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)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4481	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:22:00 - [1] - Quote 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. Well this would deal with the issue of AV being tiered and vehicle hull not. It allows you to balance Proto against Proto. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. I'm going to assume that these are Yellow turrets and can be swapped out for what we really want. 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. Reasonable approach. I like consistency. 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. I'm a little confused by what this means. Are these basically Highs/Lows/Main Turret/Small Turrets? 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 This is consistent with dropsuits and what was discussed in the thread. 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. This seems kind of pointless unless the price point is lower (minus the cost of the prefit turrets) which I assume is your plan. 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 Basically Marauders - as discussed. +1 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. Basically Enforcers - as discussed. +1 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 Agreed. Consider less effective passive versions in addition to active ones. We've had these in the past and they were useful 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Sounds fair. Though we really need to take a look at the normal Missile Launchers in general...there are issues 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. Yep Yep, as discussed. Always good to have them ready in case ...you know, we get racial models at a later date. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons Good stuff. That's later down the link but I'll start updating my existing proposal to the next version taking this roadmap into account, and begin working with the others to start looking at values for the new vehicles as well as reworking existing ones. Keep in mind that as you are aware there are several key things that make the Gunnlogi and Madrugar imbalanced against one another, and I believe in order to make them balanced without breaking them, some additional modules (which have existed in the past) may be needed to achieve this goal. Is it your intention to also look at modifying existing modules to meet these new HAV changes? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4483	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:39:00 - [2] - Quote As a few others have mentioned before, the number of slots on the HAV is too damn low. It not only limits fitting flexibility but also turns piloting into "When I take damage turn this module on and survive". I understand that the original intent was to make piloting easier, but like EVE, piloting a vehicle in Dust is more about being able to skillfully and tactically manage your modules, and currently I just have to press my face to the keyboard and roll it back and forth to win. I would suggest moving back to the old 7 slot system. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 It allows pilots to have more flexibility in fitting, makes piloting more interactive and engaging, as well as widens the opportunity for utility. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4487	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:21:00 - [3] - Quote Out of curiosity, is the intention to have two separate skill trees that lead to each of the Specialist HAVs? Normal HAV (1 Large, 2 Small) --> Ultra HAV (1 Large, 2 Small) Solo HAV (1 Large, 0 Small) --> Destroyer HAV (1 Large, 0 Small) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4490	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:39:00 - [4] - Quote 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. Then use a Solo HAV "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4492	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:29:00 - [5] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 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. At the same time you can't make the 3 man HAV innately better than the 1 man HAV in terms of defense, otherwise there would be no reason to use the Solo HAV and solo players would just leave the gunner seats empty in the 3 man HAV. In order to achieve what you're describing, you would have to intentionally build the system around stacking the bonuses from the gunners on top of the pilot to assure than all seats are filled in order to achieve the desired effect. However this is also problematic because you're then making the correlation of "1 Additional Person in the tank has enough of a benefit from SP Bonuses alone, to combat an additional AV enemy". But if you go with that logic, 3 people in the tank would provide bonuses to combat 3 AV enemies....but then where does the fitting of the tank come in? In order to achieve what you describe, the HAV's fittings would have to provide no benefit at all, which obviously can't be the case. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4494	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:59:00 - [6] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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? Yeah I'm not really sure what you're getting at Breakin. I imagine the price of the Solo vehicles will be cheaper than the normal HAVs by exactly the cost of the 2 small turrets. Actually now that I think about it I do have one complaint about the pre-fit small turrets. I have several fits that use only 1 small turret because some situations are best handled with just 2 instead of 3 people. Will options be made available for situations such as this? Or is it going to be double (small turrets) or nothing? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4496	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:03:00 - [7] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Firstly, I'm glad your refitting small turrets as a compulsory item and I'm liking the specialisations your going for too. Just be careful with difference between solo and regular HAV, if solos aren't comparable to regulars everyone will just use a regular with the 2 empty turrets. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay It's a mixed blessing, no doubt it encourages teamplay, but that in it's self is a double edged sword. While having other people ride shotgun in your 2 compulsory turrets increases your firepower and AI capabilities . . . Unless the people in your turrets are aligned with your instincts and objectives you loose considerably more from battlefield advantages, such as advantageous positioning, surprise attacks, etc etc. While a solo hav should be weaker in general it should be geared to being more powerful when in an advantageous position such as flanking it should focus on the precise application of force, while a standard hav should focus more on brute force, if that makes sense. How do you exactly accomplish that though? Typically speaking you can avoid blueberries from hopping in your HAV if you really don't want them in there. So if you can do that and remain solo in your HAV, it would always be advantageous to run a normal HAV if it is overall stronger. The only way I could see your accomplishing a difference is if each had bonuses that offered a distinct advantage over the other, but that would mean separate skills which seems kind of silly to me...requiring different skills to drive the exact same machine, just one with turrets and one without. Overall I think Solo HAVs are kind of pointless but I can see the appeal for people who don't want to have gunners, so I don't mind their existence. I just think that both types should be identical in every way except the small turrets (an resources applied to them) as well as simply share the same skill which applies the same bonuses to them. UHAV and DHAVs should then branch out from there. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4497	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:17:00 - [8] - 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 logi vehicles 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) A fair point and something that should be looked at at the very least, but you do understand that excessively low HP regeneration also completely kills the fun for the vehicle pilot as well because they'll be sitting in the redline picking their nose, or they'll just recall the vehicle and call in a new one because it'll be faster than waiting for the regen. It's often easy to make a comparison between Sentinels and HAVs, but keep in mind that even if Logistics vehicles are reintroduced, bear in mind that they always have and always will be far less commonplace than Infantry Logistics. Infantry Logistics are far more multi-purpose than Logistics vehicles, and can be deployed for a number of situations. Logistics Vehicles are far more single purpose and people will typically only call them in to fulfill that specific purpose. That being said a vehicle has a far smaller guarantee that Logistics will actually support them on a consistent basis. Rarely will a random roll up in a LLAV and rep your tank, at least far less likely than it happens for a Sentinel on foot. That being said vehicles need to maintain a higher level self regeneration than your typical heavy infantry would. I will say however that there is a severe problem with how regen modules currently work on vehicles, which is likely a large part of your frustration. Gunnlogi Shield Regen - It's WAY too high given that it's the natural regen rate. This allows the Gunnlogi to have double hardeners and still maintain an incredibly high regen rate. I plan to change this in my next proposal. (Madrugar Shield recharge is also too high given the fact that its supposed to be armor-centric) Passive Armor Reps - I have no issue with passive armor reps, however they rep too fast given that they do it constantly. In my next proposal update we'll see a return of Active Armor Reps which will rep at similar effective rate as the passives do now, but with a duration and cooldown. Passive reps will remain but at a lessened repair rate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4510	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:18:00 - [9] - 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. Yeah. 7 slots with those layouts works pretty well with the modules I'm working on, and gives enough flexibility to have more than like.....1-2 fits for each type. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4511	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:42:00 - [10] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:45:00 - [11] - Quote 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! Sure thing, give me a day or two (this week sucked and I'm bushed tonight) However in general expect move more towards less base HP and more HP tied to modules. I'm planning on keeping hardeners around 30% at proto but with shorter duration and a longer cooldown with the intention of allowing players to cycle hardeners for a more constant boost to eHP, or allow them to stack them for massive resists for a short period but with a long downtime where they would be very vulnerable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:00:00 - [12] - 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? I guess a 3rd variant with a single turret? And then a 4th variant with a single turret in the other slot? Or just add vehicle locks and everything will be fine with the normal 3 turret HAV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:50:00 - [13] - 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. Overhauling stats on a vehicle is not a ton of work and more in line with the capabilities of the current development team. Capacitor would basically be writing the code from scratch which is a shitload more work. As much as I would love to see a proper capacitor system, I really don't see it as a viable option at this time. When I do the numbers I plan to have a mix of active and passive modules that perform the same function to simulate non-cap stable and cap stable fits (the latter being passive and less effective, but always on). It's not quite the same as capacitors but it's a half way point and more within the limitations of the development staff. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 08:27:00 - [14] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: on the topic about shield hardened gunnlogis: ive fought today a guy who survived 8 forgegun hits in a row and then bugged off. And with 8 rounds i mean i and my buddy pummeled him up close. So 2 forgegunners couldnt do jack vs that thing. So could we finally get a proper anti shield AV weapon? Maybe a swarm launcher with EM warheads? The issue isn't lack of anti-shield weapons. It's that the Gunnlogi gets better passive reps than a complex armor repairer without spending a single slot in order to do so, and then uses the extra slot to stack a second hardener to push its eHP up to Madrugar levels, and then can fit armor plates in the lows to gain even more HP. The whole thing is ridiculous. I plan to help fix this by castrating the passive shield regen and then using shield Rechargers/Energizers/Boosters to push it back up if the player wants higher regen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:13:00 - [15] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. Frankly if cap got added to all vehicles and just say it would take a solid 6months to a year i think i could deal with it considering i could perma run a hardener or 2 Passive modules (Resistance Amps for your example) would accomplish a psuedo cap-stable fit. Also CCP is not going to dedicate months to implement a capacitor system. Maybe if they had a full Dev team dedicated to the game, but we don't. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:13:00 - [16] - Quote Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust. Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:24:00 - [17] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust. Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass. 1. You need to take your meds 2. I already said CCP took them away - what part of that dont you understand? 3. Ive beeing saying go back to chrome and uprising for the past 6months it feels like - I guess you missed that also pats your head Don't try too hard little guy Spkr4theDead wrote: The only shield module for dropsuits in the lows is the shield regulator. All it does is decrease the time it takes for the shield to start recharging. Vehicles shouldn't have a delay recharge, they should recharge at all time, albeit at a slow pace. There won't be able need for low slot shield mods. Well, as I've explained before, if you really want shields to operate like they do in EVE, then the shield recharge rate with compensation for Dust's pace of gameplay would be roughly 10-20 HP/s. Is that what you want? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4526	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:37:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. This is why I like you. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4526	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:47:00 - [19] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4540	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:01:00 - [20] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4541	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:33:00 - [21] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... I think people are getting hung up on intended design vs how ** currently works. Currently Blasters suck as AV, but that doesn't change the fact that they're SUPPOSED to be AV. In short, Blasters need a buff, but large and small (though likely in different ways) "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4542	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:51:00 - [22] - Quote Devadander wrote: I noticed no mention of R.E.'s.. and as far as it being difficult to AI with handheld AV.. the swarm launcher does suck at killing infantry I'll give ya that. In case you were thinking I'm one of the infantry blaster farmers of old, you can just eat that. I popped more tanks than anyone else back in pre 1.7 all the way to beginning. Sorry I'm not part of one of the big groups, but my voice can still be heard. Ask NS or AE how many tanks they would have to field to deal with me and the one random crap tanker they could find to ring against big corps. If your team was tired of losing tanks to me I would kill any troops dumb enough to rush an 80gj barrel yup. This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Honestly idk why I care, the sad truth is well funded corps will just roll 3 squads and keep dropping crap tanks till you are overwhelmed at every corner. o_O not really sure why you feel the need to sound so hostile.. And sure remotes can be used for AP and AV, just mentioned Plama Cannons and Forge guns because they're pretty commonly used, I wasn't intentionally leaving out remotes. Just FYI, EVE PvP is hardly click and forget, there is a lot of stuff going on like managing modules, adjusting orbit range, ect. The fact of the matter is that Large Turrets obviously have to do more damage to fulfill the role of fight larger, high HP vehicles. If they were equally good at killing infantry as they are vehicles, you run into serious issues where solo tankers are capable of doing far more damage to infantry consistently than the infantry can do to the vehicle. I know people will often spout "Well this isn't EVE!", but the fact of the matter is that while you can't make direct comparisons between the two games in many cases, there are systems and mechanics that do work between the two, and it is not unreasonable to make comparisons when it makes sense. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4543	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:55:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... You have to earn it with your fingers. And sometimes thumbs. Honestly though I would love to drop some people into EVE PvP and see how well they do with the "fire and forget" combat. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4556	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:56:00 - [24] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm a pilot. I will not compromise on being a pilot. I want the SP I invest into vehicles to be worth it, and I don't really care about the ISK.I just want everything to be worth it. I spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of operating vehicles, and have become very, very proficient at using a tank - so much so that I can take out missile and rail tanks with a blaster. I can also take out more than one bad shot at a time, I did that last night at their redline. I refuse to be treated like a second class citizen just because my voice belongs to a minority group of players.[/i] Your personal ability does not validate any argument you may make. Anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal Do you want to know why you're treated like a second class citizen? It's not because you're a minority in the player base a whole, it's because you're a minority amongst pilots. Everyone wants their SP to matter, both pilots and AV users, but you seem to be more focused on what YOUR SP means, and not what the opposition's SP means. You don't want to compromise, you don't want balance, what you want is whatever is going to benefit you the most, and not what makes the game actually enjoyable for everyone. Much akin to what we see in real world politics, people like you who refuse to have a conversation, refuse to find the middle ground, and refuse to listen to others, are often laughed at and ignored because they bring absolutely nothing useful to the table. Not a single person here has gained anything of value from anything you have said, and you have contributed nothing to the conversation as a whole. Until you manage to do that, no one will take you seriously or respect a single thing you happen to say. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4562	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:20:00 - [25] - Quote I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now" The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place. Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:06:00 - [26] - Quote What exactly do you mean "Cut and paste the stamina code with minor tweaks"? A decay and growth function is about as basic as it gets, and that's all the stamina is. What you're asking for ties in with modules both in modification and activation, not to mention that if you want it to properly work like even then you're not even dealing with a linear function like stamina works off of. I'm not exactly and expert programmer, but I think you deeply underestimate the effort require to put this together. Is 1-2 years realistic? No, it was a hyperbole, but what do you think constitutes as a "small design team" that can "hack it together"? Are you aware of the size of the Dust development team? I'd like to see your source of information that you used to make this estimation. Like honestly though, have you been following the vehicle discussion? Are you aware of the severe problems between vehicles themselves? The fitting issues with the Madrugar? The problem with the function of blasters? The lack of proper skill bonuses and messed up skill progression? All of these issues are completely independent of anything to do with capacitors and desperately need to be addressed asap. It's like telling someone who just lost their legs "Oh well we're not going to give you a wheelchair, so just lay crippled in this bed for 6 months while we make prosthetic legs." I mean do you honestly think that the addition of capacitors would just "trash all balancing data" and make us "start from scratch again"? You don't think a well balanced, duration/cooldown system would be rendered completely useless overnight if capacitors were added? I'm not a game developer but I've been pretty balls deep in a dozen community design projects, and in every case, new systems take existing data and make it fit the new system. All Duration/Cooldown really represents is "If I run for 30 seconds and take 90 to cool down, that means I consume 3 seconds of capacitor recharge time for every second of activation. The conversion is of course not that exact, but the principles can be readily converted from Duration/Cooldown into a Capacitor system without significant changes to the base values. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:35:00 - [27] - Quote Also Vell0cet I'm not trying to be overly hostile, I just think you're being unrealistic, but no hard feelings. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:03:00 - [28] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Thanks for your response. The existing stamina system has been designed to integrate with modules, to accept modifiers from modules, and can accommodate large drops in the values based on actions in-game (when you jump). It fills all of the existing needs for a capacitor system. They could use a simple linear regeneration function to start, and tweak the function later, or call up the guys in Iceland and ask for the function they're using for EVE. In the code, the class interface would almost certainly look very similar to a capacitor system. This is simply based on my own experience as a hobbyist programmer. I really don't think it's as major of an undertaking as you believe it to be. Of course there could be performance challenges, and bugs that would need to be resolved, that's likely where the bulk of the development time would be spent. Things always take longer than they appear, so you're right that it could be more involved than I believe it to be. As far as trashing the data, it comes down to whether engagements are designed to be very short (as they are now) or much longer. That's a major deal. I was somewhat hyperbolic with the trash everything comment, and you're right about the skill tree being a mess, but damage, hp, hp regen, and even speeds would all be dramatically different if designed for a short fight or a long fight. You really would have to almost start from scratch again. Code....doesn't work like that. Yes stamina accepts modifiers from skills and modules, that much is easy, but you still have to code in how activation costs of modules, weapon useage, ect. Im not saying you can't use existing code, but theres a lot more to it than what you're describing, and as far as I know there are exactly 0 dedicated programmers working on Dust. And development of that nature is borrowed from the Legion team. Also linear regeneration is kinda bad because there would be no middle ground in cap stable/non stable. Linear Rechage would mean that Cap Stable = 100% capacitor all the time which can be problematic if you ever want to have some proper EWAR...but that's not really important at this point. And again I don't see how the length of battles for Duration/Cooldown would differ from a Capacitor system....not should they differ. A module that has to cool down for 90 seconds and runs for 30 is simply a 3:1 Cap Recharge/Activation Cost ratio. HP and rate of recovery wouldn't change, nor would the effective activation cost of the module. The only difference is that available activation time and total cap capacity are pooled instead of per module. But even then if there were issues, you can maintain the same level of module performance and balance them entirely around cap cost and not disrupting previous balance effort. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:27:00 - [29] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Well if a fight should last 4x as long, then either DPS needs to be reduced by 400%, HP increased by 400%, or a combination of many different and complex variables need to be tweaked and ironed out (which is the obvious correct solution). That's what I mean by balancing. In a capacitor system, vehicles would be fundamentally different, they would be very powerful: something like 4x harder to kill, but they would be vulnerable to being "tackled" and beat down. That's much different than just messing with timers and cooldowns, that's designing a completely different style and pacing of vehicle-based combat. Why can't you have tackling with a Cooldown based system first? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:37:00 - [30] - Quote UHAV will require smalls because....it has bonuses for smalls...that's kind of the point. DHAV is large turret only. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4569	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:59:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Just a random thought/request while you're here. Have you considered making modules on vehicle operate on a similar principle to how cloaking devices do? Activation consumes energy and then recharges when the module is off. While I think the Duration/Cooldown system works well enough for Dust, what I very much dislike is how rigid it is. Using 50% of the duration should cost 50% of the cooldown, not 100% as it currently does. Obviously some limitations such as reactivation cooldowns would need to be impliment to prevent abuse, but in general I'd like to see a softer duration/cooldown system at some point. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4576	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:09:00 - [32] - Quote Oh dear, you want me to call it "Pokey's Thing?" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4583	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:26:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. I'm going to say....yes/no. I think Shield Boosters, as in a module which when activated quickly regenerates shields, should remain in the high. There are several EVE modules (some of which we've had in Dust before) which increase natural shield regen and go in the low slot. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Power Diagnostic System, providing a small boost to Shield HP, Natural Shield Recharge, and PG capacity. It's an awesome module and I used it frequently in the past, so definitely bring those back if possible. The reason I'm against shield boosters in the low is that Shield Vehicles would be able to fit HP/Resists in the highs and then their main regen in the lows, whereas armor would have to fit all 3 in the low, and reppers really should not be high slot items, I feel this deviates too much from EVE mechanics and could be confusing to players. Additionally I'd like to see Shield Regulators in the lows as well. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:24:00 - [34] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. it was called power diagnostic unit. it gave a modest bonus to shield hp, shield recharge, and PG. it was for pilots that wanted a full passive shield tank setup. that was back when tank shields had no delay though, so id also add shield delay reduction to it as well or replace the PG bonus for the shield delay reduction. 1. It was useful 2. It looks like regulators which means the delay is still in which is fine for dropsuits but vehicles should have a constant passive regen If you did constant passive regen, regen rate would have to be exceptionally low since it would mean the vehicle would be naturally negating X DPS naturally, all the time. As I've stated before, unmodified shield regen in EVE is VERY slow for this very reason. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:29:00 - [35] - Quote Im not going to dig for the link, what did you set the regen at? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:39:00 - [36] - Quote Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:31:00 - [37] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:38:00 - [38] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:03:00 - [39] - Quote Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed. Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable. However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate. You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:32:00 - [40] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage. II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good. III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason. IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:59:00 - [41] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation. ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was. iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting. iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually. So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different. So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:24:00 - [42] - Quote Oh lawd. You know I try to take the time to hear you out, but 50% of the time you agree with me but don't even realize it, and the 50% of the time you're not even paying attention to the point of what I'm saying. If your intention was to waste my time so I get nothing productive done, I suppose you've succeeded. But I'm done with trying to speak with you, I actually have work to do because people actually care about what I have to say. Have a nice day sir. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:58:00 - [43] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok I actually have to call it on the spreadsheet. It's as complete as I can make it without wasting all of our time. Rattati, I have to say that even with the charge feature, Nova knives aren't going to be considered a serious AV weapon in any reality. with a base of 111 DPS at the prototype level using rapid strikes versus vehicles this is a troll weapon, and nonviable in any serious fashion as an HAV destroying tool. It's not even borderline as a finisher unless an HAV has less than 500 HP remaining. In my studied opinion after looking at the numbers and watching several nova knifer videos showing HAV destruction the only way you're getting an HAV kill with NKs is under one of two circumstances. 1: The HAV driver is an idiot on a scale heretofore unseen. 2: The HAv driver lets you do it because you're making a Youtube video to showcase your new can-openers. I have finished all of the "serious" AV options that we have available today. My assessment on the Mass Driver and Flaylock is that even at 100% efficacy they will underperform compared to swarms, Forge guns and even the PLC in an anti-HAV capacity. I can't say this dismays me. But we can make the Mass Driver a dual purpose AI/Backup AV weapon without torching the balance we have, same with the flaylock. Making similar considerations for the Bolt Pistol and Ion Pistol Charged Shot might not also be out of the bounds of reason. I highly recommend not using the Laser Rifle or the four battle Rifles for AV. Hmmmm I'm really not a huge fan AP weapons becoming serious AV weapons. However there is probably some logic in that the Plasma Cannon is an AV weapon that can be use for AP, it's just difficult to do. The reverse can be true for some AP weapons that are difficult to use as AV. The biggest problem with this sort of design is that it makes developing the vehicles even more difficult, as its impossible to predict how prevalent such weapons will be on the battlefield. Proceed with extreme caution, I'd rather there be more 'clean' ways to do this though. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 05:45:00 - [44] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt. Power Diagnostic Units ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:27:00 - [45] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:49:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet Those who are interested can take a look at the WIP progress for capacity, for UHAVs, DHAVs and HAVs in the Final Proposal Caldari Hulls. It also has most of the skills/specializations/modules that are needed in phase 1. Duplicating this sheet for Gallente tomorrow. Starting to look good, I approve. The 5/2 to 4/1 progression is more in line with Dropships -> Assault Dropship progression, and you know I love consistency in design. Now with your intention to do faux racial variants, should we expect something along the lines of...? Caldari 5/2 -> 4/1 Amarr 2/5 -> 1/4 Gallente 3/4 -> 2/3 Minmatar 4/3 -> 3/2 I think this sort of framework looks really nice. good flexibility in the MBTs, a more restrictive for the specialist HAVs but with bonuses to push them into a specific style of play. +1 Now...I don't mean to get too far ahead of the game but we should at least talk about what sort of bonuses we can expect and the skill progression because bonuses are obviously an important part of the balance process. Are you looking for some suggestions on bonuses? Or have you pretty much decided on what you want? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4600	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:23:00 - [47] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield HP and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to small turret fitting bonus and damage. Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction. Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor HP and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets. Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets. What do you guys think of those? I think it is a very good idea to make the generic racial HAV skill give a bonus specifically to the tanking style of that race, and make that bonus apply to all HAVs of that race (Even the DHAVs and UHAVs) Amarr: +% Reduction to Speed Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari: +% Bonus to Shield Recharge Rate Gallente: +% Bonus to Armor Repair Rate Minmatar: +% Reduction to Shield Recharge Delay I seem to remember an exploit where HP Boosting skills actually allowed a driver to hop in and out of a vehicle to artificially regenerate HP. For example a +25% Bonus to shield HAV, when the drive got in the vehicle the base 4000 would increase to 5000. However if say he was reduced to 2500/5000 HP, he would hop out, the max HP would decrease to 4000 so the HAV would have 2500/4000, he would hop back in and it would increase the HP of the vehicle by 25%, pushing it to 3125/5000. This is why the +% HP skills were change to +% Damage Resistance back in the day. Now I don't know the status of this exploit, but it is something to keep in mind when adding any sort of +% HP skill bonuses, as you may want to consider damage resistance instead (which I find to be a better bonus than HP anyways due to its added effects on regeneration). Fitting reduction for small turrets is kind of pointless since the turrets are prefit and the resources scaled appropriately to accommodate them. Though I have to ask, if we're able to swap the turrets out, would players not be able to just swap to a lower tiered turret in order to free up resources to bolster defenses further? I guess in that regard you could give a flat Role Bonus of a significant drop in the cost of small turrets. This would mean that even downgrading them would free up minimal resources, thus lessening the effect. However I don't think that should be the scaling general role bonus for the UHAV but rather a flat bonus that doesn't increase per level, as it would be crucial in properly balancing PG/CPU in the design phase. UHAV Role Bonus: % Reduction to PG/CPU of Small Turrets (flat bonus) +% Bonus to Small Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Small Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Caldari: +% Bonus to Small Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance Gallente: +% Reduction to Small Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Minmatar: +% Bonus to Small Turret Splash Radius +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance DHAV Role Bonus: +% Bonus to Large Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Large Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus Powertrain Enhancer (Active High, Increase Vehicle Turn Speed) Caldari: +% Bonus to Large Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Nanofiber Modules (Passive Low, Increased Speed/Acceleration at cost of armor HP) Gallente: +% Reduction to Large Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Fuel Injector Modules (Active High) Minmatar: +% Bonus to Large Turret Tracking Speed +% Bonus to Overdrive Modules (Passive Low, Increase Torque/Acceleration) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4600	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:31:00 - [48] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: why isnt there a shield recharger module? i want that option of having full passive fit. im annoyed that armor can get better passive reps than shields. Um if you're talking about current values, you might want to check the math on that buddy. Currently the Gunnlogi's natural unmodified shield recharge is faster than a max skill complex armor rep. