DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15378	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:22:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15379	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:31:00 - [2] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet For the DHAV, would these turret skills benefit its AI capabilities, or its AV capabilities? I'm of the belief that there should be an AI and an AV variant to tanks. Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15382	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:44:00 - [3] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets Gotcha. Well, honestly speaking, if you're trying to make the Ultras AI, dealing more damage is going the wrong direction. I would instead improve features of the turrets themselves. For instance, the problem with the blasters is their god awful dispersion. Changing the bonus to lower the dispersion of the AI tank will definitely increase its AI capabilities per level, without improving any AV functionality. adding damage to destroyers is a good concept, except in the case of the blasters. I would recommend making the skill to be something like increased ROF and decreased heat build up to make up for the ROF. These bonuses should be up for discussion, when we get past the design vision in the OP. They were meant as "generally better small blasters" for Ultras, Destroyers "generally better at destroying Vehicles. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15383	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:56:00 - [4] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15383	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:59:00 - [5] - Quote Supacharjed wrote: This is probably a stupid question, but: "all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank." So, we are unable to change this? If that is so, can we assume that: HAV = 1 AV turret (Gunnlogi) and 1AI turret (Madrugar) DHAV = All AV turrets, but different ones. UHAV = All AI turrets, but different ones. You can always override the turrets with different small turrets, you just can't remove the base turret from the fitting. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15384	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:10:00 - [6] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Tiered progression of "you are not a true Amarr vehicle" Sinner Unbeliever Stigmatus Repentant But this belongs in another thread, who is going to go start it! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:19:00 - [7] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). I have been discussing this with Xel. One normal HAV with 3 manned turrets - "will" win a solo HAV, just due to extra fire power One normal HAV with only driver - will have exactly the same fitting power as a solo HAV with only driver - draw Where does the solo HAV must be worse than an empty HAV come from? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:24:00 - [8] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:27:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. Who cares what True thinks, wait, is he right behind me? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15388	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:42:00 - [10] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I have been discussing this with Xel. One normal HAV with 3 manned turrets - "will" win a solo HAV, just due to extra fire power One normal HAV with only driver - will have exactly the same fitting power as a solo HAV with only driver - draw Where does the solo HAV must be worse than an empty HAV come from? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. I need to see how the numbers pan out. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15389	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:50:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alex-ZX wrote: As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Why would you have to be stationary to fire a standard conventional tank gun? nownow, this is not a future/real world/eve lore/bickering thread! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15389	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:08:00 - [12] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. Are we talking talking 2 small turrets and 1 large turret? or are we talking unchangeable large turrets? Presuming the former the main reason vehicles petitioned so hard to not have mandatory small turrets was because of the incredible frustration of dealing with people who would get in vehicles and NEVER leave them, or do things like fire turrets at nothing warning enemies of your location. This should only be done if there squad-lock on vehicles. If we're talking the latter I strongly disagree as it severely removes a lot of customization options. It would like forcing AR's/shotguns on all gallente suits. Read, not rage "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15390	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:20:00 - [13] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:30:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Good stuff Yes, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret, have fixed OP. Existing modules can be changed relatively easily and I need the player base to propose changes to make them useful, as you all know I am not a big fan of ehp being the only choice. sHAVs being a specialized choice is not useless as it allows balancing of solo Havs against each other, instead of some using the HAV fitting power intended for small turrets to not fit small turrets and fit higher tiered modules. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:39:00 - [15] - Quote Our Resident Lore Keeper has started the naming thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583546 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:48:00 - [16] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them. The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead. If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? The turrets are there for team play, not for commanders to be even more efficient at everything. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:01:00 - [17] - Quote LAVALLOIS Nash wrote: I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched. I was just thinking aesthetically amarr and gallente look more similar, and caldari and minmatar. plus, easier to retrofit an armor rep tank to plate tank, than a shield based hull to armor. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:09:00 - [18] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Firstly, I'm glad your refitting small turrets as a compulsory item and I'm liking the specialisations your going for too. Just be careful with difference between solo and regular HAV, if solos aren't comparable to regulars everyone will just use a regular with the 2 empty turrets. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:17:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Since you seem to have a guiderail now a couple notes. My spreadsheet was incomplete but I'm sure you can extrapolate my intent based on what I changed vs. What was kept from chrome. I am assuming you intend for these new HAV guidelines to run opposite of AV as it is now. If this is the case, would it be helpful to convert the stats of my proposed AV weapons such as the autocannon, scram lance, plasma mortar and Arc cannon to conform to today's AV meta? I'm inclined to leave the actual hammering on hulls to the people who know better than I the strengths and weaknesses of the HAVs. But I know AV like the back of my hand. I know where it is strong, where it's weak and now that I understand the weapon relations between stats I'd like to help. The elephants in the room do need to be addressed though for your hull initiative to work well. That is the plasma cannon underperforming and swarms rocking almost 400 dps higher at baseline than even the IAFG. Would you like me to do the conversions for my chrome base AV to today? Or any other DPS range you care to name. My turret numbers should still be viable. What is missing in my sheet is the total current Infantry AV capability as a baseline, it would be very helpful if you tackle that, just like I set up the Turret sheet in my doc. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:37:00 - [20] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. so skill into the solo HAV ;) "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:40:00 - [21] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15558	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:15:00 - [22] - Quote Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15634	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:19:00 - [23] - Quote Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15668	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:20:00 - [24] - Quote spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15678	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:01:00 - [25] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15681	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:21:00 - [26] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15691	Posted - 2015.01.25 09:40:00 - [27] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: we should have 3 AV grenades good point, with the HAV re-intro, that could help. I stil think two or three sidearms should be effective, just not overly effective. Another topic that I like is some damage threshold to slow vehicles down. Or AV flux grenades. All in the context that HAVs may become a tad more powerful in the same instance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15698	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:06:00 - [28] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. 1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:22:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati would you like me to do number builds for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar, autocannon and arc cannon adapted to 1.10 AV DPS standards that I had in my chrome build spreadsheet? It's an easy conversion. Go ahead, but be warned that is a phase 2 or even 3 addition to HAV's. Hulls, modules and existing Weapons need to come first and be balanced. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:30:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Thanks to you guys who found this. I appreciate the help. I can finish now. Would you all like me to hit turrets next? If rattati doesn't already have those up we're going to need them. Since Rattati seems to be nowhere near finished tweaking the hulls up I'll save the theorycrafting for later. Practical application first. I need input on "completely balancing Turrets". I will add a new thread: Large Turrets Hulls are actively being designed as well as skills for them. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15780	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:51:00 - [31] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15803	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:28:00 - [32] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:39:00 - [33] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now" The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place. Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do. I really don't think capacitors would take 1-2 years to develop. They could start with cut/pasting the stamina code and making a few tweaks. You already have modules that can affect the size of the stamina pool, and it's regen rate, so the code exists for that functionality. You have a mechanism for regeneration, and for taking chunks of stamina away (jumping) so the stamina code, could at it's most basic level cover the bases for a capacitor system. The UI might take some work to redo, but we could simply use the stamina gauge with a different color as a stand-in until they can port the code from EVE's capacitor UI. If this stuff is written in nice, modular object-oriented code, then much of this should be able to be moved around without breaking other stuff, probably as much work as adding a crafting system. So you're right, if we had to wait 1-2 years to get it, it wouldn't be worth it, but I think even a very small team could hack this together in 2-3 months, especially if they base the values around those in EVE, which have already been balanced over a decade of play. I respectfully disagree that the current rebalance effort has a better cost/benefit ratio, especially when it would all have to be redone once capacitors are introduced later. It's the difference between building something that can evolve over time into something fantastic and spending a ton of effort on a side-effort that will later be completely abandoned and replaced. Even if the first is a little harder, it's worth it, because it's the foundation that will be build upon for decades, versus something that's got an expiration date, and will inherently suck. You're completely right of course that capacitors won't balance everything else (like HP values), but with capacitors in place, you can now design vehicles to have much more survivability, and balance around