate, 90s cooldown. (Numbers just for example) Current numbers aren't bad. Most of the solutions lie with value changes and/or the addition of new mods. Besides, it would probably be less labor intensive than trying to necromance 1.6. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 04:01:00 - [17] - 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.
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3531	Posted - 2015.01.14 04:54:00 - [18] - Quote 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. "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.01.14 05:47:00 - [19] - 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.
Smoke Jaguar Elemental Superior Genetics 0	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:11:00 - [20] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hilariously swarms actually have DPS I consider viable for hunting marauders in TODAY's build. If I am reading this correctly, do you mean that the Swarm Launchers of today can hunt the Marauders of old? Skills needed Electonics V - 25% more CPU (broken not applied) Engineering V - 25% more Powergrid (broken/not applied) Engineering Upgrdes V - 25% less CPU use per powergrid Module (broken?) Shield Adaption V - 15% less CPU use per Shield Amplifier Shield Managment V - 25% more shields Shield Operations V - 15% more shield recharge rates Shield Upgrades V - 15% less CPU use per shield module (broken?) Mechanics V - 25% more armor (currently bugged) Armor Upgrades -15% less PG per armor module.(broken?) Of course HAV III and the sorts but no bonuses from them. Sagaris w/ max support skills 3900 shields 5200 EHP shields when [1/(1-0.25{natural resists on hull}) * 3900{base shields w/o resistance}]) 1000/1250 (bugged) 27.6 shields a second (EHP repaired is 37.75 shields a second) 141.3 second shield recharge time or 188.4 EHP a second 437.5 CPU 2300 PG 5 highs 3 lows MAX Sagaris + DCU+ AMPx2 + LSEx2 + PDU x3(best stuff) 8972 Shields (Management 25% + 7% PDU x3 (shields hp is not penalized) +LSE x2) 25% Hull + 14% DCU +24% AMPx2(penalty is suggested to be bugged) =45% resists (which unfortunately are hidden stats) EHP 16,312 1000/1250 armor (bugged) 30 shields a second (EHP repaired is 55 shields a second) 220.5 second shield recharge time 177.4 CPU 1103 GRID PDU x3 7% Shield HP, PG, and Shield Gen DCU 14% resists F-S3 Shield Amp 23% resists x2 HAW ES +2185 shields x2 I would like to see some number crunching of prototype swarms, counting the reload times and damage malus against shields, against this Sagaris fit, and see how long it would take to kill it. The EHP of the Sagaris, and the constant shield regen even during damage, would nullify most AV attacks unless it were under sustained fire.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6398	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:15:00 - [21] - 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.
SoTa PoP Titans of Phoenix VP Gaming Alliance 5644	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:18:00 - [22] - Quote What's with you being in IE? n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
Smoke Jaguar Elemental Superior Genetics 0	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:20:00 - [23] - Quote 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6398	Posted - 2015.01.14 07:24:00 - [24] - 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.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3600	Posted - 2015.01.14 11:56:00 - [25] - Quote xavier zor wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age? When tanks roamed the map near unkillable? If you want to balance vehicles you need to, 1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle 2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars. It was the 'fun' age....for tanks 5v5 tank battles, where they were trying to kill other tanks and infantry was a side-dish, with enemy tanks as the main And Infantry still hated it, because you would get that 1 guy (Spkr, Taki) who decided that enemy tanks weren't enough, so they went round going 20+ every match because no-one could stop them. It'll end up like 1.6 again, if you don't have someone on your team who is a dedicated tanker EVERY Match, you loose. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a shake-up on vehicles, adding some variety back, both to variants, modules and layouts would be fantastic. I just don't agree with you basing your numbers off a time when vehicles were the highest tier of warfare. That's not how it should work. Unless CCP are prepared to start adding in more ways to move between sockets without being skewered by 5 Madrugars, the game just becomes stagnant for infantry. So long as there are large swathes of ground with no cover or hidey holes for infantry, making vehicles 'fun' like they were in chrome will only make it fun for tank drivers. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6400	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:04:00 - [26] - 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.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1784	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:22:00 - [27] - Quote 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 effective and could wreck infantry at range. good old times, right?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6402	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:25:00 - [28] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 153	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:27:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. There was also the problem where MLT and STD swarms where so much worse than their older brothers that even when people picked them up, it couldn't do anything even against unskilled failfits (That problem has largely been addressed). 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) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1784	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:28:00 - [30] - Quote dont you think this effort is futile without racial parity in terms of AV options?