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4603	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:15:00 - [49] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Alright, so just change the HP Bonus to a resist Bonus? 4% would be good then. I'm trying to keep the DHAV Damage bonus higher than the UHAV defense bonus to keep the UHAV in check. What do you think about the DHAV getting a fitting bonus towards Large Turrets/damage mods for the role bonus, then bonuses to each races respective turret on their tanks? 4-5% per level is pretty reasonable given their reduce slot count. It lets them decently tank even when the hardeners are on cooldown. As for the damage bonus you don't want to get too crazy with it and totally bone MBTs, but their additional slots will help a little to counteract that. I wont delve into numbers too much with that, as its highly dependent on where the eHP and turret values land. Again the Large Turret Fitting reduction....well kinda goes along with the bit I spoke about with the smalls. Since the vehicle comes pre-fit with a turret and the PG/CPU is already modified specifically to handle that turret, offering the fitting reduction as a bonus is kind of pointless since the hull is already tailored to fit the cost of the gun. A flat role bonus to reduction may help to negate the "downgrade" issue I mentioned with the smalls but that will probably be less of a problem with the DHAVs. As for Damage Mods that's kind of a tough one, as Armor Hulls would likely benefit from the bonus more than Shield since they don't have to sacrifice any main-rack slots to use them. Also I'm going under the assumption that we're not getting racial turrets anytime soon, so Im trying to keep bonuses very generic for the sake of Amarr and Minmatar which don't have proper racial turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4604	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:14:00 - [50] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: What do you think of giving DHAVs a lower scan profile than MBTs, and UHAVS a slightly higher scan profile? (Or in case I got that wrong: DHAVs being harder to spot, UHAVS being easier) The idea being that DHAVs are more hunters, and as such would want the lower scan profile to be more easily able to dictate when the grounds of an engagement, and UHAVs being more detectable in exchange for the fire power / armor. Since Rattati has stated that DHAVs would not be rail-capable, we would not need to worry about Hidden snipers, and it would allow DHAVs to be a bit more "stealthy" (in terms of Tank vs Tank battles) which would give them an edge on trying to do ambush like tactics. As for UHAVs it matters little about their scan profile, since they are AI, and will never really be able to "sneak" up on Infantry units. Also, taking this idea further: Perhaps a module that reduces Scan Profile by a % to potentially allow "Scout Tank" gameplay? That seems reasonable. Nothing as powerful as say an active scanner, but if you want to make them a little more stealthy that's fine in my book. It's not like it can cloak or anything, and they're not exactly quiet. If you're looking for like a hardcore scanning platform, I think that would be better suited for say an LAV or something of that nature. Also I must have missed it, where did Ratatti say the bit about DHAVs being non-rail capable? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4606	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:43:00 - [51] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: STUFF More STUFF There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. Here is the quote in question. I'm not too interested in any tanks being scanning platforms, just making it so that the DHAV and UHAV are slightly harder/easier (for a tank) to see. That's an interesting choice he's made there. Not sure how I feel about it. I think its reasonable that the DHAV be harder to be seen and the UHAV be easier to see. It also may be worth exploring options to allow the UHAV to better scan infantry, as their primary role is specifically to hunt infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4611	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:35:00 - [52] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: The damage mod problem for shield tanks could be lessened with passive damage mods in the lows, with 5%/7%/10% for the progression. I was thinking that there should be passive utility mods in the lows, active in the highs like we had before. For example, passive and active damage mods, speed mods, heat sinks, scanning mods even. Would give shield tanks a lot more fitting options for their low slots, which helps Them not have to use armor stuff. Hmmm well that's sorta true, except the active damage mod would theoretically gain more of a benefit due to a larger base value. As for the Active/Passive High/Low duality, totally on board with that and it adds in some much needed options for low slots. I think we can also use PG limitations to really hinder shield vehicles from fitting plates. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4612	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:57:00 - [53] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I actually would prefer having a smaller boost all the time. I don't like active reliant fits, which is why I REALLY want my passive shield resist mods to come back. Back then, I could slap on two supplemental amplifiers and get constant 30% damage reduction. Then I had 1 large extender and a booster, the only active mod on the fit. Had about 4500 shields, constant 30% damage reduction, and I could regen my shields if I needed to. Onto the second part, the PG would have to be extremely high for plates, otherwise the Proto Shield vehicles will still be able to use them, which we don't want. Same goes for CPU on shield mods, so armor can't use them effectively. I'm pretty sure that dual tanked Surya's were the most OP tanks we had, and we don't need that again. And that's totally fine and a matter of personal preference. I personally like being able to flip multiple hardeners on at the same time and be unkillable for a handful of seconds before scurrying off to hide and let my modules cool off. However I also enjoy a good, slow burn passive fit. One of my favorite ships in EVE is the Drake...sturdy little mofo and that passive tank is nice and easy to use. And here's the deal, I don't have an issue with a Caldari HAV putting plates on. What I do have an issue with is them fitting full proto shields AND plates. If you want to hybrid tank...that's fine, but your shield fitting needs to suffer to pull it off. Same with armor, if you want to stick shields on an armor vehicle, that's fine, but you better be giving up armor to make it happen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4617	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:43:00 - [54] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I find it disheartening if he is considering this. Typically all damage modules (the ones that increase DPS in EVE) are low slots with certain kinds of modifications being split between Medium and Low slots. Active Systems are usually put in the Medium Slots Group however no examples of damage increasing modules to my knowledge exist in the Medium Slots. Passive Systems are usually put in the Low Slots Group. The only other two means off the top of my head that might directly increase the damage of your guns would be Drugs and Rig Slots, however neither of those exist in Dust. I also can't find any examples of Medium Slot modules that increase damage. All damage mods in EVE are both Low Slots and Passives. The only Medium I could find was a Tracking Computer which is active and increases range/tracking which effectively increases DPS since more shots hit the target. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4617	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:47:00 - [55] - Quote Indeed. It's effective DPS. I suppose Target Painters would also fall into a similar category. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4620	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:57:00 - [56] - Quote Spool up modules? Probably never. Tracking Enhancers? On a CQC Minmatar HAV? Probably. Heat Sinks? Absofckinglutley Heat Sinks on a rail means you're getting off an extra shot or two before you need to stop firing, that can be critical, even more so in some situations, over a damage modules. "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:02:00 - [57] - Quote I'll have to take a look at your numbers when I have more time, but in a general sense I'd like to have both passive and active regen modules for both Shield and Armor. The progression would be as such: Natural Armor Regen (None) Natural Shield Regen Passive Armor Repairer (Constant Duration - Slow Rate) Passive Shield Recharger (Constant Duration - Slow Rate) Active Armor Repairer (Long Duration - Average Rate) Active Shield Booster (Short DUration - High Rate) Active Ancillary Shield Booster (Very Short Duration - Very High Rate) (Our Current Boosters) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:20:00 - [58] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4623	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:20:00 - [59] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. Its more that the missiles take so long to get to the target at long range that a moving target has already moved away from where you are aiming. Paired with the fact that all of your DPS is contained in only 12 shots, missing a couple shots drops the DPS significantly. In general the community feels one of two things needs to happen. Either the missiles fly faster so they reach the target faster and allow players to hit things at a longer range, or the missiles have some light tracking and turn towards the target (though not to the extent that swams would, as this would be passive tracking) I believe Breakin also had a proposal to spread the dps out over many many missiles so that missing a couple shots was less detrimental. but all in all its not dispersion that causes issues with missiles, more so that they can be difficult to am and hit a moving target from afar and are typically only used up close because missing a couple rounds is very detrimental. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:57:00 - [60] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Right now, the faster you fire the large missile turret, the more dispersion it gains. I suppose I've never experienced this effect personally then. Typically because I rarely use Missiles at long range because of the limitations I listed, so perhaps I wasn't seeing the dispersion effect. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:25:00 - [61] - Quote I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:57:00 - [62] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 5 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Gunnlogi currently reps at a higher rate than a Complex Armor Repairer with max skills. This means that a Gunnlogi can spend 0 modules to have a better rep rate than a Madrugar which spends 1. I have no issue with the Gunnlogi repping faster than the Madrugar, but it should need to spend at least 1 module in order to achieve it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:00:00 - [63] - Quote Brought over from the Turret Thread because it was getting off topic. Harpyja wrote: Well I didn't quite say that UHAVs needed be nerfed... I think all that needs to change is the DHAV's defenses. I just see no reason why it should have a weaker defense than the UHAV. It already lacks two small turrets and a bonus to fighting infantry. I'd imagine a role bonus of 4% damage per level will put the DHAV nicely into its role, while keeping its defense on par with the UHAV. Because if the DHAV's defenses are the same as the UHAV, then the MBT would be completely pointless. It would would be slower than the DHAV It would have less defense than the DHAV It would do less damage than the DHAV On top of that people want Large Blasters to be AP, so a DHAV with an Anti-Personnel Blaster would have the same defense as a DHAV, be faster, and do more damage with not only a bonus to the large blaster, but doing it solo as well. I get what you're worried about, but you would simply be reversing the problem and making the DHAV clearly superior. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:04:00 - [64] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. Random Scribbles but food for thought, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:58:00 - [65] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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... Isn't that the definition of a Glass Cannon? I guess my question to you then is, if DHAVs have the same defense as UHAVs, is there any point in running a SHAV at all? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:11:00 - [66] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:33:00 - [67] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With the recharge delay Gunlogis have on shields, if it takes any more than one low cost module to bring them to the same levels they are now and Madrugar hardeners get any love, then the instant repair of the armor repairer could get abused with 5 low slots. I'm sure the shield recharge rate of all the hulls would be lowered, but that delay after damage threshold has been broken is not present in armor repairers. Armor hardeners have a much longer duration than shields and the effect of increasing amount of damage repped per second when active. Not much you will be able to do against a plate, 2 hardners, 2 reppers and nitro if the hardener get any love. It's the same as dropsuits, you can at least tank some armor on most of them that have low shield recharge rates ie Cal logi, but once you start removing low slots you become more shield dependant, thus cover and recharge dependant, thus hiding away from battle dependant. There is no comparison when a gallente heavy pushes up on a caldari heavy of equal skill, the Gallente heavy will win with most of thier armor immediately repping after the battle. The nice part about tanks is there is no repping nanohive or repping logi further squewing the battle in armors favor. tl/dr: Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math ). So outside of redline Caldari = run away, Madrugar = keep applying damage every 3 seconds while a Nova Knifer runs over to make a YouTube vid. First of all, 4 seconds is not that long, and Regulators are being added which will drop that lower. Secondly, while I think passive armor reps should remain, they should be less effective. Active Armor Reps which run on a Duration/Cooldown need to be reintroduce and have a similar HP/s to existing passives when spread out over their duration and cooldown. Given the speed of vehicles, the duration of the shield hardener is sufficient for nearly any situation and will allow the HAV to kill the AVer, tank, or simply escape. Shield Hardeners are also a significnatly higher % resistance, meaning much of its eHP is tied to resists, not HP like the Madrugar. Because of this, the Gunnlogi takes less damage per damage applied, meaning that it has less HP to recover. This means that the effective Recharge Rate is significantly higher than the base 169HP/s. As an example: Tank A has 200 HP and no resists Tank B has 100 HP and 50% resists They both have 200eHP, and repair at 10HP/s If we apply 100 damage to each tank Tank A loses 100 HP Tank B resists the damage and loses 50 HP It will take tank A 10 seconds to fully recover It will take Tank B 5 seconds to fully recover Same eHP, same HP/s recovery rate, but Tank B recovers all of its HP faster than A. As you can see, when it comes to HP recovery, Damage Resistance >> HP. So in the case of a Gunnlogi, a 40% hardener pushes the effective recharge rate from 169 HP/s to 237 eHP/s, and can fit two hardeners at the same time which pushes it even higher depending on usage. The Madrugar with its one 25% rep goes from 137HP/s to 172 eHP/s and currently can only fit a single hardener on typical fits. Also you're making a very poorly designed argument. "Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math )." If the Madrugar has 300+ HP/s that means it has dedicated all 3 of its slots to armor repairers. Not only is this a FailFit, but you're comparing it to the Gunnlogi that is using 0 modules to bolster its regen. You're saying an HAV that dedicates 3 slots to regen....regens better than an HAV that dedicates no slots to regen....well of course its going to be better! That's like saying it's wrong that a Minmatar Sentinel that stacks HP mods have more HP than an Amarr Sentinel that doesnt have any. If you factor in a Shield Booster vs a single Complex Armor Rep, the Gunnlogi can negate the shield recharge delay if it wants with the booster, instantly giving it 1950 HP and starting the recharge of 169HP/s. This means in the first 5 seconds the Gunnlogi Recovers ~1950+5(169) = 2795HP, the Madrugar would recover 845. Pretty massive difference, exchanging high regen for constant and reliable reps. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:02:00 - [68] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:44:00 - [69] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's that shield delay combined with nearly half the duration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing I will agree however that shield regen on the Madrugar is too damn high. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:22:00 - [70] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however; You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp? If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit. I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds... No my point is that even though the raw HP is different, the eHP of those two fits is very similar, meaning that the Gunnlogi recovers eHP far faster than the Madrugar, while having an equal (and sometimes superior) eHP. And you can argue that you can fit 2 reppers, but that is typically an non-viable fit and would drop the eHP of the Madrugar even more sharply. And keep in mind that the Madrugar still has to fit multiple modules just so it can beat the regen of the Gunnlogi using 0 regen modules. That's my main gripe. (Under the old model) if the Gunnlogi had to fit 1 proto module to get the 169 HP/s, I would be FAR more comfortable with it. As for the new model, I can do that, but looking at the first few seconds after depletion isn't a really clear picture since that is specifically the weakest part of the shield regen. Regardless I think passive shield recharge and passive armor reps need to nerfed into the ground and bring back proper active modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4633	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:55:00 - [71] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree. but the gunlogi can never get more reps the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi. While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher. I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4637	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:58:00 - [72] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Stuff I'll take that as along winded "Gunnlogi should not have to fit any modules or train any skills to outrep a Madrugar using a maxed out proto module with max skills". Ok, thanks for your feedback. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4639	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:39:00 - [73] - Quote 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. Oh dear, no need to be rude. The point you're failing to recognize is that while the RAW HP of the Gunnlogi is indeed lower than the Madrugar, the fact that the Gunnlogi has 40% resists (15% more than the Madrugar) paired with the fact that they can fit 2 hardeners, means that even with the lower raw HP, their average total eHP is very similar to that of the Madrugar. If you had clicked the link in the chart, you can see the math I used to reach that conclusion. So if the max eHP is similar, what we're really looking at is "How much time does it take to recover 100% of their raw HP first?" because at 100% raw HP, eHP has been completely recovered, right? So if the Gunnlogi regenerates to its full HP faster than the Madrugar, that means it reaches the peak of its eHP faster, yes? So I'm not looking at the raw regen values, and I'm looking at the raw HP values. What I'm looking at is "How much time does it take for the vehicle recover all of its eHP?" That being said, the Gunnlogi does this significantly faster than the Madrugar. I'm sorry if my explanation was not sufficient. As for fitting more repair modules, you have to understand than on a 3 main rack system, 2 reppers is almost always a very bad idea. It means you're typically giving up additional buffer, which given Armor's terrible Hardeners and the fact that it suffers from a severe lack of CPU, your fit is greatly hindered by 2 or 3 repairers. But regardless, that's changing so it doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is that you should totally get modules which boost passive shield recharge, so you can increase the rate further if you want. I know I've posted this before but I'll repeat it again, in order from Slowest Reps to Fastest Reps (assuming equal tiers): Natural Armor Repair (None) Natural Shield Recharge (Constant, with delay) Passive Armor Repair Module (Constant) Passive Shield Recharger Module (constant, with delay) Active Armor Repair Module (Moderate Reps, High duration) Active Shield Booster Module (High Reps, Moderate duration) Active Ancillary Shield Booster (Very High Reps, short duration) Bear in mind that both the passive shield recharge and the passive armor repair modules, would see a significant drop in HP/s. Active modules would tend to have the same average HP/s rate as current reps, but 'crammed together' into a duration and then no reps during cooldown. So for example an armor repairer may have 1 second of uptime for every 3 seconds of downtime, so it would rep at (4137.5)=548/s for 10 seconds, and then cooldown for 30. And yes the tradeoff for the shield recharge delay is the fact that you don't have to fit a module to do maintenance on your primary tank, whereas armor has to. "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4640	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:11:00 - [74] - Quote I don't mean to be argumentative, and I welcome you to point out if my math is wrong. But I think you're missing the point of my chart. If my analysis is wrong I'd be glad to discuss it, but by what you're saying I think you're misunderstanding a key point to my analysis. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:23:00 - [75] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. I'm simply pointing out a glaring issue with the existing regeneration numbers so that they're not simply re-used. Ratatti has already agreed that the Gunnlogi's shield regen rate is too high. That being said I was simply offering up a rough concept of modules to allow for both passive and active regeneration to have a place in the game all while avoiding the pitfall that currently plagues the balance between Armor and Shields. A number of options are available and the proper solution is likely a light mix of many of them, but the fact remains that the data I've presented clearly shows a significant difference in the regen capability of armor and shields, given the existing numbers. Therefore, something needs to change. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:28:00 - [76] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Yeah, 400 HP/s madrugars are not on the horizon. Dunno where the hell you're getting that number. This is like the goddamn Logi Slayer thing. The triplerep madrugar is a thing no one is interested in repeating and everyone knows what caused it so quit crying that the sky is falling. On the future unless plans have changed: Regulators Something resembling an energizer/recharger To my knowledge Rattati's not looking at keeping the ungodly native and passive module rep rates. But bluntly what will happen is if you take a Gunnlogi and don't fit any regen mods but the madrugar dumps space into reps he will outrep the gunnlogi. Just like what happens when a galassault stacks five reps in the lows. This of course, will result in horrible bad things happening because of the lack of sufficient buffer to matter. Pretty much. No vehicle should be constantly repping 100% of the time at any appreciable rate. Shield Regen should be low with a delay, with Energizers/Rechargers to raise it up, OR Boosters to rep when they want for a short period of time at a high rate, with a cooldown. Armor should have the ability to fit a passive armor rep for low levels of armor repair constantly (less than Natural Shield + Recharger since shields have to deal with the recharge delay), OR fit active armor repairers to rep for a short period of time at a high rate, with a cooldown. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:41:00 - [77] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate. Just sayin Sure, like the Rechargers/Energizers we've been mentioning over and over ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4646	Posted - 2015.01.30 04:19:00 - [78] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4650	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:57:00 - [79] - Quote I imagine the DHAV will be one of those roles deemed to be too weak, but will terrifying in the right hands. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4651	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:25:00 - [80] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja 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? 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). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4651	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:31:00 - [81] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja 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? 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). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? technically it is supposed to be shields that are always repping and armor that is active reps only (that could be fun for infantry). 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4658	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:26:00 - [82] - 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. Care to elaborate on why? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:49:00 - [83] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:16:00 - [84] - Quote Ratatti, I'm starting to dig into your spreadsheet to calc out exactly what sort of eHP we can expect out of each vehicle type and I have a few concerns (This is of course assuming I'm reading your numbers correctly). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hniJmpoInfnS76Sy5_vIEgft3imMrwKMzslEY8gBcBM/edit?usp=sharing Hardeners assumed to be at 40%, only fitting 1 as per the Ratatti fits. All fits assumed Proto. MBT is sitting around 8400 eHP while hardened. This feels a little low but I'll run with it. UHAV is sitting around 14300 eHP. Well that escalated quickly. From what I gather, it has more base HP than MBT (double to be exact), as well as its skill bonus which adds another 3210 shield HP. Paired with a heavy extender that pushes its raw HP to...well over 9000, hardened sitting around 12,800. So the UHAV has roughly 70% more eHP than the MBT....not so sure about that. DHAV is sitting around 5800 eHP while hardened. It's basically a 25% reduction in base HP from the MBT in addition to the loss of slots, Im concerned these on top of one another will make the DHAV excessively weak, but we'll just have to see how this goes. What I DO have an issue with is it seems all of the base HP reduction is in the shields, leaving the DHAV with 1725 Shield and 1500 armor. That's ~13% difference in shield and armor on a Caldari vehicle... I could see it maybe for Minmatar, but for Caldari that difference needs to be larger. If you want to reduce the base HP by 25%, at the very least maintain the % difference in Shield/Armor from the MBT so that all of the HP loss is not tied to the main pool of HP. Additionally you have the UHAV with 70% more HP than the MBT but the DHAV appears to only be getting a 20% increase to damage and 40% of the UHAV's HP....I think you're going to have a VERY hard time trying to use secondary attributes to properly balance those two. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:18:00 - [85] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Care to elaborate on why? Your question tells me all I need to know. Well you response doesn't tell me or the rest of the thread anything. I would like to know your personal reasons for why you think it works better. This is called giving constructive feedback. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:27:00 - [86] - Quote Here is the deal Spkr. I like to think myself a pretty rational and reasonable person. I have no issue with changing my mind on a topic if someone can offer up a clear and rational explanation on why they are right and I am wrong. That is what is typically called a 'Discussion'. The problem is that if you refuse to offer up an explanation to why I'm wrong and you're right, I will continue to believe that I am correct. If you That is what is typically called an 'Argument'. I love discussion, being constructive is awesome. However, I have no patience nor interest in arguing, as it is not only a waste of my time, but everyone else who actually wants to get stuff done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4672	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:29:00 - [87] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] None at all, this isn't like some exclusive club. More like a thread where spreadsheet nerds waste too much time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:13:00 - [88] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:25:00 - [89] - Quote 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. He made a actual difference between the Solo HAV and the regular one now? No? I flat out said they're identical aside from the small turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:46:00 - [90] - Quote killian178 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja 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? 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). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? Lots. Mod slots, base speed, resistances, handling etc. I'm talking about secondary attributes. I'm talking about tanking style specifically. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4675	Posted - 2015.01.31 16:53:00 - [91] - Quote 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 . "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4677	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:13:00 - [92] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4682	Posted - 2015.01.31 23:40:00 - [93] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4697	Posted - 2015.02.02 15:36:00 - [94] - 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 suppose the alternate method is to give all HAVs a significant %PG/CPU Reduction bonus (75-85%) for small turrets and scale the total PG/CPU capacity around that. So removing the smalls would free up very little resources since the smalls only consumed maybe 15-25% of their listed cost. It would offer a very minimal benefit to not fitting the smalls but less of a benefit from fitting and having them manned. This is largely how the Logistics equipment bonus is supposed to work. It's less heavy handed than the MBT/SHAV dynamic Ratatti has proposed, but also less absolute and does allow solo tankers to gain a slight advantage by not fitting smalls. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4703	Posted - 2015.02.02 23:51:00 - [95] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:06:00 - [96] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. Indeed. How can they hack the vehicle if they do not understand the basic operating systems of the tank or the modules used in the composition of it? lol according to CPM Soraya Xel, it makes perfect sense that people can hack and drive vehicles without any skill training whatsoever. True story, we exchanged words about it on this week's episode of Biomassed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:18:00 - [97] - Quote I suppose this is as good of a time as any. It's not quite done (need to finish up some fields for Active Armor reps and add in active shield boosters) but it's pretty close. I'll try to finish those bits up tonight. Feel free to many a copy and play around with it, anything in green should be editable and will auto update everything else. NOTE THAT THE VALUES I THREW IN THERE ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP. STRAIGHT OUT OF MY ASS. NOT INTENDED TO BE EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A PROPOSAL. THEY'RE JUST THERE TO MAKE SURE THE SHEET IS WORKING PROPERLY. But I know someone will freak out anyways ^_^ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dO3Jw-f1MRkKKJj8sgTz1A-M1qxf7IxyJ_v-zBgAlo/edit?usp=sharing "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:25:00 - [98] - Quote Now I know True will probably ask so I'll just get it out of the way. The reason I've got armor at 15 1 second pulses instead of 5-3 second pulses is because Iron Wolf Saber mentioned something to me about issues with pulse duration of over 1 second under the new system, so I just broke it up from 5 long pulses into 15 short ones. Obviously this can be changed to the 3 second pulses if it ends up being non issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4734	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:07:00 - [99] - Quote I can agree with the higher base HP to compensate for the loss of slots and maybe some extra to help fulfill the role, but I think a role bonus directly to the HP is pushing dangerous territory, especially when balancing against the DHAV. I think bonuses that help the UHAV tank without pushing its HP to insane levels would probably be more appropriate. Like True said, things like increased hardener duration, faster defensive module cooldowns, ect. may allow the UHAV to be tanky in the sense that it can stay in a firefight longer and recover faster, but not turn it into "FACK YOU I HAVE ALL THE HP!" and end up making the DHAV pointless because the damage bonus is not enough to slice through all of that HP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:19:00 - [100] - Quote Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. The spread between the variants seems pretty good. I still have a few concerns about the DHAV's totals but we'll have to see how it performs in the field. What I am concerned about is that the HP difference between armor and shields is....kinda small, about 1000eHP between A&S for the UHAV and DHAV. It's about 1700 eHP between the MBT which is a bit more reasonable. The reason this concerns me is that the general consensus is that Armor should have more HP than shields, but rep slower. However looking at these eHP values being pretty close...either the difference between rep rates will need to be very small, or the difference in eHP needs to be larger. Also I noticed your "Ultra Bonus" for the Gallente HAV is the same as the Caldari and is listed as (2 Extenders + resists). Is it supposed to be 2 plates worth? Or did you intend that ultra bonus to be the same HP value? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:29:00 - [101] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:39:00 - [102] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. From my understanding, AV is being balanced around the new vehicles. Specifically to match equivalent tiers (STD AV vs STD Vehicle, ADV AV vs ADV Vehicle, ect.) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:25:00 - [103] - Quote Well it makes sense, you can't balance 1 tier of vehicles against 3 tiers of AV and have it work properly "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4749	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:17:00 - [104] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. If you're talking about Swarms, they're explosive. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4757	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:18:00 - [105] - 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 Don't forget we're trying to make every level of every skill give some benefit, so don't forget the basic HAV operation skills! Basic operation for vehicles and dropsuits should reflect and define that race's tanking style further. Amarr HAV Operation +% Reduction to Armor Plate Speed Penalty Caldari HAV Operation +% Bonus to Shield Regulators Gallente HAV Operation +% Bonus to Armor Repairers Minmatar HAV Operation +% Bonus to Shield Rechargers/Boosters Destroyer HAV Operation +% Bonus to Large Turret Damage (You have to be very careful about this one, balancing it against the UHAV's defenses properly) Amarr Destroyer HAV +% Reduction to Blaster Heat Buildup (Effectively Better Sustained Fire) Caldari Destroyer HAV +% Bonus to Missile Flight Speed (Effectively Better Range) Gallente Destroyer HAV +% Reduction to Blaster Dispursion (Effectively Better Range) Minmatar Destroyer HAV +% Bonus to Reload Speed of Missiles (Effectively Better Sustained Fire) Ultra HAV Operation +% Damage Resistance (Again be very careful. You want to make UHAVs tanky but not to a point where such extreme tank negates any damage advanage the DHAV has) Amarr Ultra HAV +% Duration of Armor Hardeners (Longer Engagements) Caldari Ultra HAV +% Duration of Shield Hardeners (Longer Engagements) Gallente Ultra HAV +% Cooldown of Armor Repairers (More Frequent Engagements/Faster Recovery) Minmatar Ultra HAV +% Cooldown of Shield Boosters (More Frequent Engagements/Faster Recovery) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4757	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:24:00 - [106] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4759	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:56:00 - [107] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? They wouldn't. Because the UHAV with weaker defenses would be dead meat versus any competent AV gunner. The DHAV is intended to make MY job harder by being mobile and not holding still long enough for me to lock down and kill it. The UHAV makes my job harder by wading in, and parking on an enemy force and systematically massacreing them while I hammer away at it. Having more EHP to resist my Forge Gun or the swarms trying to killsteal me is critical to this. The UHAV has to be designed with the understanding that Infantry will drop everything to KILL IT and be armored accordingly. I think the main issue people are having here is trying to balance the damage advantage of the DHAV vs the defensive bonus of the UHAV. I firmly believe that the UHAV has to be tanky as ** against infantry, otherwise it wont be able to fulfill its role. Others do raise good points that in order for the DHAV to overcome this bonus, they'll need insane damage bonuses which is just going to lead to insane damage creep, which isnt fun either. So...why not just remove that comparison completely? Make the UHAV's bonus not work against turrets, but be highly effective against infantry weapons. The DHAV can maintain a reasonable damage bonus that will do more damage than the MBT and not be hindered by the UHAV's defensive bonus, and the DHAV can have the defense it needs to take on infantry head on for longer periods of time. If the UHAV is difficult to kill by infantry, then it gives you a very solid and reasonable reason to bring a DHAV to the field to quickly remove said UHAV from combat. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4761	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:47:00 - [108] - Quote I guess I don't feel like any amount of small turret bonuses will make up for a weakened defense of the UHAV under your proposal. I also dislike that if the DHAV has the highest defense and the highest damage output, that you're edging closer to a situation where the only effective means to fight a DHAV is another DHAV, since it'll be able to simply speed away from infantry and tank more and do more damage than a MBT or UHAV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:14:00 - [109] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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. But heres the rub. So, under you model the UHAV is defensively weak, and slow. Sure I can see some merit to a good offense being a the best defense, that is how glass cannons work. However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up. I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker? You may not like the conditional defenses of resisting infantry AV but not turrets, but you have to admit it does directly address your primary concern of the DHAV's damage bonus being useless against the UHAV's damage resistance. Also to clarify, I still have several issues with Ratatti's proposed numbers as I've pointed out before, I think he's going a little too extreme with some of them, the DHAV being a primary concern of having less slots on top of less HP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:32:00 - [110] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right. Mostly agree. Mostly. Ideally, a 3-man UHAV should be a lumbering death machine, capable of taking on multiple Infantry AV simultantiously partially because it's fully manned, capable of killing AV infantry due to small turret bonuses, and partially because it has bonuses to specifically resist infantry AV weapons. It should be exceptionally bad at AV, due to terrible large turret tracking and low speed. Note that the resistance to AV weapons is largely to offset the lower speed when fighting infantry. Because its defensive bonuses (and thus much of its eHP) is tied to an Infantry AV resistance, it's eHP against vehicles is actually very average against Large Turrets, Small Turrets, Installations, and Orbitals. However because it is also slow, it will falter against enemy vehicles and installations very quickly. I think the UHAV should not be impossible to kill by infantry, but a well manned and fit UHAV should be very tough to crack. Additionally, because it is specifically designed to fight infantry and terrible at fighting vehicles. making its hard counter be the DHAV, MBT, ADS, Orbitals, Installations, ect. does not seem unreasonable. UHAVs should feel confident in fighting infantry, but terrified of other vehicles. Similarly, the DHAV should be confident in fighting other vehicles, but terrified of fighting infantry. As for going too extreme with the eHP differences...I agree. As I've said before the loss of slots and base HP on the DHAV is going too far, and the UHAV having like...double the eHP is also too extreme. Similar levels of base HP is more reasonable...let the reduction in slots and bonuses dictate how the vehicles operate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:34:00 - [111] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up. I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker? It's not, and unless the damage profile of a swarm launcher is addressed or the lack of an AV weapon as effective as swarms with the same profile against shields, it's not going to change. Even with proposed numbers for the gallente hull, it won't be even close to as durable as the shield version will. You are going to experience a LOT of this, even if it goes on as proposed. There's a reason why the gunnlogi is so much stronger of a choice atm than the madrudger. And unless that get's addressed, your above scenario is going to still happen. That's not even close to my point. My point is that if you're slow, weak, and outranged by infantry, you are going to die in a fire every time with no way to escape it. Damage profiles is an entirely different issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:06:00 - [112] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4769	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:10:00 - [113] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 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. .....no. Of the UHAV has less base hp than current tanks, then no. You misunderstand, the resistance bonus versus infantry AV would push its eHP (against infantry) well above the MBT, but its defense against enemy turrets would be lower than the MBT. Inversely, the DHAV's eHP against turrets would be higher than the MBT, but its defense against infantry AV would be lower than the MBT. Also since AV is being changed to match these new vehicles, I don't consider "current tanks" even a factor, as their performance is irrelevant under the new design. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4769	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:15:00 - [114] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: ueah, that's the problem, it shouldn't have lower base hp than an MBT. If its effective HP is higher, why does it matter? The idea is to make it stronger against infantry than the MBT, and weaker against Turrets than the MBT. Incidentally the Hull's base HP would likely be the same, but the reduced slots would yield a lower raw HP. Harpyja wrote: 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. Indeed, I actually made a few suggestions for this a few pages back. Personally I'd like to see the basic skills for both dropsuits and vehicles, reflect a mix of the racial tanking style as well as frame size. What I came up with off the top of my head was Amarr - Decreased Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari - Increased Bonus from Shield Regulators Gallente - Increased Rate from Armor Repairers Minmatar - Increased Rate from Shield Rechargers/Boosters "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:30:00 - [115] - Quote Yeah the lower raw HP is important as it makes the vehicle innately weaker to AV and Turrets, but then then the bonus makes it very strong against one or the other. I think something along this line would firmly establish what each variant is weak and strong against, as well as establish the MBT as the clear middle ground, making the UHAV and DHAV true side-grades to the MBT. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:44:00 - [116] - Quote Passive regeneration in general needs a nerf, and active reppers/boosters need to make a return. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:12:00 - [117] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks. AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low. UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast. Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration) Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase ) Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:15:00 - [118] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4771	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:32:00 - [119] - Quote So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4773	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:04:00 - [120] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4773	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:21:00 - [121] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? You want a 200% damage bonus? Pffffft ahaha! oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder. Ahahahahaha! you're not supposed to go toe to toe with a tank that is supposed to be tankier than you. you have much to learn about RPG's... No, I don't actually. I was pointing out how absurd it is. Done being a douche? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4774	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:07:00 - [122] - 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 think it could simply be described as "Resistance to Infantry Anti-Vehicle Weapons" and "Resistance to Large and Small Turrets". On the backend however it might be a little more complicated. Now I know basically nothing about the code so I'm talking out of my ass here... However what if you gave AV Weapons their own damage profile that is tagged different, but performs exactly the same, and then gave the HAV a resistance to that specific damage profile...the weapons should perform the same against everything normally (as they're not getting a specific resistance to that 'hidden' damage profile) but it would allow you to have the UHAV have a resistance to "AV-Explosive" such as swarms, but not specifically "Explosive" such as Missile Turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:06:00 - [123] - Quote A large part of why the Sentinel Damage Resistance is limited to specific damage types is because a blanket damage resist is because resisting all types of weapons would make them too powerful in all situations. The idea was to create situations where a Sentinel would be resistant to specific types of weapons. The concept of AV Damage vs Turret Damage is not that different. You're creating a situation where the UHAV is exceptionally good at fighting one type of weapon, but not as good fighting another type. The issue I'm seeing is some people are envisioning it as such: UHAV is the Defender DHAV is the Attacker MBT is in Limbo This seems reasonable enough in a general sense, however we've already established that as things are currently listed, the UHAV will take about 60% longer to kill than the DHAV in direct combat. While the DHAV has advantages of speed and tracking rotation, a 60% difference is simply too large of a difference to overcome with secondary advantages. Additionally, this places the MBT in an awkward position. It would have the same TTK as the DHAV in a head on encounter, but likely falter due to lower speed...this much is ok. The issue then comes down to the UHAV in which the TTK would be about 60% longer, only to exchange marginally better speed and tracking, but to a lesser extent than the DHAV has. This clearly puts the MBT on the bottom rung, as the DHAV will struggle to kill the UHAV given its massive TTK differential (Even with taking secondary effects into account). Since the advantages the DHAV has over the UHAV (Speed, Damage, and Tracking) are actually weaker on the MBT (Its slower and does less damage than the DHAV, but has drastically inferior defenses to the UHAV) it will actually struggle even more to kill the UHAV. The issue is that the more extreme the DHAV and UHAV get, the more trivialized the MBT becomes. Additionally, as has been pointed out, you'll be running into situations where DHAVs are basically being 1 shotted by AV Infantry, 1 shotted by other DHAVs, and will have to struggle to kill UHAVs. The only think they'll be marginally good at is killing MBTs. UHAVs on the other hand will be able to tank infantry, tank DHAVs, and tank MBTs. You can argue "Well its only on paper!" but when the numbers imply such a massive difference in TTK, you're going to really struggle to try and balance that with secondary advantages (which indeed have to be field tested). For me, I'm starting to think of it like this: UHAV is extremely good at fighting infantry DHAV is extremely good at fighting vehicles MBT is decent at fighting both infantry and vehicles Its a departure from the "UHAV = Defense Tank" and more to a "UHAV = Anti Infantry Tank" but Im curious on why some are so against this concept and I'd like to hear why exactly. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:25:00 - [124] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Making the UHAV EXTREMELY slow might help this problem. Say the MBT has 100% movement speed. UHAV has 50% movement speed, and the DHAV has 150% movement speed. Now the MBT can basically do what the DHAV does when fighting a UHAV, to a lesser extent. Another thing that might help is giving UHAV's a flat range reduction of 25% or so, so the MBT can engage it from a safe distance, although this probably shouldn't be done with my other idea because It would mean the UNAV would lose every single time. I'm trying to think of some ways to keep the UHAV as the defender tank, so I'll get back to you on that. I mean sure there are extreme options like absurdly slow, or locking the large turret so it can't rotate independently from the frame...but that itself has issues. If you're fighting something and try to flee, in theory if it takes you twice as long to run, you have to tank twice as much damage....so where does that land you? Additionally you start to run into that 'fun' factor where secondary attributes are so restrictive that the gameplay itself doesn't feel enjoyable.' Also I'm not typically a fan of negative bonuses, otherwise I'd just nerf UHAV large turret into the ground, but that will then negatively affect its AP capabilities which isn't the intention. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:56:00 - [125] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4777	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:02:00 - [126] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4777	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:28:00 - [127] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: they want DHAVs to be able to outrun LAVs loaded with AV gunners. they're being coy about it. LAV's actually having a purpose besides basic transport? GASP "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:05:00 - [128] - Quote 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.... "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:21:00 - [129] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:49:00 - [130] - Quote Back on topic...Ok lets take a moment to look at bonuses under the premise of damage resistance against infantry AV. MBT +2000 Base Shields +2650 Module Shields (2 Extenders) =4650 Raw Shields UHAV +3000 Base Shields +1325 Module Shields (1 Extender) =4325 Raw Shields So before Bonuses, MBT will have 325 more shield HP more than the UHAV. Our general goal is to make the MBT slightly better at dealing with enemy vehicles than the UHAV, so similar levels of eHP against turrets with the MBT being faster/better tracking achieves this goal fairly well. Since there is a fairly small difference in HP (325) we'll just leave that as is with the understanding that it might be slightly tweaked in the future. So it comes down to upping the UHAV's resistance against infantry. If the resistance is specifically towards infantry AV, It is more reasonable to go with a pretty high eHP. We'll shoot for what Ratatti initially proposed to see how it looks. Ratatti's Initial "Ultra Bonus": +3210 HP Oh boy, that's a bit of a jump. So in order for the UHAV to gain that much eHP against AV using its base HP, you're looking at ~75% resistance, or +15%/lvl. Eeeeesssh thats pretty intense, landing the UHAV at about ~11700 eHP once its in a hardened state. Note: MBT eHP = ~7300 (~40% less than UHAV) DHAV eHP= ~4500 (~60% less than UHAV) Discuss? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:12:00 - [131] - Quote Honestly I have not done the math on SP cost...never thought much about it, but all in all it should be a similar amount of SP to spec into a dropsuit as it is to spec into a vehicle. Roughly. I mean you quickly run into issues when looking at say, a Logi as it needs to train more equipment and whatnot, but as a general ballpark it should feel similar. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:05:00 - [132] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks. using crap tanks to prove a point that AV is too easy is a rather sad argument. Use your best tanks and make the video. then I'll take them seriously. I only use bad tanks when someone needs kill assists in a vehicle. Other than that, they're all over 400k ISK. I love how you assume so much about me. You've never seen me in battle, because you don't play the game, so all you can do is parrot what other people say. lol "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4783	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:34:00 - [133] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4784	Posted - 2015.02.07 20:32:00 - [134] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: 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. Well I try not to be overly combative, I know tensions can run high, especially on a forum where voice inflection and intention are not always translated through the text. Even I get snippy at times, so I'm glad that we can keep it (mostly) civil. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4821	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:47:00 - [135] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: He has 17k all-time kills. I've checked. That tells me he barely plays the game. I've also never seen him at all. Never seen Breakin at all, either. Nah just means I have a life and a job and other things that I do besides no-life on Dust. Also I've never seen you either, therefor you must not even exist. Spkrception! "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4847	Posted - 2015.02.08 18:29:00 - [136] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4855	Posted - 2015.02.09 00:45:00 - [137] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4856	Posted - 2015.02.09 01:25:00 - [138] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: 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. .....I still don't see why. I have to train more skills....to not have turrets? It's basically a Gunnlogi Type-II, a variant, not an upgrade or anything. I see no valid reason to require either of them to have more or less of a skill investment than the other. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4859	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:14:00 - [139] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 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? I don't see the point in getting UHAV level to 5 just to unlock proto UHAV's and then having to level up UHAV skill to utilize the passive bonuses. I'm pretty sure people wold revolt if you have to get Assault Dropsuit skill to level 5 to unlock proto and then you have to get the racial to level 5 to get the passive assault bonuses. To be quite frank, I'd prefer an unlock system where STD, ADV, and PRO unlocked on ranks 1-3 and then 4 and 5 were there for additional bonus ranks. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4864	Posted - 2015.02.09 06:46:00 - [140] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: [Pace on the pages is beginning to slack a bit, some of us has been posting about tanks almost daily since december. Pay no mind when the spkr, breaking, pokey etc flareups happen. Given the specific references to the master spreedsheet it seems everybody is still generally on board with the new suggestions. Hey now, every once in a while I say something remotely useful! But yeah the skill tree Ratatti has is not exactly how I'd like to see it...I'll do a mockup tomorrow and get a link in. As for skill multipliers I'll let you kids fight over that, it's not really my cup of tea. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4876	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:01:00 - [141] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4880	Posted - 2015.02.09 17:14:00 - [142] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. That's fine, but what I'm trying to avoid is making an overpowered tank and then justifying it with a high SP cost. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4881	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:33:00 - [143] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. @_@ if you had read the thread you would know that is what is effectively being done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4892	Posted - 2015.02.09 21:59:00 - [144] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4897	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:09:00 - [145] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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? As far as I can tell, he currently has no plans to change existing modules at this moment aside from perhaps HP modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4897	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:52:00 - [146] - Quote 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 little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

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.