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)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:29:00 - [1] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:55:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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 ;) That wouldn't solve #1, or any variation of #1. It would also hinder #2 in certain variations (I had AV sit outside of my HAV in wait before, but otherwise they were inside of my HAV). You're 1 for 3. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:56:00 - [3] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. A properly tanked LAV, especially in the past would out tank DS's......... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 10:00:00 - [4] - Quote I have a issue with the tiering of HAV's. You shape it around AV so it's easier to balance around AV. I get that. What I don't get is pricing. The CPU and PG skills did the same thing for a one time price, yet this would end up being much more expensive, particularly at PROTO level. People has been telling me "Then just nerf vehicles to reduce the price", and that would end up in a 1.6 situation, and I simply refuse for that to happen. I don't want to be made of freaking paper ever again. So, what is your solution to this exactly? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:01:00 - [5] - Quote Also, something just occured to me: Often times, people will spawn in a obscenely large amount of LAV's for personal transport, cutting me and other actual pilots of spawning their own vehicles, cutting us off from actually playing how we want. I get that vehicel limits needs to be there, but cutting us off of our vehicles shouldn't be a thing. So I say this: Being a piloit should come with the added bonus of getting priority to spawn in their vehicle within a certain time period at the start of the match. So say 10-15 seconds at the start of the match, only pilots can spawn in their vehicles. And to keep it from being tied to a skill and useless until it is at lvl 5, or too easy to get, you should only unlock the bonus if you're 1: Either lvl 3 in the skill 2: Enough SP into vehicle skills 3: Wearing a Pilot Suit click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:32:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Only the third option on your list wouldn't tremendously punish novice pilots godin. Never mind transport LAVs are often critical to squads for getting into position. Pilots should havea way to call their stuff. But other players SHOULD NOT be punished for not being pilot primary. I was just throwing out ideas, I didn't really think about them much at all. I just want some way for this not to be a issue. It's bad when I have to wait just for infantry to get a speed boost (when in reality they shouldn't be calling in vehicles for solo transport other than say a speeder, but rather, a pilot transports them imo), but it's even worse when I can't even call my own vehicles in because multiple people instead of getting into one LAV or so, calls in their own individual LAV's, going so far as to making people walk because they don't want to wait 2 seconds for them to walk over to them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:34:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Missile shotgun needs to die. And Blaster shotgun needs to come alive click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:35:00 - [8] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Regarding the above sentence, will the number of high/low slots stay the same as today? I understand no additional slots will be available through the progression, but will the "base" number (for all tiers) be altered? That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:53:00 - [9] - Quote I don't really like Marauders being a infantry killing/suppression platform, but more of a defensive platform. Enforcers are the opposite of Marauders, being the offensive platform. BO HAV's seems like thebetter option to have a more infantry platform, it being fast and moderately tanked, but it has a weaker medium turret. It's made to be a real infantry suppression tool, but against a HAV with a large turret, it won't do much of anything. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:28:00 - [10] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I don't really like Marauders being a infantry killing/suppression platform, but more of a defensive platform. Enforcers are the opposite of Marauders, being the offensive platform. BO HAV's seems like thebetter option to have a more infantry platform, it being fast and moderately tanked, but it has a weaker medium turret. It's made to be a real infantry suppression tool, but against a HAV with a large turret, it won't do much of anything. Marauders aren't being discussed. Ultra Heavy HAVs are The idea is that you can get full progression for a hull type actually will put the proto main battle tanks where they WERE in theory. So instead of having marauders that stand head and shoulders above all other chassis we will have solid progression from start to finish. 1: Isn't that the same thing? If not, what's the difference? 2: Marauders being better than T I hulls was a balance issue, same as infantry's T I suits being worse than the T II suits. We're basically going backwards, not forwards. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:30:00 - [11] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Prefitted tanks: As long as we can switch out the prefitted turrets to turrets of our own choice to play with the fit. Also, nothing to stop me from fitting basic small turrets on a proto tank and having the extra PG and CPU to beat up on a solo tank. We don't have "PRO" tanks. That's a myth. There's no vehicle with the PRO tag attached to it. Those were the Kubera and Chakkram during Chromosome. They were the Black Ops HAVs with a built-in mCRU. Codex, they didn't exist in Chromo. They weren't even "Better" than a Maddy or Gunnlogi, more of a difference (Although both Kubera and Chakram and Kubera had a 4/4 slot, so it was pretty modular). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:47:00 - [12] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:48:00 - [13] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. Take out =/= kill. Just sayin click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:53:00 - [14] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted. Take the tinfoil hat off Godin. You suck at conspiracy theories. What are you talking about? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:55:00 - [15] - Quote Seriously though, this Rocket shotgun thing needs to stop. It's silly seeing it, it makes blasters useless as a short range weapon, and it makes Rockets only useful at killing HAV's, and nothing else. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 21:05:00 - [16] - Quote It's be much simpler to force at least the top turret on if you wanted to, but then again, I don't see the point of that. It's just forcing turrets on for no specific reason. If smalls didn't require much to make up for their removal, and especially if HAV's could fit the exact same fits, then this would essentially make zero sense to make. I didn't personally like the idea of them existing in the first place. It seems like he took what we said and did the opposite in a lot of areas, it seems specifically in the areas that we agreed on to do the opposite here (like blasters doing the highest DPS and the lowest range, missiles being the middile ground, and rails being the lowest, but highest range). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2712	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:50:00 - [17] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Also one thing I would caution you on for the Anti Infantry HAVs. If you want to boost up the raw HP that's fine but excessively high raw HP means more time waiting around behind cover or in the redline, waiting for your regen to rep all of the missing HP which isn't exactly fun. Waves of opportunity yes, but not to a point where I can go make a sandwich while my armor repairs in the redline. I'd lean more towards a higher resistance/regen bonuses to compensate and avoid this issue. I respectfully disagree, high regeneration annoys AV as they feel like they've accomplished nothing when you come back 30 seconds later with full health If LLV's are in the pipeline, along with the existing av repair tool, then I would prefer high health, low regeneration (that can be overcome with modules if sacrificing tank) Fixed, because Logistic Triangle (or, for the moment, Line.) click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2712	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:55:00 - [18] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I always wanted some kind of Infantry Fighting Vehicle. with a pilot and 5 small blasters 2 of either side and 1 on the back similar to the obnes in battlefield. if it's created that only basic small blasters can be fitted and about 3000hps it'd be nice, its what i thought the MAV's would have been IFV's are not APC's. The MAV however as far as we've seen, IS a IFV. Medium turret and a small on top, maybe some more in other places. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2715	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:16:00 - [19] - Quote pumping up wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There's probably a memory allocation error in the game. There is more poly clutter in destiny. The maps are smaller but more poly clutter. Destiny runs on ps4 though :p That isn't..... what the **** are you even getting at? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2715	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:22:00 - [20] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati if you introduce the turrets for minmatar and amarr rather than the standard Assault, breach standard, etc. profgression I would like to offer an alternative: Lasers: Pulse laser turret, Beam laser turret Charged burst turret (Actually cooked this up for the arc cannon I was submitting) Cannons: Cannons: Like an M-1 Abrams main gun Autocannons Howitzers: Vehicular mass driver. So I assume you split artys into two groups? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2716	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:31:00 - [21] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: All I want is chromosome tanks please. Please!! Passive mods. Revert 1.7 arcade tanks to chromosome. Fully would be the same as now but with better hulls tbh, because, you know, rails and missiles were OP then too. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2719	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:09:00 - [22] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. Xel, stop being dishonest. You know exactly what he meant by that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2719	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:12:00 - [23] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. I want to explain to you why sitting there and taking damage over a longer period of time is bad, and that fights that are too short leaves a feeling of a cheap death. TTK balance is not really an impossible concept to grasp but then i read your post again. What do you mean by this statment "a longer fight is almost garunteed to favor vehicles", as in LAVs, Dropships and Tanks? How so? How would a long engagement favor a dropship over a forge gunner? You seem to be unable to grasp that vehicles by their nature are mobile (call me crazy, but i'm sure i can get farther in a car than i can on foot).Why? Sure a vehicle can move away, and once the vehicle does the AV is no longer under threat from the vehicle either. Tanks are hardly nimble (as many a forge gunner knows), LAV have no real offensive power except the wheelchair heavy leaping out . That just leaves the Dropships, which by your own admission swarms are ina good place vs dropships right now. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with all of this hyperbole. Even with my wildest arguements with Atiim, and my AV vs Vehicle discussions with Breaking Stuff, nobody else (except IWS) just comes out and drops the sort of comments you do. When a dedicated AVer comments HAV TTK should be balanced why do you have to jump all over him? Thing is, Breakin wasn't really even talking about AV then, but rather, vehicle fights. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2724	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:36:00 - [24] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Can we get the protofits guys to make a page based on Rattati's proposed HAV stats? Might be helpful to be able to make/look at EHP and resistance spreads so we can compare turrets and AV to the hulls I would start making fits if they did this. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:42:00 - [25] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr.... Actually, myself, Thaddeus and Pokey are rather unanimously going to recommend a seven-slot layout. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 Cookie cutter fits need to die in a fire. Hey you ****............. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:43:00 - [26] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. The thing that pissed me off the most in the current meta is: armor tanking shield tanks. Every tank balance pass, which allow caldari vehicles to be succesfully armor tanking for me is not good at all. Armor on caldari vehicles should mean troll fit, same goes for fuel injector. To make a good comparison: fitting a plate on a caldari vehicle should be like fit a shield regulator on gallente dropsuit, it's simply not its place. Please Rattati there are some very good models lying around here on the forums, pick one of them, use it as base, then modify what you wish, idk if you have played in vehicles before 1.7 (or in chromo), but i can assure it was 100% more fun, even with all the problems and vehicle vs vehicle unbalance there was. AV is secondary problem and can be balanced on vehicles. ^ click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:44:00 - [27] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. Fear not. I've already spoken with CPM and they've assured me that the 3/2 2/3 layout is very much not set in stone and was simply left there because that's what we're currently at. Wonderful. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:34:00 - [28] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 02:05:00 - [29] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. Monitoring them is easy. once every 60 ecods flip the wheel. What wont be easy is fighting a 5-2 tank with two extenders ad three hardeners .You always manage to have one on and the other two in reserve, or pop all three on at the same time. given the majority of AV infantry and turrets arearmor based, its basically circling around being untouchable. Right now with tanks its requires a two vs one to beat a gunlogi with 2 hardeners and 1 extender, how are you going to best a gunlogi with an additional hardener and extender? I don't want to see turrets or Av overbuffed to compensate for this. That logic only works if you couldn't change the cooldown timers, active timers, resistance, etc. Also, that logic only applies if AV doesn't change, and all modules don't change. Do you see what the problem is? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:03:00 - [30] - Quote Just to point out, you didn't cover two things that is close to me (although you're doing a ** ton, and I see now why you're actually asking us to help you do stuff, so I get it, keep up the good work). I know that you said that those stats were not even set in stone, but were just to show us progress and stuffz, I'm just pointing these things out to keep in mind. 1: Blasters and missiles needs fixing. Blasters are not what people see as "Large turrets". They don't even match what blasters are; high DPS in a short range relative to everything else. As I have said numerous times, as have others (Pokey, Thaddeus, and to some extent Breakin and even True) wants blasters to change into a hard hitting shotgun turret, that has the highest DPS (not the lowest, which is what rails should be), but lowest range (it should have one of if not the lowest optimal's, but a spread to where hitting infantry at any decent ranges will be tricky, but hitting vehicles will be somewhat easy). This will make it into the proper large turret that it should be. As for missiles, they aren't missiles, they are OP rockets. Missiles I do agree need to come in, as I think mostly everyone agrees on. As for what I think they should be, they should be a semi-auto launcher that has a high alpha per missile, similar to the rail, but the differences being it has a higher damage per shot, but slower projectile, but it has either a guiding feature, a passive tracking for each missile, or some sort of similar homing feature. They would also have a slightly larger splash due to having a slower flying projectile. Rockets needs to be balanced to not out DPS blasters, and pretty much anything else that could come into existence. Rather, they need to be a similar ROF, and a higher splash, along with a better reload and a shotgun-like reloading system (imo, all turrets should have this, hell even some infantry weapons should too), it's damage (both direct and splash) gets reduced. 2: this doesn't cover the fact that HAV's really don't have a role atm, and because of that, they are left to just kill anything they see, which is pointless. Either infantry * because HAV's (and vehicles in general tbh) are slaying them, or Pilots * because either AV (which is atm irrevelant, just pointing this out) or other vehicles kills them too easy. This game is too focused on killing other , and as I point out with my concept of Logistic triangle concept, everything or a lot of the same thing can't have the same primary role, otherwise it'll end up being what can do tha trole the best and the cheapest, and that will be the things only used, and that is terrible for balance. I say that Vehicles should have their own specific roles, and their T II's being based around such a thing. HAV's in my opinion naturally takes up a role of large scale support and suppression/destruction. Basically, if someone needs a lot of damage done yesterday, or to scare the out of the enemy because they are so badass, they ask a HAV to do it, cuz' DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA! So how would we go about these two things? Simple: A- Large vehicle removal obviously, but that's not enough as explained above; rather, additional installations and structures to be added. What's the difference between Structures and Installations you ask (if you didn't ask, now you just