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 153	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:31:00 - [31] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: dont you think this effort is futile without racial parity in terms of AV options? Check his AV theorycrafting page, proposing a number of Racially themed AV weapons...which this post may or may not be asking permission to borrow the stats for Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3687	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:41:00 - [32] - Quote 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. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6403	Posted - 2015.01.14 12:46:00 - [33] - 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 - [34] - 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.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3687	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:07:00 - [35] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Further I can translate those AV gun numbers over to easily slot right into the meta we have now, pokey's meta or even thaddeus' meta. Once you figure out how to do it the conversions are easy 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. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6405	Posted - 2015.01.14 13:15:00 - [36] - 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.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 153	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:11:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The passive shield regen needs to be brought up greatly. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6408	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:27:00 - [38] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 155	Posted - 2015.01.14 14:40:00 - [39] - Quote 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? 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 6411	Posted - 2015.01.14 15:01:00 - [40] - 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

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 154	Posted - 2015.01.14 15:38:00 - [41] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 24 is still too low. try 45. Choo Choo
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:32:00 - [42] - Quote I will start with shields: Shield Regen: old regen was too slow, if you didn't fit a shield booster, it was better to recall the tank and call a new one. I suggest to mimic infantry shield regen in %, with a penalty for the possibility to fit shield boosters. EG. Caldari medium - shield 210 - recharge 25 HP/s =8.4 seconds from 0 to 100% Gunnlogi - shield 2600 - recharge 22 HP/s = 118,2 seconds from 0 to 100% Proposed - shield 2600 - recharge 175 HP/s = 14,8 seconds from 0 to 100% Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. continue..... Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:44:00 - [43] - 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
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:45:00 - [44] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Yes, i've noticed now that i'm looking in game stats, i'm going to edit. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:51:00 - [45] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16645	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:51:00 - [46] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Indeed. It's been a load of crap for a while. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 13:13:00 - [47] - Quote 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. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 14:14:00 - [48] - Quote That looks a lot more reasonable. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 322	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:46:00 - [49] - Quote No blue tags make me sad The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6555	Posted - 2015.01.17 16:49:00 - [50] - 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

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 19:39:00 - [51] - Quote 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). Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6559	Posted - 2015.01.17 19:56:00 - [52] - 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
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2783	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:25:00 - [53] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 Of course, more damage for AV. Rattati told me he's not touching AV right now, so the damage is staying the same. 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.. We keep giving it, and people keep ignoring it, but I'll say it again: Chromosome balance was the best as far as AV/V went, because they were a deterrent, as they should be, and tanks beat the hell out of each other. I agree with everybody that the damage for that build was too high, and it was far better when Uprising 1.0 was deployed, but the PG skill nerf was the start of the 80-¦ down slope towards vehicles becoming next to useless. And since no one has provided numbers and input pertaining to dropship balance... Numerous current and former ADS pilots (Taka and myself) have provided ideas, but again, nobody listens. I put in my vehicle hull thread that the ADS will be the fastest ship in the game, upping flight speed to 55m/s to give them a greater chance to outrun or outmaneuver swarms. 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. Tank v tank is terrible; armor gets shafted and shield is the master race. You need a lot of experience to not get melted in armor in 3 seconds. ADS isn't bad, but once they get right above you and you're far away from overhead cover, you're dead. 