|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
   |
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow) 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet
I don't think any pilot is going to like only having 3/2 and 2/3 for slots on the Marauders and Enforcers. If you really do want say, the Surya to be destroyed by a laser, you're looking at base armor of at least 10,000, with all 3 low slots having reps, and probably a bonus to the reps as the racial skill. The class skill could be passive armor hardening. Sagaris could have a bonus to shield recharge.
But yeah, I love the idea of an ultra heavy tank, but the lack of slots.... doesn't allow much variety, which is what we want back. And as far as the tanks and ADS go, the fitting is invalid unless we put a main turret on them, so being prefit with a turret is kind of moot.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Travis Stanush wrote:Ok did I see that your using stand in models for Amarr and Minmatar vehicles?
Edit: True will be happy
I can wait on the Amarr and Minmatar vehicles for a while, I just want the Gunnlogi and Madrugar to be worth it for now.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
Prefitted tanks: As long as we can switch out the prefitted turrets to turrets of our own choice to play with the fit. Also, nothing to stop me from fitting basic small turrets on a proto tank and having the extra PG and CPU to beat up on a solo tank.
We don't have "PRO" tanks. That's a myth. There's no vehicle with the PRO tag attached to it. Those were the Kubera and Chakkram during Chromosome. They were the Black Ops HAVs with a built-in mCRU.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect.
Solo HAVs piloted by an experienced pilot will still be devastating. Having an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles is not healthy.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 12:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Supacharjed wrote:This is probably a stupid question, but:
"all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank."
So, we are unable to change this?
If that is so, can we assume that:
HAV = 1 AV turret (Gunnlogi) and 1AI turret (Madrugar)
DHAV = All AV turrets, but different ones.
UHAV = All AI turrets, but different ones. You can always override the turrets with different small turrets, you just can't remove the base turret from the fitting. DHAVS won't have small turrets, they are essentially a rapid redeployment AV cannon.
Can I fit a solo HAV with whatever flavor of turret I want?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 13:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote: AI Large missile turrets, oh you make me swoon.
The forums will light up within an hour calling it OP, and wanting it nerfed into oblivion or outright taken out of the game.
Skillbooks: What i find contentious is having Two skill books/ SP sinks for solo tanks, and tanks with small turrets, basically double the SP for the same tank. I do believe that fitting small turrets should be up to the player who is paying for the hull and investing the SP, its like asking infantry to speccing into a proto heavy suit twice, once for an HMG and once for a forge gun.
Doesn't matter to me, I'm space rich and want a good reason to buy a second respec to go full pilot. Like you said below, I absolutely hated having a Neebs in my tank, and during Chrome and Uprising I've redlined more than 10 tanks to show them why I don't want them in my tank.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 13:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alex-ZX wrote: I mean what happens if I put into the field a lot of those super tanks covering their backs each other, I know those are specific situations but, sometimes those are the most op
You make it sound like the only ones allowed to use teamwork are infantry, and that pilots covering each other is OP and needs to be nerfed.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2804
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 13:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:
You need to be careful when deciding how much damage UHAVs can withstand versus how much damage DHAVs can deal. The DHAV's damage bonuses should outweigh the UHAV's defense bonuses. Otherwise UHAVs will simply be better all around because they will 1) have better AI capabilities and 2) their strong defence against infantry AV also allows them to withstand the damage from a DHAV, buying them time to get through the weaker defense of the DHAV.
He said in his first tank thread that he wants the destroyers to have a fighting chance, not destroy an ultra heavy ultra armored tank in a few seconds. Shouldn't take just one volley of missiles or 8 seconds of sustained fire from a blaster. They're essentially laughing off MLT and ADV AV to be able to take on a destroyer and try to escape.
In my honest opinion, the UHAV should have the weaker defense and the DHAV the stronger defense.
That's just silly. What would then be the point of going into the ultra heavy ultra armored tank if it's going to have weaker defense than a tank with maybe 1/6th the HP?
If the UHAV is to be primarily AI, then its defense against infantry AV should be its infantry offence.
It's defense against AV is going to be its extremely high HP.
Otherwise, as has been posted, giving UHAVs a strong infantry AV defense will require that DHAVs have an insane amount of offense to get through a UHAV's defence before the UHAV can use its weaker AV capability to get through the DHAV's weaker defense.
See above
Another problem with this setup is that DHAVs will be nearly insta-killing one another and their low defense against infantry AV will probably make DHAVs extremely costly to operate.