that. The easiest approach would be to cut/paste values from EVE's ships. Find appropriate analogs and use those to establish the values. These would need to be tweaked of course, as the games are different, but now you're moving forward towards a goal instead of tangental to where we need to be. Turret damage, EHP, regen rates, etc. all SHOULD BE DIFFERENT in a capacitor system. Vehicles could be MUCH stronger than without a capacitor system, because it'll be possible to cripple them. Vehicle fights would be designed to last 30-90 seconds instead of what we would get with the current designs. For argument's sake, let's assume the current rebalance moves forward without capacitors. When would be a better time to introduce them? IMO it will only ever get harder and harder later. At some point, it will be so cumbersome that CCP completely gives up on the idea. That would be horrible for the future of DUST/Legion. My timeline goes like this: 1. Introduce capacitors to existing system, add webs and neuts, increase slots, and bring back the old modules before 1.7. Design around high vehicle survivability. 2. Hotfix balance tweaks 3. Introduce missing racial vehicles, turrets, heavy weapons 4. Hotfix balance tweaks 5. Add pilot suits 6. Hotfix balance tweaks 7. Add additional Ewar (tracking disruptors, target painters, ECM) 8. Hotfix balance tweaks 9. Add advanced vehicle variants. 10. Hotfix balance tweaks It seems like people want to progress: 1. Tweak numbers on existing system with low vehicle survivability and short engagement windows. 2. Hotfix tweaks 3. Add advanced vehicles 4. Hotfix tweaks 5. add pilot suits? 6. Hotfix tweaks 7. *Trash all balancing data and start from scratch again with capacitors* 8. try to add back everything from before, completely rebalanced around capacitors and high vehicle survivability and long engagement windows. It just seems like a crazy approach with a lot of wasted efforts. When you've got limited development resources, it's insane to constantly redesign the same stuff over-and-over. Bluntly, we are not making capacitors, now or in the short to medium term. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:45:00 - [34] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) I've got a question Ratt, will UHAV and DHAV have required smalls? Honestly I don't like the idea very much (it destroys people like me who just want 1 turret on my tank for the one gunner I have). Instead of having to variants of tanks, one with and one without, why not just add vehicle locks? Seems a lot simpler to me. One of the reasons, is to not give away free fitting space for unused turrets. This has been a big issue for balancing, how to create a fair fitting design which allows the use of blasters, but not too much, and see it all used on proto solo gear. We have a similar logistics problem with a lot of fitting space, but it can be abused by not using any equipment. Locking does not fix that, also what Pokey said "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:54:00 - [35] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:10:00 - [36] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Just a random thought/request while you're here. Have you considered making modules on vehicle operate on a similar principle to how cloaking devices do? Activation consumes energy and then recharges when the module is off. While I think the Duration/Cooldown system works well enough for Dust, what I very much dislike is how rigid it is. Using 50% of the duration should cost 50% of the cooldown, not 100% as it currently does. Obviously some limitations such as reactivation cooldowns would need to be impliment to prevent abuse, but in general I'd like to see a softer duration/cooldown system at some point. good point "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:13:00 - [37] - Quote Forlorn Destrier wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Cough. Eve does now have WASD controls. It is a beta opt in feature. I am aware of that, and it does not affect my point of the combat design being made overcomplex, to make it challenging and "fun" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:15:00 - [38] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) You can also go for an Anti Tank Gunship with full Rails on a UHAV, or large Blaster 2 rails, basically as laspredator from w40k. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15816	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:36:00 - [39] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15817	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:59:00 - [40] - Quote Hi, can all of you running spreadsheets, please rename them as "Breaking Stuff's something", Spkr4thedead's something so I can more easily cross reference what you say with your data, I am overflowing with data, which is still a good thing. Much appreciated! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15822	Posted - 2015.01.27 03:20:00 - [41] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15837	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:53:00 - [42] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. 1. Disagree - Its either the same for all or not at all - Vehicles have had this 'tiercide' which has only got worse since 1.7 with a 5slot layout - My proto amarr logi doesnt stay at 4 slots at proto so frankly i dont expect my proto hull to still be at 5slots which basically means the fit im using at basic will be upgraded to a proto hull but nothing changes, no variety, no new fits just the same boring cookie cutter fit that everyone uses which means there is no point in skilling for proto hulls because you are not getting better 2. What happens if it doesnt stay 16v16? Does that mean you will have to rework vehicles again and all the numbers because you didnt want vehicles to be too powerful in a 32player game - Right now large and small turrets cannot suppress infantry let alone kill them and vehicles cannot hack points and with a 3man HAV thats 3 less infantry so 13 are left on the field and in the end as it always is the team with most infantry always wins, the team with most vehicles loses 1. Frankly, it's not 2. We will just rebalance "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15844	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:00:00 - [43] - Quote question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15844	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:06:00 - [44] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15850	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:48:00 - [45] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. I'm going to say....yes/no. I think Shield Boosters, as in a module which when activated quickly regenerates shields, should remain in the high. There are several EVE modules (some of which we've had in Dust before) which increase natural shield regen and go in the low slot. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Power Diagnostic System, providing a small boost to Shield HP, Natural Shield Recharge, and PG capacity. It's an awesome module and I used it frequently in the past, so definitely bring those back if possible. The reason I'm against shield boosters in the low is that Shield Vehicles would be able to fit HP/Resists in the highs and then their main regen in the lows, whereas armor would have to fit all 3 in the low, and reppers really should not be high slot items, I feel this deviates too much from EVE mechanics and could be confusing to players. Additionally I'd like to see Shield Regulators in the lows and possibly Armor Pumps in the highs (Increase to the rate of armor repairers but don't actually repair by themselves). Regs it is. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15961	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:28:00 - [46] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. Literal cookie cutter fits. These last three pages are the final straw. I will ask comunity managers to delete all nonuseful feedback and ban those who don't abide by my terms. This is a formal dev feedback thread, feel free to complain in your own threads, those who don't get banned that is. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15963	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:37:00 - [47] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet Those who are interested can take a look at the WIP progress for capacity, for UHAVs, DHAVs and HAVs in the Final Proposal Caldari Hulls. It also has most of the skills/specializations/modules that are needed in phase 1. Duplicating this sheet for Gallente tomorrow. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16050	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:27:00 - [48] - Quote I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16056	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:11:00 - [49] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16057	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:26:00 - [50] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16057	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:27:00 - [51] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use. OK "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16060	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:51:00 - [52] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: You know.... I don't think Rattati likes me.... :( Why on earth would you think that "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16060	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:54:00 - [53] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. With a disp mod, you might be able to take down a tank at medium with full auto, that's what I am thinking. Like an assassination, line the shot up just right... "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16099	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:51:00 - [54] - Quote Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16113	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:29:00 - [55] - Quote Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16118	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:41:00 - [56] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. Other than the issue with MLT hull generation from this idea (or maybe the issue is with the STD hull generation), it seems like a solid way to go... so would the hulls still be available unfit? or loadouts only? Hulls are completely empty, except that UHAVS and HAVS have required small turrets, DHAVs and SHAVs do not "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16136	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:59:00 - [57] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16191	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:01:00 - [58] - Quote all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16243	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:47:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire me too, thats why my kdr is in hell "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16245	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:25:00 - [60] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire Always been preferable to the concept of a UHAV just because I was always interested in Warhammer 40K. In particular... The Baneblade. Nothing more interesting that a giant mechanism of war rolling up and laying waste to everything in proximity and forcing that 'We need reinforcements!' aspect of warfare. Suppression and fear sort of deal. Then again, I've also been heavily interested in stuff like Self-Propelled Artillery and Indirect Bombardment. Anything that puts the fear into a lot of infantry and makes them want to reconsider what they're doing at the time. Exactly, it's fun to be scared. I regularly cite the Tiger from BF1942. That guy was scary, because you knew you couldn't solo him as an Engineer, except through luck or bad piloting, but it was awesome to try and take him down. And that's awesome, gets your adrenaline pumping. Due to his tracking speed, he had difficulty killing infantry, but he still could. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16245	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:26:00 - [61] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that We do have skills for that too. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16306	Posted - 2015.01.31 08:15:00 - [62] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16587	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:50:00 - [63] - Quote Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16644	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:47:00 - [64] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16934	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:48:00 - [65] - Quote Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16992	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:48:00 - [66] - Quote Guys, thanks for all the advice. I am going to lock this down now, because pages keep adding and I can't keep up . The final proposal will be posted as fast as I can. Stay tuned. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

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.