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. Of course you want more AV damage. I need actual numbers and math, not vague suggestions like "it needs to work kinda like..." History: pilots provided the math on how much damage AV put out, and infantry always said "working as intended," "that's fair" and "HTFU." Pilots even proved that when the PRO TAR was OP, it was on par with a large blaster turret. Infantry of course said that was fine. The HAV bring back initiative is something I want, and it's something that will benefit the game as a whole. Of course it will benefit the game, but only if vehicles are worth the SP and ISK required to get the PRO turrets and modules, and the hulls to level for the maximum bonus. But I want pilot input on how this proposal should go. See above 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. We've never said marginalized or made useless, we just said it should be a deterrent. The lock on range nerf is the only nerf the swarms have suffered that was needed. Obvious damage reduction was needed because the HP potential for tanks was reduced by quite a lot. Of course you're going to poo-poo all over this. 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. 2784	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:30:00 - [54] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Isn't Chromosone considered the Dark Age? Glorious age, when tanks melted tanks and many millions of ISK was lost between pilots, per match. When tanks roamed the map near unkillable? If you're talking about MLT AV, then yeah, unkillable. If another tank was on the field, that bothersome blaster was as good as dead. If you want to balance vehicles you need to, 1) Designate an actual role to each vehicle Designed around skirmish 1.0. 2) Increase player count so vehicles become useful Larger map areas would be better because of the limits of PS3 hardware. I would prefer not to have to be in a vehicle to enjoy this game afterall their is a vehicle limit and I don't want to race to get mine in first lest I end up cannon fodder to 6 enemy madrugars. You don't like vehicles, nobody is forcing you to be in a vehicle, you have an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles so all pilots already know you hate them and want them to be removed; there's objectives indoors where you don't have to worry 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
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:35:00 - [55] - Quote 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. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2784	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:35:00 - [56] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: Not the 3 AV grenades. 3 packed Lai Dai = dead tank. I can't accept that. None of us can. They were OP before okay. 2 Packed Lai Dai against an armor tank with its shields down is still almost enough to destroy it outright. So much so that they gave me cancer. They gave me AIDS. And what, you want the breach forge gun to 1 shot every ADS from the sky? Of course, because they all always want AV to have enough alpha and DoT to obliterate vehicles in 2 seconds flat. It's fair, and just need to bend over and take 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 6560	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:38:00 - [57] - 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 - [58] - 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
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2787	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:42:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I will be altering passive mods to be viable but less efficient. That's how the vehicle modules were until 1.7, when they were all removed. 3 AV grenades stays. Of course you want those to stay. If I'm proposing chrome tanks you get to suffer chrome AV. Chrome tanks were much more than strong enough to shrug off AV while* fighting another tank.* 1.7 taught the playerbase the importance of AV weapons. 1.7 was Ragnarok for vehicles. I don't think hav dominance will have the same bite. Tanks have never been dominant. I used to be able to solo chrome marauders. With a glass cannon tank, yeah. AV? No I can teach newbies to do the same. Not the noobs I've seen. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:42:00 - [60] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I saw, but that would require a logi vehicle to have crew too, one would drive and chase the target, the other stay in turret and heal the vehicle. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2787	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:47:00 - [61] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: I want AV to be super potent if tanks are going back to the god-mode days of chromosome. Of course you want AV to be super potent. Might as well be able to call in a warbarge without requiring any WP at all. Tanks have never been god-mode. They were extremely powerful during Chromosome, and were very easily countered by another pilot. 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. You obviously don't tank at all, because then you'd see just how bad the blaster is. 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. Then a pair of packed Lai Dai would outright kill an armor tank with its shield down. Of course you want "former usefulness" to be more like OP nuclear baseballs. Current AV nades are lol. I have grenades to 5, and AV grenades are insanely pathetically easy to use. Swarms need more damage and range, Of course you want the easiest to use weapon in the game to do more damage and have greater range. CCP want them to be area of denial for vehicles, not map denial. There would literally be no point in using a vehicle to take another one out, but that's what you want anyway. forge guns i can't comment on as i don't use them, Of course you don't use forge guns, they actually require aim. and dropships will need a survivability buff as well. They used to have good survivability, but then the afterburner was nerfed, and swarms were buffed to travel faster. Infantry's fault. 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. 