|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 00:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ratattati:
I am excited for the proposed changes and for the chance to see different fittings on vehicles.
- the loadouts you have on the sheet you made are terrible builds, please do not balance around these.
Gunlogis need two hardeners at least vs todays iteration of av, rails, missles and nitro ramming blaster maddies, just to peek out of the redline... Nitro in the high=death. Anyone fitting a gunlogi with an armor rep is going to have problems. Madrugars need Nitro to close the gap and to get away from av as they can't tank as much damage as a double hardened Gunlogi.
For the Gunlogi, this means 2 high slots will forever be spoken for by hardeners unless you want to pop everytime advanced swarms lock on you. Madrugars have either lots or armor or lots of reps and nitro. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for build diversity.
If the new advanced and proto hulls have any chance of survival with the current slot layout ( 3/2 2/3 ) they will need stat buffs equal to a proto hardener or shield extender for caldari, armor plate or armor repper for gallente, otherwise there is not much point to skilling up to get marginally more ehp when a bunny hopping minmitar commando is still going to pop you in 5 seconds from behind random hill number 32. Even with gunners on all turrets, hit detection with swarms is near 100% and if he is on top of some building or tower that the tank can't even aim up at then 1 player > 3 players plus 100xs isk.
The damage buffs per level seem to make sense and I like the increase to shield regen and armor. I would like to see a madrugar blaster fit be able to survive as long as a double hardened gunlogi blaster fit vs todays alpha av damage as it is a much better chassis to shoot infantry with.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
283
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 00:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Of course I type this as Rattati makes a post
7 slots would be a great start, would be nice to see 3 players in a tank survive a full clip of swarms.
Shield boosters would be more useful in the low slots, tank wise, they cost alot of resources which can generally be equalled by using another hardener or extender depending on playstyle. Otherwise there is nothing to put in low slots save for plates or ammo.
Some sort of damage reduction control device would be nice if it could go in either a low or high. even if its 10% at proto.
More cpu and pg would be great
I know you will try your best to do this right so good luck.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
285
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 14:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rattati:
I would be fine with some weapons doing more damage to vehicles if vehicles could do more damage to infantry. Specifically, with current hit detection and dispersion, the large blaster turret will have a more difficult time with alot more bunny hopping once entire teams have proto ed out the av variant of a sidearm ( this takes about a week now ?) If the large blaster was more deadly to infantry and didn't depend on a lucky burst connecting with a headshot from 20m then I would still see a reason to call a blaster tank. Otherwise, chances are every infantry will just start jumping and lobbing flaylocks rounds at every vehicle.
If possible, could any changes to weapons come after hull changes to get a feel if the extra hp is even enough ( for those brave enough to sink sp into the trees ) to warrant more weapons to have av variants? The nova knives make sense as a stealth player, but increasing other weapons dps vs vehicles will make them the dominant weapon on the play field. We already played through a build where flaylocks and mass drivers were spammed all match for the win.
To comment any further I would have to have an idea of what kind of ehp these tanks would have, if it only amounts to a swarm volley then Iwould say av still has it easy. Just because a tank driving by you doesn't automatically pop, when it can't even hit you, shouldn't mean you need your weapon buffed.
not checked for spelling or autocorrect. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
286
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 21:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage.
Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long.
I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
286
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 23:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Doc DDD wrote:The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage.
Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long.
I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further. Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods. The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs. I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff? Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now.
Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults.
10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot.
Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline.
This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him.
Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
286
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 01:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating.
I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire.
Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around.
The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
286
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 01:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Doc DDD wrote:
Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults.
10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot.
Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline.
This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him.
Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200.
Just to clarify for you the stats between Missiles vs Rails: Missiles are explosive, -20/+20 ( i kow it says projectile in protofits, but rattati changed them to explosive dmg profile) Rails are hybrid, -10/+10 - Pro Missiles XT-201 539.5 damage per missile x 12 shots per clip = 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor - Proto Rail 1885 damage per shot x 9 shots = 16,965 damage base 15,268 vs shield 18,661.5 vs armor But I know Rails over heat in 5 shots so in five shots = 9,425 damage base 8506.8 vs shields 10,367 vs armor You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor.
Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank. But you are not happy with this , so you want rail tanks to do in 5 shots +10% 10,367 damage base, 9425 damage vs shield, 11,404 damage vs armor without damage mods. because missile tanks may do per clip +10% 7121 damage base 5697 vs shields 8545 damage vs armor and you think this is balance. Because of you're mythical triple damage modded "redline missile tank" with 150m optimal, damage dropoff, missile travle time, inaacuracy, and the need to land every single round to get damage even comparable to a rail tank which has 300m range, no damage drop off, pinpoint accuaracy, no travel time, and can put out enough damage to kill any vehicle without overheating. " This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him." Yep, and i'm looking right at you.
Just in case you edit your post and try to say you never said rails get 5 shots before overheat.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
286
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 02:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Doc DDD wrote:I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating.
I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire.
In the time it takes a rail turret to shoot 9 shots the missile tank can empty it's clip twice.
Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around.
The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. You aren't really answering why 5 Rail rounds that do 2,951 more base damage than a full clip of Missiles, 3,327 more shield damage than missiles, and 2,597 more armor damage than missiles needs a 10% damage buff. You also haven't been paying attention, i have been asking for armor tank hardeners to be buffed as a defense against getting instapopped by missiles. You should try to show why rails need to put out even more damage to "keep up" with other turrets it already surpasses. Rails don't need anymore love. You wanted to compare it to the damage missiles do, here you go. Now that you know for a fact that rails do far more damage than missiles do, are you ready to accept that Rails are in a great place right now and don't need a buff?
I don't think you are following the above rebuttals to your error filled posts. Please read and realize the Missile turrets put out more damage faster as I feel I am even wasting my time with this reply.
The Large rail turret needs the same bonus as the Large blaster turret and the Large Missile turret.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
291
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 04:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 06:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 4 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired. |
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote: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.
With the recharge delay Gunlogis have on shields, if it takes any more than one low cost module to bring them to the same levels they are now and Madrugar hardeners get any love, then the instant repair of the armor repairer could get abused with 5 low slots.
I'm sure the shield recharge rate of all the hulls would be lowered, but that delay after damage threshold has been broken is not present in armor repairers. Armor hardeners have a much longer duration than shields and the effect of increasing amount of damage repped per second when active. Not much you will be able to do against a plate, 2 hardners, 2 reppers and nitro if the hardener get any love.
It's the same as dropsuits, you can at least tank some armor on most of them that have low shield recharge rates ie Cal logi, but once you start removing low slots you become more shield dependant, thus cover and recharge dependant, thus hiding away from battle dependant. There is no comparison when a gallente heavy pushes up on a caldari heavy of equal skill, the Gallente heavy will win with most of thier armor immediately repping after the battle. The nice part about tanks is there is no repping nanohive or repping logi further squewing the battle in armors favor.
tl/dr:
Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math ). So outside of redline Caldari = run away, Madrugar = keep applying damage every 3 seconds while a Nova Knifer runs over to make a YouTube vid. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 16:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster...
There was talk of improving armor hardener, which I think makes sense, right now its only advantage is duration, but nerfing shield regen at the same time could squew tank battles. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 17:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's that shield delay combined with nearly half the duration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
[qknow the new hulls have different =Pokey Dravon]Doc DDD wrote:I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's delay combined with nearly half tGunlogisration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing
I will agree however that shield regen on the Madrugar is too damn high.[/quote]
I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however;
You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp?
If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit.
I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds...
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however;
You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp?
If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit.
I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds...
No my point is that even though the raw HP is different, the eHP of those two fits is very similar, meaning that the Gunnlogi recovers eHP far faster than the Madrugar, while having an equal (and sometimes superior) eHP. And you can argue that you can fit 2 reppers, but that is typically an non-viable fit and would drop the eHP of the Madrugar even more sharply. And keep in mind that the Madrugar still has to fit multiple modules just so it can beat the regen of the Gunnlogi using 0 regen modules. That's my main gripe. (Under the old model) if the Gunnlogi had to fit 1 proto module to get the 169 HP/s, I would be FAR more comfortable with it. As for the new model, I can do that, but looking at the first few seconds after depletion isn't a really clear picture since that is specifically the weakest part of the shield regen. Regardless I think passive shield recharge and passive armor reps need to nerfed into the ground and bring back proper active modules.
I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree.
but the gunlogi can never get more reps
the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps
and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi.
While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 19:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote: I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree.
but the gunlogi can never get more reps
the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps
and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi.
While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher.
I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module?
Then we would need to look at
- adding a 4 second delay to armor reps,
- reduce starting armor level to the same as the starting level of the shield tanks
- penalizing armor repair delays for every plate added.
- remove any passive reps on the shields of armor tanks.
This would make everything 'fair' , which seems to be your arguement.
I don't want to homogenize armor and shield, they are both different and have different positives and negatives.
5 low slots is going to be huge for armor tanks, if they are repping faster than shields then I feel we have gone wrong somewhere. Your chart shows that even now, one armor repairer madrugar outreps a gunlogi and the madrugar has more hp.
I wouldn't push for any of the above points as I wouldn't push for lower shield reps on the gunlogi.
But if rattati sees something we don't then who am I to argue, as long as it makes sense.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I'll take that as along winded "Gunnlogi should not have to fit any modules or train any skills to outrep a Madrugar using a maxed out proto module with max skills". Ok, thanks for your feedback.
If you don't want to respond to any of my points that's fine, I took the time to respond to yours.
And as per your spread sheet a maxed out madrugar with maxed out skills and a module outreps a gunlogi with no skills. You seem fixated on 'repped to full shields vs repped to full armor' when the total values of what's being repped are not even close to the same.
I understand if this is confusing for you, how 4000 is a larger number than 2685, and how waiting 4 seconds before reps start is a penalty for having innate reps. But we are here to help you understand.
