DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Tesfa Alem wrote:

If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet

@ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x.

The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank.

It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm.

You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well.

I tend to agree here. branching off the DHAV and UHAV from the HAV skill will be simpler, and less clunky. I don't think there needs to be two separate HAV skills, just prefitted turrets and no turrets on market.

simplicity in a complex system helps keep the learning curve from going here.

Yep I agree as well. Not only does it not make sense that Small Turrets vs No Small turrets on an HAV would dictate a different skill, but it's really an unnecessary SP sink. Simply have the 4 racial HAV Operation skills which each unlock their racial MBT and SHAV, and then the DHAV and UHAV skills branching off of that skill. It's clean and simple.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1954	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:05:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. Are we talking talking 2 small turrets and 1 large turret? or are we talking unchangeable large turrets? Presuming the former the main reason vehicles petitioned so hard to not have mandatory small turrets was because of the incredible frustration of dealing with people who would get in vehicles and NEVER leave them, or do things like fire turrets at nothing warning enemies of your location. This should only be done if there squad-lock on vehicles. If we're talking the latter I strongly disagree as it severely removes a lot of customization options. It would like forcing AR's/shotguns on all gallente suits. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1955	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:11:00 - [2] - Quote ^I wasn't raging, was asking for clarification. Which I've found in the SHAV skill. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1958	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:51:00 - [3] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: Ok did I see that your using stand in models for Amarr and Minmatar vehicles? Edit: True will be happy I can wait on the Amarr and Minmatar vehicles for a while, I just want the Gunnlogi and Madrugar to be worth it for now. It's better for balance reasons to have them and their progression (and maybe even placeholder turrets) to have them in the game now. That way we don't have the problems of figuring out fittings and the like later. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2026	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:51:00 - [4] - Quote Rattati, just a thought but is it technically possible to add 'vehicle equipment' slots to all vehicles then move non-weapon non-tank modules like MCRU's, scanners & propulsion modules into these vehicular equipment slots? Iteration on this would allow for new equipment types (bubble shields, remote reps, etc) and for pilot suits to modify the effects of these 'equipment' slots. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2027	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:38:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Rattati, just a thought but is it technically possible to add 'vehicle equipment' slots to all vehicles then move non-weapon non-tank modules like MCRU's, scanners & propulsion modules into these vehicular equipment slots? Iteration on this would allow for new equipment types (bubble shields, remote reps, etc) and for pilot suits to modify the effects of these 'equipment' slots. Totally a sweet idea, but probably not for this pass. I love vehicle utility and want it done right, and this idea has merit, but perhaps we should hold off until the base is done? Agreed, not for this pass. Good for later iteration though. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2045	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:59:00 - [6] - Quote ^technically it is supposed to be shields that are always repping and armor that is active reps only (that could be fun for infantry). Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2047	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:58:00 - [7] - Quote 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] As a vehicle user that number depends on a few things first is isk cost of vehicles. If I could run a vehicle for the same cost as a dropsuit I'd spend them like dropsuits. The second is feeling like i'm able to accomplish something with my vehicle, I remember calling in 3m isk tanks in 1.6 just to have an on dropped on the rdv - I was madder than you can believe about that (this was before I had taken my previous corps wallet when I divorced them). The third is proliferation of av and its power relative to various tiers of vehicle - currently everyone (or so it feels) not only has wiyrkomi swarms, but also has them on a double damage modded level 5 min commando and it makes it incredibly difficult to use anything less good than the 'best' fits. I was trying to run a dual rep soma for the suppressor mission on an alt with no sp in vehicles earlier and in tracking my deaths 8/10 times I was killed by wiyrkomi's from a minmando (doing ~2400 to armor a shot). I don't mind being shot at or dying, but when the response to any vehicle, less than two minutes in to a match is the highest tiers of av (pro swarms or pro rails) its horribly inequal engagements which kick off arms races. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:19:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea Is the caldari DHAV missile oriented or rail oriented? Are we playing up missile 'alpha' damage? Are we focusing a bit more on utility? Damage mod duration / cooldown is potentially good. Inherent dispersion reduction also has some potential. Speed should be an attribute of the hull. Small passive damage increases or increased ammo carried might also be okay. For UHAV's I feel like they should have some movement penalties in exchange for passive resists. I'd also like to see them get some bonuses to small turrets (in particular ammunition carried for small turrets). Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2105	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:06:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. I remember seeing old enforcers (and even regular tanks) getting chased around by infantry av squads inside LAV's. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2105	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:09:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. I remember seeing old enforcers (and even regular tanks) getting chased around by infantry av squads inside LAV's. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at? Oh, I wasn't really getting at anything. It was a statement of support that even the Uhav needs to be capable of running away. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2106	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:52:00 - [11] - Quote Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2107	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:18:00 - [12] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. Hmmm it feels odd to have an operation skill that ups reload speed and then a reload skill which does the same thing.... It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2108	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:42:00 - [13] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. I will admit that the benefit of the operation bonus feels pretty negligible, but at the same time I don't really like doubling up on the same modifier with 2 skills. Perhaps projectile speed? Projectile speed is not a problem, it is currently in a decent spot. Reload speed is the bottleneck. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2116	Posted - 2015.02.07 14:47:00 - [14] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: sp costs I'm against making vehicles cost more SP myself. They're already expensive in terms of sp and SP spent on them isn't spent on infantry skills which are more applicable. The 'equalising factor' for sp should be the as of yet unreleased pilot suit which is the thing that should determine who the 'dabblers' are and who the 'career' vehicle users are (I have spoken about how pilot suits and vehicle equipment in this thread IIRC). It also makes it harder for one to 'dabble' and be relevant compared to one who goes 'no, this is all I want to do'. In short I think that increasing SP costs will make it much less likely that people will skill into any vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2117	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:33:00 - [15] - Quote Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2117	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:48:00 - [16] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I'll cop to the fact that he was right about the SP costs. It's been a while since I needed to check. I have the four dropsuits I wanted maxed. But my point stands that I believe that a fully max-core HAV should require about the same SP investment as a max-core dropsuit. that's the thesis statement even without the numbers being right. If that means drop the SP costs a bit, then by all means. If that means there needs to be more SP costs to compensate for less skills in the tree whatever. Equal investment. That's what I think needs to happen on the SP front. I'd be behind equal investment if we had equal ability to affect the battlefield. Vehicles are not currently in a position where they could ever be a 'full time role'. I know you've seen my explanations on a lot of this before, but vehicles outright do not have a lot of opportunities available to them. Equal investment for equal opportunity. Many people are happy to think of vehicles as 'temporary power-ups' and with lower SP costs for partial investment, it allows them to be 'power-ups'. I believe that there are a few more points of iteration that should be hit before SP equivalence is hit for 'full investment'. I want people to be capable of dabbling without having to spend 20m sp. I want people who go 'this is the only thing I want to do' to have equal investment levels. The SP costs should not be tied to hulls, but instead to things like pilot suits. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2118	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:15:00 - [17] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: making them not crap is the first step. shaping the battlefield so they have more utility than "Wp farming engine" or "Warpoint pinata" should be the next step. If we can figure out how to shape the battlefields so that HAVs are necessary and USEFUL then we're in business. If we have the stats filled out and actually balanced when we get this thing going? Better still. And defraying a lot of the SP cost to pilot suits in whatever form is a definite good idea. We just need a solid idea on what a pilot suit needs to be and what bonusing it needs to have. To repeat and summarize previous posts: Pilot suits should be the equivalent of 'vehicular logistics'. In phase one of their implementation, vehicles should receive a number of 'vehicle equipment slots' and have a variety of modules moved to those slots (mcru's, remote reps, scanners, certain other things) maybe even with a new module or two implemented. In phase two pilot suits are released which affect the function of those modules (less spawn time on MCRU's + Other bonus for amarr, Higher precision scans + other bonus for gallente, Increased remote rep range + other bonus for minmatar, Increased resupply/repair on activated nanohive module + other bonus on caldari). Even just having the 'other bonus' be something like '3% reduced cooldown on modules' would be good. This allows for further iteration in terms of new equipment modules (like bubble shields), or even different types of pilot suits - some 'combat oriented' (a caldari one that has say a bonus to a bubble shield module) without direct bonuses to damage / resistance that could throw balance off between those who have pilot suits and those who don't. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2119	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:31:00 - [18] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I am providing counter arguments, you just won't listen to them. Because you present and argue them poorly. 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. 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 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]". 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. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2120	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:43:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate your maturity and ability to not be a douche when we don't. I try.... No seriously, I really have to try I have an anger disorder. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2120	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:39:00 - [20] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle users Fyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2125	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:55:00 - [21] - 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 No, a 12x skill is far too costly. That's 50% more than a max level dropsuit role. I do not feel that this is a position based in reason or sound logic especially with the false assertions of 'immortality' provided by vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2125	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:49:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I tend to agree here. branching off the DHAV and UHAV from the HAV skill will be simpler, and less clunky. I don't think there needs to be two separate HAV skills, just prefitted turrets and no turrets on market. simplicity in a complex system helps keep the learning curve from going here. Yep I agree as well. Not only does it not make sense that Small Turrets vs No Small turrets on an HAV would dictate a different skill, but it's really an unnecessary SP sink. Simply have the 4 racial HAV Operation skills which each unlock their racial MBT and SHAV, and then the DHAV and UHAV skills branching off of that skill. It's clean and simple. Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2126	Posted - 2015.02.09 01:21:00 - [23] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? SHAVs were meant to be a bit harder to unlock so people had to have turrets. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2126	Posted - 2015.02.09 02:15:00 - [24] - Quote I'm just going off of rattati's design intent. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.