2787	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:53:00 - [62] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Chrome vehicles means chrome AV across the board. Of course, because that's what infantry wants. Easy, god-mode AV. which means that forges and av nades go back to beast mode Yeah, like 3 packed Lai Dai doing enough damage to an armor tank to outright destroy it. just like the sagaris and Surya are beast mode. That's because they were all-around improvement over the STD tanks. They also had the ADV tag, so they were absolutely better. I will not, howwever be advocating hives being able to generate av nades like they did in chrome Having 3 being able to do ~2000 damage each is still extremely OP. Hilariously swarms actually have DPS I consider viable for hunting marauders in TODAY's build. We need to see in detail what Rattati wants. Of course you'll want swarms even more powerful than they are now, to balance them around the Marauders, rather than balancing around the Madrugar and Gunnlogi. 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. 2789	Posted - 2015.01.17 20:59:00 - [63] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr why do you bother talking when you know I think your attitude is toxic to the game. You consider my attitude toxic because I refuse to back down on the defense of vehicles, because I want that to be my chosen role, with all skills at level 5. I don't want to do infantry, so in that case, why should I not defend vehicles? 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. Of course, you'll ask for someone's opinion when they have literally no experience and don't know what they're talking about, especially the history of vehicles and AV. So please fell free to go be bitter and butthurt elsewhere. Nice trolling 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. Oh yeah, because merely having access to STD hulls, ADV turrets and level 3 in core skills makes someone a pilot, even though they'll use a vehicle maybe once every 10 matches. I'll use one about 85% of the time. Their advice is invalid. I bluntly don't care at this point. So take the initiative and stop replying to 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
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 510	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:00:00 - [64] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I saw, but that would require a logi vehicle to have crew too, one would drive and chase the target, the other stay in turret and heal the vehicle. 1. Take 2 to use but 1 AV to kill - Goes against the 1:1 ratio AV pander about on the forums
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6561	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:02:00 - [65] - 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
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2789	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:03:00 - [66] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: before skills wiyrkomi swarm is 430 DPS if you include base reloads. All 4 missiles hitting in half a second is not 430. this is before skills and damage mods. See above Ishukone assault forge damage before anything is 600 DPS by the chrome model, at 400 DPS with reloads accounted for. My math is terrible, but I'm pretty sure it's far more than that. Shield recharge doesn't kick back in before the second shot is fired. Armor reps can't get back the armor that was lost before the second shot hits. So yes, I consider swarms viable for marauder hunting. Current swarms would melt the Marauders of old, especially on a Minmando. Further, the Surya was inordinately more bricky than the sagaris, thanks for providing me fitting numbers to look at. They needed to be, because swarms and AV grenades are explosive damage, and obviously had 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
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:15:00 - [67] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: And Infantry still hated it, because you would get that 1 guy (Spkr, Taki) who decided that enemy tanks weren't enough, so they went round going 20+ every match because no-one could stop them. Our aim was OP, nerf the ability to aim. Oh wait........................................................ that's been done. And nobody could stop us? It's called experience. It'll end up like 1.6 again, if you don't have someone on your team who is a dedicated tanker EVERY Match, you loose. What's the big deal with that? Don't get me wrong I'm all for a shake-up on vehicles, Yeah, like nerfing them again. adding some variety back, both to variants, modules and layouts would be fantastic. You don't use vehicles, why do you care? I just don't agree with you basing your numbers off a time when vehicles were the highest tier of warfare. They were end-game for pilots. The Type-A suits were end-game for infantry. The two are not the same. Unless CCP are prepared to start adding in more ways to move between sockets without being skewered by 5 Madrugars, the game just becomes stagnant for infantry. 1. Cloak, 2. dropship, 3. avoid them, 4. LAV, 5. defend the objective you're already at. So long as there are large swathes of ground with no cover or hidey holes for infantry, making vehicles 'fun' like they were in chrome will only make it fun for tank drivers. See above 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:20:00 - [68] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Maddies were dealable. That's because the idiot-proof auto-aim AV had a bonus against armor. Honesty the concern point I have is the Surya. An improved tank over the standard tank is OP, nerf the improved tank. Oh wait............................. that's already happened. Part of the problem in Chrome was there was a cultural inertia where everyone REFUSED to load swarms or forges. Nobody using AV = AV is UP, tanks are OP, nerf tanks. But all of the non-marauder HAVs were tacklable solo. MLT tanks piloted by noobs, yes. STD tanks piloted by real pilots, no. Nerf experience. The Sagaris if you were a dedicated murder maniac could also be soloed with timing and effort. Only a real, experienced pilot would go for the Marauder, so I doubt they could be soloed. I think only three or four people ever managed to drop a surya solo, myself among them. With the way you complain about tanks, I doubt that. It's EHP was entirely too high. See above. Improved tanks are OP, nerf improved tanks. the most comparable vehicle we have now is the overtanked gunnlogi, There is no OP Gunnlogi. which swallows eight to ten proto forge shots before exploding. 