His own words, the Falchion will insta-pop the Vayu.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2809
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 18:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts
I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary.
Don't change the max number of vehicles just because they don't want to do anything to destroy them.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Good stuff Yes, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret, have fixed OP. Existing modules can be changed relatively easily and I need the player base to propose changes to make them useful, as you all know I am not a big fan of ehp being the only choice. sHAVs being a specialized choice is not useless as it allows balancing of solo Havs against each other, instead of some using the HAV fitting power intended for small turrets to not fit small turrets and fit higher tiered modules.
So you want the HP modules to go back to what they used to be like for Chrome, where hardeners offered more damage attenuation as they went up in meta level?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them.
Pilot suit
The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead.
Pilot suit
If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships.
That allows some idiot to get in the driver's seat and put it in the redline.
And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers?
I like being able to aim.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
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.
You're not a pilot, why do you care?
Oh wait, you're here to look at any nerfs.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Absolutely.
I will provide both today's AV to give you a baseline and then give my recommendations.
And I am always happy to explain my logic.
Will give baseline, max skilled so you can compare.
Oh great
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:
DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like.
That's just silly, that's like a PRO tanked assault of any race being near killed by 2 rounds from a mass driver, and not a PRO one at that. That's not balance, that's just wrong.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
John Psi wrote:Dear Rattati, may be appropriate to completely remove the tanks from Ambush Gamemode?
This saves infantry from the possible consequences of improper balance, which is very difficult to deal with the severe restrictions on the number of vehicles.
Here we go again, someone wanting the game balanced around ambush.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Syeven Reed wrote:As an infantry player and as potential AV, please create a 3 second timer (similar to the hacking circle) to enter and exit all vehicles.
Then infantry has to wait 3 seconds after selecting a different suit at a depot before they can move. Oh, and you can be shot too.
Does that sound fair?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Phase 1
1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option.
Regarding the above sentence, will the number of high/low slots stay the same as today? I understand no additional slots will be available through the progression, but will the "base" number (for all tiers) be altered? That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea.
No, there wasn't a single pilot that wanted slots to stay the same. We want the STD tanks to have more, we want the Marauders to have even more.
Keeping the slots the same offers little to no fitting variety, which is what we lost with 1.7.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2812
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 06:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Regis Blackbird wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:
Phase 1
1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option.
Regarding the above sentence, will the number of high/low slots stay the same as today? I understand no additional slots will be available through the progression, but will the "base" number (for all tiers) be altered? That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea. If we ever want game wide tiericide it is a necessary first step.
Tiercide for vehicles, but no tiercide for infantry.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2821
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 18:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:[quote=CCP Rattati]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.
If you have devhax to get a character on an internal server to get enough SP required to do that, that's great. If not, it's going to take you a glacially long time to get the SP to get vehicle core skills to level 5. Join a squad with me some time, I'll tell you how it's been.
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.
There aren't any vehicles with the PRO tag attached to them, therefore we don't have PRO vehicles.
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.
You're adding mobile fortresses and destroyers at the same time, we didn't have that for Chrome/Uprising. A baseline for the STD tanks should be 4/2 and 2/4.
So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing.
If we get good bonuses to the ultra heavies, such as bonus to reps for armor, recharge for shield, and resistance as a class bonus, then people won't be brick tanking tanks. There would then be purpose into a Caldari vehicle being a shield vehicle; I'd say the reverse for the Gallente vehicles, but it's incredibly difficult to fit shield extenders, boosters or hardeners on one of those hulls. A bonus to small turrets is just silly. That makes it sound like they'll be able to take on tanks by themselves.
Also, recommend some shield modules for lows.
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.
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"
Shield hardeners should go back to a set number of pulses for a set duration of time, but not be useless like they were during Chrome and Uprising. Those boosters offered far too little shield. The extenders should increase the recharge rate - that's what I've been told of EVE lore, adding extenders increases the recharge rate, while also increasing the signature profile. Armor reps need to go back to active. Armor hardeners need to be vastly improved, bringing them much closer to shield hardeners. Dust has always had only one superior hull. It used to be armor for a long time, then it became shield when 1.7 was deployed. They should be roughly equal, with the turrets being the obvious main difference. I liked when you said that vehicle modules would be good if their cooldown was like the cloak: only cools down what was used, rather than going through a full cycle. Hardeners should also offer more damage attenuation from STD - ADV - PRO.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2822
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 18:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
For game balance they are interdependent, not independent.