did)? Well, Installations can be dropped in by both teams (maybe a Squad leader or team leader benefit only?), and when blown up can't be used anymore, and another must be called in. Structures on the other hand are Installation like, but built into the map, so attackers can't call them in (a benefit of owning the land), and it can be destroyed "or put into hibernation mode, or something), but it can also be repaired. These things would give HAV's, and really all other vehicles a thing to have to work around. gate locked down, and the only feasible way to get in is through it? Blow it open. Bridge in the map that saves 5 minutes, but is held down? Let infantry kill what's inside, and then lower it to cross. Hell, you could even use the bridge to get a HAV to come up to it to tr and cross, and blow it up, sending it to its death. B- Large turrets obviosuly shouldn't be as good as a infantry killer as should smaller turrets or actual dropsuit weapons should be. However, large turrets should be able to intimidate the ** out of them. I assume most of you has been on one side of the "HAV chasing a infantry around a crate with a railgun" or "Infantry constantly dodging a blaster shots to cover" situation. That should stick with this, although HAV's should have to rely on infantry, lighter vehicles, or their smalls to deal with AV imo. a big ass gun shouldn't be particularly good against a small ass target. The same fears should get although less, still stay when dealing with smaller vehicles. As far as variants goes, They should be shaped around these two concepts, and for that I don't agree with MArauders being a Ai platform or Enforcers a AV platform and nothing else. I get that these things don't exist right now, but that is a concern for me and I'm asking that they do exist. As for waiting on these things to exist provided you are willing to do these things, I have a proposal: seeing as MAV's aren't in yet (and assuming you do plan on putting them in at some point), Breakin and Thaddeus came up with the idea of increasing HAV passenger slots to make them a pseudo-MAV (and imo Thaddeus's idea of it is much more balanced). Both of their ideas however would be really not a good idea once MAV's come in, so I say this: add such a thing of some variation to at least temporarily give HAV's a solid role. However, once release all this stuff with MAV's, and take the extra slots away. Sounds like a good idea? That's all human. Get back to work. Blub. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 05:58:00 - [31] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Will two turret tanks still be an option? I have specific fits for a friend of mine that guns all the time, but I only use one small turret. Are we screwed? Another problem with the issue of making these solo HAV's. I'm still trying to figure out what's the point of them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:18:00 - [32] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:22:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati if you focus on the hulls and making them fun, once we have a finalized setup and examples of rock-solid fits with EHP counts I'll be happy to make recommendations for AV on how to keep up with HAVs. I intend to keep my recommendations in the closer to the lower end of what I consider viable just to make sure your HAV rebalance isn't negated instantly by overperforming AV. If we do have to retouch AV then dropships will likely need some love shortly thereafter. I would like to see LAVs be less tanky without fittings. I am of the opinion that free disposable transports should be utterly inferior to a dedicated vehicle driver in even a militia LAV. I look at tanky free LAVs the same way I see logi tourists. Agreed click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:25:00 - [34] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. The turret remote reps were to prevent easy spider tanking and to allow the removal of the cooldown the old rep modules had. I intended it to be so you could have a trailing logi LAV or dropship constantly repping without the pilot having to worry about anything other than staying both in range and focused on keeping AV from killing the logi team. 1: Spider tanking had several problems that kept them from being OP 2: LDS doesn't make any sense as a repping platform. 3: LLV actually does, but you want to make the pilot do jack **** but drive around in a LAV, forcing him/her to find someone else to operate it.That is forcing teamwork, and that never works. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:28:00 - [35] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. 1. Caps create balance 2. If caps were to be added all vehicles and modules have to be done from scratch 3. If caps were to be added just look at EVE, copy and paste what you need and its halfway there problem is i dont think PS3 can deal with it or CCP cant code it in or we would have had it by now - expect it in Legion 1: Caps don't create balance, balanced numbers create balance. 2: So more work for the dev. are you for this or against this? 3: Even in Legion it wouldn't work. I don't think you understand how much cap management takes up for brain power. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2729	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:12:00 - [36] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2729	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:42:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:09:00 - [38] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. So are AV grenades being removed or something? Because those fit what you're looking for. No need to make sidearms something they're not supposed to be. If you want people to have the option of ganging up on a vehicle to take it down then make flux grenades disable vehicle movement for a couple seconds. Now squads or teams can flux a stupid pilot that gets too close and hold him while others AV grenade him. Problem solved AV nades and flux become useful, but not OP solo. EDIT: or instead of flux grenade disabling vehicle movement, let them slow them down for a few seconds. And let the movement penalty stack so multiple flux grenades slow it down even more Stack is a hell no. That would just lead to people carrying around fluxes