8 to 10? That's enough to kill a Gunnlogi twice over. 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:21:00 - [69] - 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 effective and could wreck infantry at range. good old times, right? Sounds like the ability to aim, and the intelligence to not put themselves in a bad spot. Experience is OP, nerf 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:22:00 - [70] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. How many times do pilots have to say "Rattati's vision of the Marauders is very high HP, ultra-heavy tanks that are mobile fortresses? That's going beyond not listening, outright refusing to even listen. 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:24:00 - [71] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: There was also the problem where MLT and STD swarms where so much worse than their older brothers that even when people picked them up, it couldn't do anything even against unskilled failfits (That problem has largely been addressed). That's because the only thing pilots have now is failfits, due to no variety. 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) It's mainly the swarms traveling faster, but yes, ADV CPU and PG needs to be improved, which can be solved by the PG and CPU skills adding 5% per level, as they used to. 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:25:00 - [72] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: dont you think this effort is futile without racial parity in terms of AV options? No 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:27:00 - [73] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. I've said before, the idiot-proof auto-aim AV has a damage bonus against armor. Pilot experience is OP, nerf 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:29:00 - [74] - 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 shield extension skill should add 2% to shield recharge per level. The extenders should never, ever decrease the shield recharge. 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:32:00 - [75] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. 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. 2790	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:33:00 - [76] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Cover is OP, nerf cover. 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 2699	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:52:00 - [77] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Cover is OP, nerf cover. The things you've been saying generally don't make sense. Can you please calm your ****? Breakin is trying to create balance, so help him, not shitpost like you usually do, okay? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 21:54:00 - [78] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 514	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:11:00 - [79] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. 1. What we have now is 1 pulse x amount, if damage is caused during boosting it cancels the boost altogether even if only 200hp is restored making the booster useless
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 514	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:13:00 - [80] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 1. Gunner gets shot out 2. If i use a rep tool as infantry i dont need a 2nd person to hold it with me 3. Goes against the 1:1 ratio that you want

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:33:00 - [81] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: shaman oga wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. 1. What we have now is 1 pulse x amount, if damage is caused during boosting it cancels the boost altogether even if only 200hp is restored making the booster useless At least now you can activate it and have an istant boost if you manage to find a window for its activation, spreading the boost on a longer time it's even worst in my opinion. Probably the best option would be to keep single pulse and add a 75% resistance only that moment. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16648	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:39:00 - [82] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. Yeah and I think we all universally recognise how bad that was but remember that pulse value did scale with your passive per second regeneration values which could back then have been pretty high at about 50 per second for any additional 150 per pulse if you had that statistic built up. *"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 514	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:42:00 - [83] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: shaman oga wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. 1. What we have now is 1 pulse x amount, if damage is caused during boosting it cancels the boost altogether even if only 200hp is restored making the booster useless At least now you can activate it and have an istant boost if you manage to find a window for its activation, spreading the boost on a longer time it's even worst in my opinion. Probably the best option would be to keep single pulse and add a 75% resistance only that moment. 1. Its worse now, what good is a boost if it doesnt go through? 2. If it had a 75% resistance for the moment it boosted infantry would cry enough to think that we need to build another ark to survive
