|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2284
   |
Posted - 2015.01.22 06:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Derrith Erador wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet For the DHAV, would these turret skills benefit its AI capabilities, or its AV capabilities? I'm of the belief that there should be an AI and an AV variant to tanks. Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets
You need to be careful when deciding how much damage UHAVs can withstand versus how much damage DHAVs can deal. The DHAV's damage bonuses should outweigh the UHAV's defense bonuses. Otherwise UHAVs will simply be better all around because they will 1) have better AI capabilities and 2) their strong defence against infantry AV also allows them to withstand the damage from a DHAV, buying them time to get through the weaker defense of the DHAV.
In my honest opinion, the UHAV should have the weaker defense and the DHAV the stronger defense. If the UHAV is to be primarily AI, then its defense against infantry AV should be its infantry offence. This will make it weak against the DHAV since the DHAV will have the higher defense and higher AV capability. The DHAV will have less AI power so it should rely on defense against AV rather than offense.
Otherwise, as has been posted, giving UHAVs a strong infantry AV defense will require that DHAVs have an insane amount of offense to get through a UHAV's defence before the UHAV can use its weaker AV capability to get through the DHAV's weaker defense. Another problem with this setup is that DHAVs will be nearly insta-killing one another and their low defense against infantry AV will probably make DHAVs extremely costly to operate.
I'd much prefer my suggestion, where DHAVs have the higher defence allowing them to easily beat UHAVs while giving up the ability to fight infantry and will be forced to retreat under AV fire. This setup will also allow for meaningful and tactical DHAV vs DHAV combat as opposed to the other setup where the first person to shoot wins due to massive damage and a weak defence.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2286
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 14:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
I honestly think that's a terrible idea. DHAVs should have the higher defence than UHAVs. UHAVs should instead be able to defend themselves against AV infantry through their AI capabilities. See my post on the first page for further detail you seem to have missed.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2286
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 14:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2286
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 15:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Harpyja wrote:Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV. A glass cannon's only real defense is speed and agility. DHAVs are intended to be expendable hammers thrown at enemy armor to disrupt armor superiority. UHAVs are the ones intended to sit and slog through the meatgrinder. Main Battle Tanks would be middle ground.
I disagree that DHAVs have to be expendable. They should be something a pilot can skill to and make a profession out of as much as a UHAV.
I see a huge problem when making DHAVs glass cannons. In order to beat a UHAVs defenses and win instead of being beaten itself due to its lesser defence, DHAVs will need an insane amount of sustained DPS. This will be especially bad when a DHAV comes across another DHAV since it will only be "whoever shoots first wins."
I want tactical and meaningful gameplay for both the UHAV and DHAV, and I see it only possible if the DHAV actually has the stronger defense. Here's why. A skilled UHAV pilot will be able to use its AI power to defend itself against AV, but it will easily fall to the DHAV. Any UHAV vs UHAV combat will be tactical and focus on pilot skill and choice of vehicle fitting. Any DHAV vs DHAV combat will also be tactical because 1) they won't have insane DPS and 2) they will have a larger amount of defence to get past. This puts emphasis on pilot skill and vehicle fitting instead of the "shoot first to win" situation. DHAVs give up or limit their AI power in exchange for more defense and better AV capability.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2297
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 15:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote: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.
So essentially DHAVs are going to become the current missile HAVs, except that they will be able to insta-pop every HAV out there as opposed to just armor. Not from what I can tell on the spreadsheet as they will only get a max 10% damage bonus.
Except that 2 railgun shots and they're dead, or one full clip of swarms...
I still see no reason why I should use a DHAV over a UHAV. I could always still fit a large missile or railgun to my UHAV and it will be almost as AV capable as a DHAV. But combined with two small railguns I should be able to level the playing field damage wise. But then the UHAV will also have better AI capabilities and higher defense. I don't care if the UHAV will be slower and the DHAV faster. I'll only need to hit it with one full missile clip or two railgun shots.
Also considering (and hoping that it's a typo) that the spreadsheet says the Caldari UHAV will be faster and more maneuverable than the Caldari DHAV.
If things stay as they are, I'll probably end up running one large missile and two small rails on the Sagaris, destroying other vehicles and killing infantry.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2297
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 18:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote: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. From an EVE perspective... Armor Hardener 55% Reduction 30GJ Activation 20s Duration Shield Hardener 55% Reduction 20GJ Activation 10s Duration For a Dust context, I don't see why we couldn't go with a model where they both have the same resists, the armor longer with a longer cooldown and the shield last shorter with a shorter cooldown. The massive difference in % resistance causes serious balancing issues between armor and shields. Id rather see any difference be in the duration and cooldown, not in the resistance itself. I could see perhaps a small difference in resists (~5%) but overall they need to be closer to one another.
Keep in mind that EVE does things differently to balance shield vs armor. As far as I remember, Caldari ships frequently ran extenders one size above their ship class, and that shield regen is always passively recharging at a variable rate, which is also increased through extenders and not just modules designed to lower the recharge time,
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2297
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 03:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust?
Generalized summary on shields in EVE:
-Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields
-Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge
---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s
---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer
-Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking
---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts
-Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust
-Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots)
-Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships
Armor:
-Can only be repaired actively
-Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time
-Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers
---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps)
---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement
-Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking
I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit.
This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge.
Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements.
One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2299
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 07:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
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?
I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor.
Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle).
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2302
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
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.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2306
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets
6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets.