If I can add 2 shield regulars in a shield tanks low slots to have zero wait for my shields to start repping at 275 points a second while repping my armor for 50 hps, then sure, that would be fair to reduce innate reps, but that would be rediculous.
Funny thing is 2 modules will get a Madrugar's reps to 275 points immediately while it's shields rep without a module, AND YOU CAN ADD MORE REPAIR MODULES.
So you are right, I don't think shields need a reduction to regeneration rate without using a module. We agree. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 20:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
I think you might need some help reading spreadsheets. Apart from one second, the madrugar outreps the gunlogi total hps for every second, with a basic rep. Yes 4000 takes longer to rep than 2685, not a surprise.
AS PER HIS OWN SPREADSHEET.
I'm pretty sure rattati said the gunlogi would be 5 high 2 low, madrugar 2 high 5 low. As per his spreadsheet. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Sir Dukey 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? So what are the disadvantages of the UHAV, do they track slower? Turn slower? Accelerate slower? Have a lower top speed?
Slower,
No damage bonus to large turret
Probably more is
Less slots
2 small turrets |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted?
If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components.
ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. |
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 23:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Doc DDD wrote:pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted?
If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components.
ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening.
as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself.
My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice.
shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them.
I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls.
To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay.
I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 23:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate.
Just sayin |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
296
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 16:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
I like the extra hp, having less slots gives you the opportunity to skip an extender or plate in your fit. With only 5 slots and low ehp you are more than likely going to stack as much hp as you can on a slow target. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
303
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 21:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rattati:
We really need to consider the extra 5% damage every light weapon is going to be doing to vehicles with war barge bonuses.
It doesn't sound like much but the damage modded minmando goes from 5800 damage per clip to armor to 6100... in one clip.. and when plasma canons are doing 2000 damage per shot to shields already, the extra 100 will still make a big difference. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
303
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 09:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
If there are two minmitar commandos on the other team, vehicles have little chance of making it out of the redline. Feel bad for tankers speccing into DHAV that will spend entire matches diving around corners trying to avoid swarms. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
305
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 09:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell.
I like the uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
306
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 01:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks.
AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low.
UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast.
Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration)
Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase )
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
308
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 02:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote:Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks.
AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low.
UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast.
Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration)
Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase )
Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion?
Last time I looked at Rattatis spreadsheet it had DHAV large turret bonus at 5% per level, 25% maxed, built in better than permanent damage mod.
DHAV strategy shouldn't be to go toe to toe vs three players in a UHAV and simply hold down fire button, DHAV should lose that battle. Strategy should more flanking and out piloting UHAV, thanks to mobility. Otherwise I am not going to let anyone in my squad in a turret unless they have proto swarms on the standby.
UHAV = Lumbering death machine with 3 infantry.
DHAV = Speedy glass cannon with 1 infantry. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
308
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 02:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover.
Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
308
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 03:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:[quote=Doc DDD]As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover.
Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus.
So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP.
the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS.
So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS
DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS
UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS.
At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds
So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster?
So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. --------------------------------------------------------------------'-'-''----------
I think you need to look at it more like scout suit with damage bonus vs 3 brick tanked logi suits that combine for 50% more ehp total and are all tied together.
It is more play style and strategy, that is the problem with spreadsheet wizards, great at making numbers balance on paper, bad at seeing the big picture. .. sometimes.
If DHAV win toe to toe vs UHAVS then there will just be 6 DHAVS zooming around shooting down red RDVs before they can drop anything in. Why have 6 infantry in 2 UHAVS when you can have 6 DHAV S for three times the firepower.
Try and imagine there are infantry trying to capture and hold an objective, and the tanks are there to help hold or push the point. |
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
309
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 04:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote:As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover.
Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? Did you factor in small turret damage as well?
I am pretty sure he is concerned about solo players calling in UHAVS and running solo ad opposed to solo DHAVS.
I am hoping he understands there will be a difference in play style, UHAV will be pricier but slower both moving and tracking while doing less damage. DHAV will rely on quick surprise strikes with emphasis on piloting skills and avoiding stand still toe to toe trading of damage. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
309
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 04:29:00 -
[32] - Quote
DHAVS will more than likely run a damage mod and it will more than likely not have a stacking penalty, now how much damage will missiles and blasters unleash into the side and back of a UHAV desperately trying to turn it's turret around. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
311
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 05:53:00 -
[33] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:duster 35000 wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin?
What is the scout for if a heavy can beat it toe to toe by a very large margin. Even if the scouts weapon does 40% more damage than the heavy.
ON PAPER.
The problem is you are not thinking about attack angles, tracking speed, controlled damage bursts, using the environment, working maximum and optimum ranges, knowing when to engage/disengage.
Try and apply all the proposed numbers to all the tank battles you have been in. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 13:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive )
I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled.
Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing.
Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots.
I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 20:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out. |
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 14:43:00 -
[36] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet
@ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x.
The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank.
It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm.
You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work. I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then.
Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point. |
|
|
|