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.17 23:53:00 - [84] - Quote True Adamance wrote: shaman oga wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: shaman oga wrote: Shield Booster: the main problem with it, is that is only reliable if you are not uder attack, unlinke armor rep, shield is blocked by incoming fire, i have yet to find a balanced solution. The only thing i've thought is to add a resistance to each pulse of the shield booster, which immediatly wear off, something between 50% and 75%. Shield boosters used to pulse over a short period of time, including while taking damage. That model needs to be restored. Old module restored only few HP per pulse, it wasn't much more useful than what we have today. Yeah and I think we all universally recognise how bad that was but remember that pulse value did scale with your passive per second regeneration values which could back then have been pretty high at about 50 per second for any additional 150 per pulse if you had that statistic built up. It was at 20-25 without rechargers, before the end of 1.7 all i was running were passive tanked shield HAV with around 4-5k shields. Once shield was depleted it was faster to recall and call a new tank. Like i said before, booster is only useful in a calm situation between one shot and another, it's easier to find a time window of 2 seconds to use a single boost than a 10 seconds time window to use the old booster. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3720	Posted - 2015.01.18 00:00:00 - [85] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Its worse now, what good is a boost if it doesnt go through? 2. If it had a 75% resistance for the moment it boosted infantry would cry enough to think that we need to build another ark to survive 1. It didn't go through even before, every pulse was a restart, but at the end of day if you were able to hide for a brief time, you could save a couple of pulse 200-400 HP? At least now if you are smart / lucky enough to wait, you can use the full boost. 2. I remember the situation with old madru and their window of invulnerability, but at least it took some effort for the pilot to activate the modules quickly. Situational awareness also known as passive scan. Minmatar omni-merc
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 514	Posted - 2015.01.18 00:06:00 - [86] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Its worse now, what good is a boost if it doesnt go through? 2. If it had a 75% resistance for the moment it boosted infantry would cry enough to think that we need to build another ark to survive 1. It didn't go through even before, every pulse was a restart, but at the end of day if you were able to hide for a brief time, you could save a couple of pulse 200-400 HP? At least now if you are smart / lucky enough to wait, you can use the full boost. 2. I remember the situation with old madru and their window of invulnerability, but at least it took some effort for the pilot to activate the modules quickly. 1. It did at the end of a pulse even if i got hit the booster didnt stop working and it helped when fighting
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2700	Posted - 2015.01.18 00:38:00 - [87] - Quote quote=Breakin Stuff]Chrome vehicles means chrome AV across the board. which means that forges and av nades go back to beast mode [/quote] No, no no no, NO. Forges, sure. They were doable. nades, just no. Especially with Free LAV's being here, just hell no. start with the balls of hell, end with swarms, AV nades were OP then, and I absolutely refuse for them to come back. Packing irrc 6k worth of damage in your back pocket is insane. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6571	Posted - 2015.01.18 14:51:00 - [88] - 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
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2704	Posted - 2015.01.19 03:07:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 You could have a solid 8-13k of eHP on a Gal HAV. cutting that in half in such a short time isn't called for. At. All. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16673	Posted - 2015.01.19 03:20:00 - [90] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 You could have a solid 8-13k of eHP on a Gal HAV. cutting that in half in such a short time isn't called for. At. All. 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. I don't really see how its much of an issue. As was said 5250 in your pocket assumes 3 grenades and Breaking has already covered the grenade regeneration rate issue which means at best on landing all five grenades thats 8750 from a Prototype AV weapons. That would not destroy an old Chromo Marauder, but it would put a dent in other types of tanks assuming you land those hits... if I've learnt anything from this and other games with tanks it's that getting up close and personal in a tank is ******* stupid. *"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 2707	Posted - 2015.01.19 05:35:00 - [91] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 You could have a solid 8-13k of eHP on a Gal HAV. cutting that in half in such a short time isn't called for. At. All. 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. I don't really see how its much of an issue. As was said 5250 in your pocket assumes 3 grenades and Breaking has already covered the grenade regeneration rate issue which means at best on landing all five grenades thats 8750 from a Prototype AV weapons. That would not destroy an old Chromo Marauder, but it would put a dent in other types of tanks assuming you land those hits... if I've learnt anything from this and other games with tanks it's that getting up close and personal in a tank is ***** stupid. It wasn't back then, it isn't in other games (it's stupid to think that trying to get anywhere near a tank is stupid tbh, putting C4 on tanks in a battlefield game is a very known and valid thing to do), and it still isn't now (hell, it's even more valid to do now than it was before). What the ** are you talking about? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6585	Posted - 2015.01.19 06:37:00 - [92] - 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 - [93] - 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


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.