Is it just me, or does anyone see a problem with having an HAV designed around dealing infantry also being the toughest out there while the one that is to deal with other tanks and not infantry the weakest in terms of eHP? Let me just provide an example of our current "UHAV". Yes they are already in game and they go by the name of a gunnlogi: Fit: Highs -Double proto shield extenders --- Single hardener Lows - Cpu and Pg mods Turrets - Large proto rail with 2 small proto rails This is my go to fit, and works incredible with GOOD gunners. I'm already able to withstand a fairly large amount of AV fire. But throw in 2 gunners laying waste to the AV out trying to get me and my eHP skyrockets into the realm of being indestructible. Not only to Infantry AV but tank AV as well! I ran this with some pretty good gunners and between the 3 of us we racked up close to 60 kills. And no type of armor could touch it, as the small rails reduce the TTK against other vehicles to levels of ridiculousness. We did this for several matches, and I just laughed. It was quite ridiculous and funny to watch the vain efforts of those out on the field that meant us harm. So do you really consider it a good idea that an UHAV that is more or less designed for killing infantry to be so much stronger than one deigned to kill them. Just skimming the numbers, I see a UHAV to be just about the only tank to use. dHAV seem more novelties that are not going to fill the intended role to a large enough extent. And forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm just now jumping into the conversation. I honestly thought that an AV tank would be stronger against infantry AV as they aren't designed around killing them, where a AI tank would be weaker in comparison but able to effectively deal with infantry AV to counter for the weaker defenses. Am I missing something here??
I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV.
Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs.
What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
|
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2307
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Harpyja wrote:
I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV.
Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs.
What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed.
I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets? EDIT2: What if we look at it like this MBT = Baseline Average Speed Average Defense Average Offense DHAV High Speed Low Defense High Offense UHAV Low Speed High Defense - vs Infantry AV Average Defense - vs Turrets Average Offense So against infantry the UHAV is a slow tanky beast, but against a DHAV, it's just a really slow MBT.
I understand your concerns. Ideally, the UHAV should be the choice for pilots that just want to kill infantry. Its bonuses should be geared towards killing infantry and that should make it a better choice over the MBT.
I don't know what to say about your edits. It just feels odd to give UHAVs a damage resistance against infantry AV but not vehicle turrets. I can't really think of what sets infantry AV and vehicle turrets apart in terms of damage application as they are just too similar. If there was a clear distinction, we could give the UHAV a defense bonus that helps it against infantry AV but doesn't do much against turrets. Example: think back to 1.7 before the hardener nerf. A hardened Gunnlogi could regen through swarms, but lost its regen against weapons with higher alpha. Going back to what I mentioned, if there was a clear distinction in damage application, the UHAV would be similar to the hardened Gunnlogi of 1.7 in that it would be hard to break by infantry AV but a vehicle turret could break it. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
But since there is no clear distinction, I just don't want to mess around with giving the UHAV a stronger defense and would rather focus on its infantry fighting capabilities instead. Sometimes, the better offense can be the better defense.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2307
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 21:04:00 -
[12] - Quote
What if the turret bonuses on the UHAV weren't restricted to the small turrets only? Blaster dispersion decrease, missile splash radius increase, and railgun splash radius increase will all provide infantry fighting bonuses without affecting vehicle to vehicle combat.
Also I'm not a big fan of making their differences attached to the hulls. It just "hard codes" in other balancing factors to account for.
But I just don't want a 2x damage bonus to DHAVs if UHAVs have twice as much EHP sort of thing going on.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2311
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 22:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
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.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2311
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Random thought
Destroyer HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Fast Movement
Fast Large Turret Tracking
No Smalls
+% Resist to Turrets
+% Bonus to Large Turret
Ultra HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Slower Movement
Fast Small Turret Tracking
Slow Large Turret Tracking
+% Resist to Infantry AV
+% Bonus to Small Turrets
Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP.
I agree with this. Plus it balances out nicely with the MBTs. DHAVs will have the same amount of EHP as MBTs, against other vehicles, but give up survivability against infantry AV for a bonus towards fighting other vehicles. Same thing with UHAVs: same EHP as an MBT against infantry AV, but give up survivability against vehicles for a bonus towards fighting infantry. MBTs sit nicely in the middle, with 'equal' EHP against infantry and vehicles but without any bonuses towards fighting either vehicles or infantry.
I also feel like the MBT should also get some general bonus to make it worthwhile to skill up its respective skill. I'm not a big fan of having basic vehicles and dropsuits have no bonus tied to their respective skills.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2311
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 07:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil.
If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad.
Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense.
I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures.
I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency.
Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange.
I'd imagine that it would be possible to have the description say "hand-held anti-vehicle weapons" as opposed to listing all of them. Players get the idea of what the skill does without the wordiness and the hard-coding remains behind the scenes (or show up in the attributes page, not sure how the code links it all)
At least I remmeber when vehicle engineering said in the description that it provided a PG bonus when it was in reality ninja-nerfed to not provide one of the most useful bonuses vehicles had.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2311
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 14:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lynn Beck wrote:What if UHAVs got hardener duration for role bonuses, while DHAVs got damage mod efficacy?
Like the original proposition for the Minmatar Assault. Make it +10% per level or something
If there are to be any module-specific bonuses, it should be towards their tank-type modules. Through your proposal, Caldari DHAVs will be forced to give up at least one shield module in order to benefit from the bonus whereas the Gallente DHAV will be able to keep a full rack of armor modules in addition to damage modules.
I also say no to a hardener duration bonus on UHAVs. If you've ever piloted a HAV, you should know that your hardener is almost never on for its full duration. I don't want a bonus that will apply <5% of the time. A more appropriate bonus would be on cooldown time since you have to go through that 100% of the time you use the hardener.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2316
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 20:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out.
And I'm glad that it isn't up to you because that's just a terrible idea.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2317
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 03:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Just spitballing an idea here... If the SHAV is to be a variant of the HAV, without any upgrades or anything as Pokey has said, why not just have one operation skill for both of them? It would be similar to infantry weapons -> 1 operation skill, multiple variants.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
|
|
| |
|