V vs V is just fine; the game should be balanced around FW and PC, where there are squads working together, not pubs where it's full PRO squads annihilating academy grads.
Each has to go with the other. Neither exists in a vacuum.
AV launches vehicles into the vacuum of space.
As far as fixing them? Until Rattati comes to the end or very close to the completion I literally CANNOT offer changes, only tag what we have. It's why I'm participating. So as soon as we have finalized numbers, then I'm going to work.
We need to make up our own numbers and theorize on the values and modules.
my chrome numbers were based on what worked.
All of Chrome worked. Vehicles pounded the hell out of each other, and we left infantry alone to do that.
poke soraya occasionally when he misbehaves
Occasionally misbehaves? He's outright being hateful towards pilots. That is absolutely not the kind of conduct a supposed "community representative" should have towards the people he's supposed to be representing.
and stand by to give recommendations.
I've looked at them, I've looked at the numbers, and they're all terrible.
The reason I used the AV values in my chrome spreadsheets was because those AV nunumbers WORKED at the time.
You just want one STD packed AV grenade to instapop LAVs again.
From what I'm seeing from ratman those numbers are no longer valid. So I'll cook new numbers based on what you HAV nerds hash out.
Sounds like all that bunk about you having a "pilot alt" is exactly that: BS.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2822
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 18:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:1: Spider tanking had several problems that kept them from being OP
The rep tank had weak offense and defense while keeping the main tank alive.
2: LDS doesn't make any sense as a repping platform.
It didn't before they were removed. I'm a fan of remote reps from a dropship to be in the form of a cone, so the pilot doesn't have to spend 10 minutes locking on to a target. The pilot simply flies over the vehicle that needs reps, activates it, and then can float around the vehicle so they at least have some momentum if they start getting hit.
3: LLV actually does, but you want to make the pilot do nothing but drive around in a LAV, forcing him/her to find someone else to operate it.That is forcing teamwork, and that never works.
And it's not even good teamwork. There's not a single thing in the game that requires 2 people to use something for its intended purpose. Logis don't need someone to take their equipment out of a backpack so they can use it. Commandos don't need someone to carry their second light weapon. Heavies don't need 2 extra people to support the weight of a heavy weapon. Scouts don't run around for a bit, find a place to hide, then crouch down on a knee to call up Otacon and tell him what the situation is. Assaults don't need someone to point to them to tell them where to shoot.
There's no reason at all that a logi LAV must have 2 people to be used for its intended purpose. Remote reps on those can be a circular AoE, rather than the impossibly clunky system they used to have.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2825
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 12:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'm going to answer both of your posts, apologies for the wall.
CCP Rattati wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote: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.
There's far more people doing far worse. I have the experience to back up what I say about vehicles. Also, how about Soraya's behavior towards pilots? That is far, far worse than anything I've ever said on here.
None of which make me trust or work with your feedback.
So because we're voicing our concern, you're not going to use the spreadsheets we made?
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.
We do read, and we voice our concerns about it. Pilots have suffered many, many nerfs and we're worried about the day vehicles are finally made useless - you want the enforcers easily destroyed by AV, right? So what about another tank? Will it take another tank longer to destroy an enforcer than AV? If so, then that's not balance at all.
An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible".
I look at everything: PG, CPU, what turrets, HP values, slots, and theorycrafted eHP and damage. If the HP is too low, and damage is too low, and there aren't enough slots, then it's a terrible fit.
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.
^^ You can with shield, not armor.
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.
I said we don't have PRO hulls right now, which is entirely true. Dunno why you commented about that. A Duvolle on my G-I assault doesn't turn it into a Gk0.
1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope This is exactly right.2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken Still invisible swarms, still able to lock on when they're behind cover, and/or when I'm behind cover. I've actually watched them weave through obstacles to hit me. They also go around 3 corners to hit me. This is all from a lot of experience.3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV With 3 said, who would you rather believe: people that rarely or just don't use vehicles, or pilots that have been pilots in PC? I did 5-10 battles every day for a month straight when I joined R*S, and that's not including reups.4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options This5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink This too - tanks cannot be better if they don't have more options.6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything You weren't here for the days of far more pilots defending themselves and their preferred playstyle. We did the math to show the damage that AV would do, and were told to shut up. I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. We do, which is essentially demanding the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills restored, more slots than are proposed; lots of people have told Breakin many times that your vision for the ultra heavy is a massive amount of armor, but no matter how many times we pointed that out, he had his own vision of what they should be and was actively ignoring it.