as a squad (they are already really deadly as is) and tossing them at anything and rapidly slowing them down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:12:00 - [39] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Rattati once upon a time ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles. Just that in those days vehicles had a hefty amount of HP. The effortsof a whole squad's combined anti infantry fire was considered wasting bullets but in theory they could have driven a tank off. The same effect on lighter vehicles such as the dropships and the LAV was however very notable. (but it was rather fun to rodeo a tank and use a 'can opener' aka shotgun on it.) AV weapons available at the time where however seemingly capable of doing much more massive amounts of damage against the vehicles and still remained the optimal threat against them. This was all prelaunch mind you and the reasons why this was undone was never made apparent but the idea of potentially bringing that feeling back and adjusting every weapon to be appropriately balanced on effectiveness as its a movable target now could be a thing even with AV still in the mix. As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it? My objection was because of LAV's. I don't want infantry to just shoot my my LLV while I'm supposed to be repping vehicles and scare me off. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:15:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I honestly prefer heavy weapons as AV/AI dual purpose to begin with. Forge guns aren't exactly poor against infantry except in close work Now that balanced reasonably I could agree with. Heavy weapons makes sense to be the gap between infantry and vehicles. Heavy: All weapons can do some sort of reasonable damage to a vehicle, depending on design more or less Light: only AV specific weapons can do any reasonable damage to vehicles Sidearm: No AV weapons, because a pistol making a vehicle scared off is a silly notion. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:28:00 - [41] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous. I think this goes back to a concept we discussed in our vehicle episode of Biomassed, in that ideally I would love to see more AV saturation on the field so that it is easily accessible to everyone without making serious sacrifices to their combat effectiveness. If AV is more present on the field, vehicles can afford to be extremely powerful because they potentially will have to deal with a lot of AV all the time. Unfortunately as things are, most effective AV takes the place of the primary weapon, and aside from Commandos, this means that any suit running AV is severely gimped against infantry. Because this tradeoff is rather large, AV players (reasonably so) expect Primary AV weapons to perform extremely well since they have to give up so much to run it. This lends itself to the mentality that "One AV should be able to take out a single pilot" which I don't particularly like and it lends itself to many of the balance issues we currently struggle with. However if AV is easily accessible by people without making huge sacrifices, this means that you can say "it takes multiple people to take out a single pilot, but they don't have to make huge sacrifices/swap fits in order to do so". An example of this is Titanfall, where the Titan exosuits are extremely powerful, but at the same time all infantry have an AV weapon all the time. These AV weapons are not particularly powerful, but because they can switch to it on the fly without sacrificing their normal loadout, and the fact that EVERYONE has one, a Titan that gets itself surrounded by infantry will quickly get nuked, but in a 1 vs 1 fight it will win nearly all of the time. I'm not advocating for everyone to have an AV weapon, but I think that if AV options that were less effective, but easier to fit without massive sacrifices, many people would feel they can make more of a difference against vehicles without completely gimping their AP abilities. This also allows the pilots to feel powerful by being able to take on multiple infantry at once, but vulnerable if they get zerged. But I have a problem with that, as 1: Infantry wants Pilots not to be able to kill them, well at least without some support or luck with their large turret 2: This would mean that on top of AV, pretty much anyone can just shoot at you and apply same actual damage to you 3: Seeing as vehicles under this could be shot at by infantry of all kinds easily, heavier ones will take more than lighter ones, as that is reasonable. But if lighter ones can take damage easily, and those vehicles were meant to have some sort of survival against infantry, then we have a problem (LLV comes to mind, seeing as it is supposed to be able to rep both vehicles and infantry). 4: Infantry can be much more helpful to the team by being able to affect its outcome directly though the Nullcannons, while there's not a single vehicle that can't, but having protection against a lot of them, and being able to do other things that indirectly effects the outcome makes up for that. This makes infantry, especially the mass blob of infantry just that more superior. Now not only are they inferior in effecting the match, they can even be even more easily killed by them, and that's not balanced. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:31:00 - [42] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: I agree that only two weapons dedicated for AV (Swarms and Forge) are too few, and you are sacrifice a lot (AI) to run them. While the idea of bumping existing small/sidearms weapons AV capabilities are an interesting one, I still remember the bickering when small arms fire would trigger the vehicle shield recharge delay. If we are bringing racial symmetry to HAVs by using existing models (Caldari and Gallente hulls), can't we do something similar to bring symmetry to the AV weapons? If we combine the model of the Forge Gun and the effect of the Laser Rifle, can't we get a heavy laser? If we combine the model of the Swarm Launcher and the effect of the Mass Driver, can't we have a heavy artillery? It is probably not as easy as it sounds, but it might be worth investigating? Also, please bump AV grenades back to 3 That's not a problem, make more AV weapons. Not make everything a AV weapon. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:16:00 - [43] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. Posted in the Barbershop. I am fairly certain we can get numbers for you. @ Godin I think you are overly concerned with the side arms and weapons they are talking about adding. No one complains that NKs being able to do 50% damage has been a problem for tanks, and I certainly thought it would when it was announced. I also don't think anyone is suggesting a single merc should be able to unload his ScP ammo at a tank and take it down. If a Solo HAV pulls up to a defended objective that has no supply depot, it seems reasonable to me that 5 or 6 mercs should be able to scare it off. If the fool decides to just sit there for 20 or 30 seconds and try and take them all down, then he should deserve to be heavily damaged or blown up. In that example, a Solo HAV should see he is outnumbered, and provided he has no squad support to attack the defenders while they aren't paying attention, should be forced to flee. If the HAV had multiple manned turrets and a decent pilot, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fight off the defenders before significant damage is done to the HAV. Dropships and LAVs shouldn't even need to worry given the limited range and utility of the weapons Rattati is talking about adding. Its not like it is being said that the CRs and RRs should do 100% damage, then I could understand your concerns. I wan't worrying about HAV's as much as I was worrying about lighter vehicles, as I assumed that the lighter the vehicle was the more damage it was able to do, and that bothered me, seeing as some of those (LLV) needs to be able to tank against it. Also, with a suggestion of making lighter weapon classes able to do AV, There will be people asking for more. And more. And that I don't want. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:36:00 - [44] - Quote That was a waste of time making that long ass post, seeing as nobody is even attempting to look at it -_- click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 05:24:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. If the client based show info panes are out-of-date, that's something that needs to be hotfixed ASAP... but as I said, the damage numbers don't entirely negate your arguments, particularly about the handling (and application) of each of the weapons. But bear in mind that the "Missile" Turrets are designed to be an alpha (by way of quick burst) weapon, which should rightly have a lowered sustained and/or applied DPS than a more sustained DPS Weapon. and as stated, they are very similar to the arguments against the Calmando getting a bonus to Sniper Rifle Damage...and avoiding a "Purpose built" Redline tank is something that needs to be considered when building the DHAVs... I have never stated that your concerns weren't valid, just that your data wasn't entirely accurate (Just based on what the client showed), and that the difference between the turrets isn't as pronounced. If the issue is the redline why not simply institute mechanics that prevent firing and damage application in the redline and for units like tanks a weapon systems delay to prevent them simply popping in and out. HAV need range........it's a core piece of functionality of any tank. In the modern era. #Blastersfolife click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2737	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:49:00 - [46] - Quote I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2739	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:48:00 - [47] - Quote Oh dear ****, are you srs right now? Quit yer bitchin and at least TRY to understand what he's saying Lazer. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2740	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:19:00 - [48] - Quote Umm, I was just thinking about the DPS of blasters, and that's overkill. Not sure what kind of eHP you can get out of HAv's in your current proposal, but assuming the are around 10k, they would easily break HAV's, and that's just not needed. We want the TTK to go up, not down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2744	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:00:00 - [49] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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 community 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. About time, and I'm about to check out the sheet. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2744	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:08:00 - [50] - Quote "Assuming ADV and PRO UHAVS not launched in first iteration" This is still a thing? Hope not, otherwise, umm, can you like lock anything higher for being used (assuming you balanced on STD=STD STD< PRO basis) until of course higher for vehicles comes out? Also, can you start working on Officer turrets? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2751	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:40:00 - [51] - Quote Harpyja, I don't think you get why those things are problems: Enforcers (DHAV) are supposed to be fast, weakly armored, high damaging turret platforms made for hit and runs, basically to be able to alpha then GTFO. Marauders (UHAV) are supposed to be slow moving defensive vehicle built for supporting the infantry while being a bigscary brick. In a balanced field, a Enforcer will have issues reaching a target due to having to avoid AV due to weaker defenses, but once it gets to its target, due to high attack, it can **** damage then run. High powered, short time modules are these things friends. Marauders, on the other hand will have AV weaken them, to either deter them or have them weak enough to kill without issue. But if a Enforcer pulls up in perfect condition, it will have issues. Using the logic you put down, not only would Enforcers be faster and stronger AV wise, they also can tank just as much, and that's broken. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2753	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:13:00 - [52] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 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. Nice comeback using logic. Basically this. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2753	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:06:00 - [53] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: A spit-balled idea: Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret? Basic Idea: UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry) Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount) But then it would be beyond defenseless against any vehicle... a HAV fitted with a medium turret (turet with the capibilities between that of a small and large turret) would be really good. a faster, decently armored HAV that gives up a large turret to be able to fight infantry. This reminds me of something........ Oh yea, my BO HAV idea, maybe adjusted. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:45:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Na. You know what's more scary? a Tiger in Warthunder. Those ******* are nasty. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:52:00 - [55] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? As far as concepts of modules goes (other than active things, in which needs to be different as long as infantry doesn't have active modules, which I doubt they will ever get), they need to be somewhat similar, otherwise, it'd pretty much be a differnt game switching from infantry to vehicles, which would unnecessarily make it complex. HOWEVER, gameplay wise, I don't want them to play like infantry (vehicles that is). They cover different aspects, and as we have seen, infantry-style TTK and gameplay but with a although lower, still similar (600k as opposed to 800k) ISK price isn't really fun or profitable. They need to feel like vehicles (and more), not big ass suits. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:53:00 - [56] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. What the **** are you talking about? Passive regen absolutely sucked. It was horrid. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:55:00 - [57] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? On a related note, Caldari and Gallente dropsuits in have the opposite % of armor as shields and for vehicles its not? The Madrugar has 23% of its total HP as shields and the rest of 77% as armor, but the Gunnlogi has 64% shields and 36% armor. It doesn't make sense why the madrugar has more of it's tank to use than the Caldari, especially since the Caldari's main focus is shields. The Cal tanks should have 23% armor and 77% shields, the reverse of what the Gallente has or this. If I had it my way, Caldari and Gallente vehicles would have inverted Shield/Armor from one another. The primary reason the Caldari have the lower shields now is because their hardeners are a hell of a lot better than armor, but as I've stated before Id prefer those % resists to be closer to one another. Namely shoot for the 30% range for both of them and bring the Caldari's base shields up to compensate for the loss of hardener strength. Well, they don't, because Gallente focuses on active tanking more (rep with a little hardeners) as opposed to Cal passive tanking more, as far as I've seen anyways. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:59:00 - [58] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. When have we ever said we want tanks to be invincible? You haven't, but you've heavily implied that you want to be. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2759	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:06:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way? [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] I have no preference for how often tankers die. I'm good at ripping them up, that's good enough. But setting up an arbitrary "what's fair" number of losses isn't going to be a balance point. Hull costs are going to by necessity be revamped. Doesn't make a damn lick of sense for a STD HAV to cost 150k id the top tier is 200k Arkena would tell you otherwise But really, yes, seeing as hulls are being tiered,there really needs to be cheaper HAV's at the lower end. The reason why people usually runs high end HAV's since the beginning of time is because regardless you're going to not make even on the higher end if you died, so might as well use the best or 2 best fit you got. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:49:00 - [60] - Quote No disrespect to Master Splinter, but your spreadsheets hurt my eyes. Can someone make a better looking one, with like the same stats? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:03:00 - [61] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. He made a actual difference between the Solo HAV and the regular one now? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 16:36:00 - [62] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 18:09:00 - [63] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? For players that don't want to risk bluberries hopping in their tank and shooting small turrets to alert the enemy. We've been over this . No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 23:14:00 - [64] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. If turrets didn't suck up so much resources like they used to, that would be a non issue. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:41:00 - [65] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. If turrets didn't suck up so much resources like they used to, that would be a non issue. Well ok but I don't see why you're so upset about it. Just don't use them if you don't like them. You've honestly spent more time complaining about it than it takes to code them into the system I'm not upset, confused, yes. I just don't get why they are here. Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 19:10:00 - [66] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin, the idea between having the SHAV and MBT is that they both can fit the exact same fits, except that the MBT has two small turrets as well. The current design hurts those that want team play when fitting small turrets by reducing the fitting power available to them. I don't know how else I could explain this to you if you're still not understanding. 1: Why does small turrets cost so much to fit again? 2: What if I want to fit just one small? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2767	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:10:00 - [67] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. I don't remember that ever being possible, every single iteration of turrets iirc has the current issue today, if you only fit one it automatically goes to the front slot. If memory serves, there was a time where you could specifically get it to fit to the top only, but that was quite a while ago. It was. Stabilized blaster on top. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2767	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:14:00 - [68] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Because it's the only way to ensure that solo HAV drivers aren't rendered instantly inferior by the standard HAV drivers dismounting the turrets to Instantly free up resources for a superior EHP value. I have explained this before. The difference between an advanced and proto hardener is much less than the difference between a standard small and no smalls. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here. I simply don't think the solo HAV should even exist. Seeing as you can make basically the exact same fits, why won't the turrets themselves take up very little fitting cost? Therefore, taking off turrets won't do anything, just gives you options. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:01:00 - [69] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. About that, if the person doesn't have the skills for said vehicle, I don't think they should be able to even steal it (maybe recall it, but seeing as they don't ahve the skills, it'd be only useful as trophies and extra ISK). EDIT: I'd like eject buttons as well, for hot drops and such. Like people queue up for drops, and the pilot hits a button, launching everyone out of the passenger seats. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2821	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:35:00 - [70] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. Maddies have constant regen and have shorter cooldown hardeners, and they last longer. and a shield to cover the armor. Just to point out, Active reps will return SOONtm. Keep that in mind. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:09:00 - [71] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics. I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something. People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them See above Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A **ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]". That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks? Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point. He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't. 1: Pokey Pilots. He's not a very good DS pilot (), but he's a pretty decent HAV pilot. Breakin does too, although not nearly as much, however at least tries to listen to people. 2: links to what Breakin said, and I'm pretty sure you took that out of context. 3: Your argument is flawed, as it pretty much says that AV or infantry can't talk about balance of vehicles because they don't use them. You must not understand the fact that THEY STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.** Just Letting you know that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.08 00:42:00 - [72] - Quote I would say that the average infantry that complains when vehicles don't kill them, but refuses to use AV or vehicles to counter or Pilots such as Sparky who refuse to take the opinions of others shouldn't even comment. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:48:00 - [73] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 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. Totally agree, if you want a good Hav spend Sp in it, after this it s obvious pretend a bit of immortality with that skill at level 5 Thing is I've already dumped a **** ton into HAV's, and to have to dump even more, and THIS much more is silly. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:59:00 - [74] - Quote As I woke up, a thought occurred into my mind: I'm not sure that the Enforcers and Marauders bonuses should be what they are, being focused only around AI or AV. My reasoning for this is because currently, HAV's don't have a role. From what I've gathered, the popular opinion is that HAV's should be based around killing big ** (so installations and **), while being good at AV. You could say that Enforcers still fits, as it's a although weak hull, still has a damage bonus, Marauders don't really fit under that (more so as a infantry support tool). Seeing as we don't have the big things to shoot at really (installation count is low, and infantry hacks them to quickly to really blow them up), I'd say that for the moment it's fine. But like the passenger suggestion, I believe that it should change to something else. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:08:00 - [75] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. I'm seriously not even excited for this new stuff. Why? Because it's going to CONTINUE to be arcade like. I hate arcade like tanks. My gripe is more so maintaining the status quo with how hardeners work. I still want tanks fit with more hardeners that last less time. I mean given the 'sample' fittings for what PG/CPU is based off of, I don't foresee Ratatti changing them in any significant way. Hardeners haven't changed? What about reps? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:04:00 - [76] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Or both to a convergent 30%...... Never really sure why they were different %'s in the first place. They're the same % in EVE for a reason. And yeah the Cloak-like soft cooldown was my suggestion, Ratatti at the very least noted that the hard cooldown was undesirable. That's a far better unquestioning than adding a cap. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:14:00 - [77] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: As far as I can tell, he currently has no plans to change existing modules at this moment aside from perhaps HP modules. ....................... Yea, Master Splinter, that's just silly. Part of the arcade is the fact that hardeners and reps sucks ass. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

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.