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]
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2827
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 13:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Who use a LAV for something different from murder taxi or Jlav now?
People used the logi LAVs for remote reps. We obviously don't have those anymore.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2844
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
Why can you only provide a non-answer?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2844
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue.
MLT flaylock reduces my shield and stops the regen. I'll have recording capability in a few weeks, so I can put all the lies to bed with video evidence.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2844
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching.
Literal cookie cutter fits.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2856
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 16:56:00 -
[27] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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 fast regen for either armor or shields should require an active mod Just sayin
Or the reps could be active, which would be preferable. I've gotten lazy with only 2 or 3 mods to activate. I would rather have 5 for much increased survivability.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2856
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor?
Because that worked better for vehicles.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2856
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 17:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Harpyja wrote:While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust?
Generalized summary on shields in EVE:
-Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields
-Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge
---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s
---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer
-Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking
---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts
-Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust
-Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots)
-Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships
Armor:
-Can only be repaired actively
-Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time
-Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers
---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps)
---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement
-Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking
I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit.
This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge.
Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements.
One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that
Core grid management and engine calibration are really useful, and I'd like them to stay.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2857
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:05:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. You could try to Dash in but you are certainly not dashing out.
Since just the proto turrets average about 280,000 after the first million in losses you wont be all suicidal like.
Which leads me to my next question, Prices. Scaling it up like the dropsuits is not viable. 3,000 isk for a stadard suit to 50,000 for a proto suit. (16.6 times as expensive). 1,610,200 for a proto hull. Without any modules, fit all proto on it you're going to run upwards of 2,000,000 per tank.
On the face of it, you could argue that tanks used to cost this much isk. but AV has been buffed to become more more powerfull than before, and its tough to argue that the 'new' proto MBTs will hardly have any more eHP than currently. Given the short nature of Vehicle vs Vehicle fights, and the instagank nature of some of the tank designs, it too much of an isk burnden to place on one person.
How about a simple + 25,000 per hull tier? It makes UHAV hull costs nearly double std tank. with only a single proto turret (+ 281,955) it would cost 493,955 isk. The same with DHAVs. You want to be OP, better put up the isk for it.
std 97,000
adv 122,000
pro 147,00 pro
172 UHAV / 172 DHAV hull
A STD hull cost 97,000 isk.
ADV Hull?
PRO hull?
UHAV?
DHAV?
That's what the cost used to be. Good pilots won't die much, so it's not like we'll take many losses.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2857
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi.
When have we ever said we want tanks to be invincible?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2857
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:09:00 -
[32] - Quote
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.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2875
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
I'll do more tonight after hockey.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2878
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 04:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:I just remembered something.
Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged.
Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2878
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 04:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:
I am pretty sure he is concerned about solo players calling in UHAVS and running solo ad opposed to solo DHAVS.
I am hoping he understands there will be a difference in play style, UHAV will be pricier but slower both moving and tracking while doing less damage. DHAV will rely on quick surprise strikes with emphasis on piloting skills and avoiding stand still toe to toe trading of damage.
I'm the type to try to take them all on in the MBT, just to compare myself to everyone else using specialized hulls.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2880
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 05:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:duster 35000 wrote:I just remembered something.
Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now. But pi+¦atas go down only after atleast 5 hits... and the proficiency being rotation speed.
I was taken out by a Minmando in 5 volleys in a Madrugar. Infantry throwing out that much damage that fast (double swarm) is just insane.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2880
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 12:47:00 -
[37] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:
At least I remmeber when vehicle engineering said in the description that it provided a PG bonus when it was in reality ninja-nerfed to not provide one of the most useful bonuses vehicles had.
1.7, the end of vehicles.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2880
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 12:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Doc DDD 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? What is the scout for if a heavy can beat it toe to toe by a very large margin. Even if the scouts weapon does 40% more damage than the heavy. ON PAPER. The problem is you are not thinking about attack angles, tracking speed, controlled damage bursts, using the environment, working maximum and optimum ranges, knowing when to engage/disengage. Try and apply all the proposed numbers to all the tank battles you have been in.
A scout is used for.... scouting. That's why it has the best eWar in the game.
And him in tank battles... lol
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 13:33:00 -
[39] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:8x means less investment of SP than a dropsuit.
10x.
Alright
So someone that hasn't played in months, and doesn't use vehicles, gets to decide the path vehicles take?
And now you want tanks to use more SP? Please, go ruin a different game.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 15:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:To anyone who knows me, I'm in match at least twice a week for a few hours.
I'm in the DevHangout chat too. I've seen you once the whole time I've been in it.
So since we've decided that we're going to ignore Rattati's request for civility in the thread rather than obstructive accusations, do please enlighten me as to why an HAV should require less SP than a fully-fitted, max-cores dropsuit?
How can I ignore bad ideas from people that don't use something? That would be like me commenting on the rail rifle, even though I don't use it. I do, however, have level 5 in all skills for the AR, SMG, HMG, shotgun and nova knives, so I can certainly comment on those, as I use them. As far as less SP, no, they won't use less SP at 8x, they'll require the same amount. As far as HAV operation goes, we'll need level 5 to get the 'PRO' hull, while infantry only needs the basic frame operation to 3 to access the role suits. Dunno what could possibly make you think an 8x would be less SP.
I'm of the opinion that the SP counts should be comparable.
Tanks being 10x is not comparable. Role dropsuits are 8x, basic frame operation is 4x. I know these things without needing the game on, why can't you remember it? Oh wait...
So tell me. Why should a tank that has to get a x2 skill to 3, a x6 skill to 3 as prereqs cost less than a dropsuit that has to do the same?
Isn't HAV operation already 4x? Dunno what multipliers you're talking about.
The current proposed SP cost is an x12 modifier for specialist racial HAVs.
I have nearly 75 mil SP, and all of that won't be enough to cover all vehicle operation skills, turret skills and core skills. Why must it be 12x? How do you expect people with 50mil or so to get into vehicles if you want the operation multipliers increased? Oh wait........ infantry wants tanks to be in another galaxy as far as SP required for use.
I want it to cost x10 to match a specialized racial dropsuit.
Dropsuits aren't 10x, they're 8x.
But by all means, do enlighten me as to how my suggestion is ruining the game.
You don't use vehicles, and you don't play the game. All I have to do is add someone to my friend's list, and check their weekly, monthly and all-time kills.
Also please educate the class as to why an HAV should cost less to skill into than a fully skilled dropsuit.
Again, I didn't say less, I said the same. We had a lot of SP gained per match during Chrome, but I can't remember what it was for early Uprising. Those Enforcers were useless anyway, as an average pilot in a Madrugar or Gunnlogi could easily destroy an Enforcer driven by a competent pilot.
I'm not playing this game with you anymore. Defend your position with facts or shut up.
You're getting all your ideas without playing the game. I get my ideas from a year and a half in tanks. I know the turrets like I know my own hands, I know how the hulls handle, I know how to hit close LAVs with a railgun because I intuitively know the spool and refire times. I know how difficult it is to use the blaster now, because of its inverted dispersion when compared to the HMG. I know how fast missiles can melt any hull when caught unaware. All I see are tons of bad ideas, because I can tell people have little to no experience with tanks.
And I'll now answer why I said "your response tells me all I need to know."
Why did I say that? Because I knew from I think Pokey's response that he's never used a tank at all. He didn't realize the variety we lost when we lost hulls, turret variants, modules and hull slots when 1.7 was deployed. We had active reps that could shrug off AV to take on our real, preferred target, and that was another tank. We could fit out a tank purely for defense, purely for offense, or the best compromise between the two. We could build spider tanks, we could do logi LAVs to keep a tank in the fight while its modules cooled down. My early PC days were filled with 3 or 4 forge guns pounding me, and living, while chasing a red tank inside a compound.
Tanks used to have incredible durability. That was all taken away with 1.7.
To repeat, I knew he's never used a tank due to all the variety we lost with 1.7. With that, I cannot take any of his suggestions seriously. I'm not trolling, I'm not derailing the thread. I'm calling out bad ideas because they're not backed up with any kind of experience. With all these spreadsheets, all I see are mediocre tanks being worked on. Ultra-heavy tanks having only 14,000 effective HP? The Gal hull should have at least 10,000 base armor if it's going to be an "ultra heavy tank," if as Rattati said in his original thread, that you'll need a laser strike to take it out quickly. A destroyer tank easily being dispatched by a plasma cannon? That's not worth the SP investment.
None of us have said we want invincible tanks. We have said that we want the SP and ISK required to use vehicles to be worth it, and they're clearly not right now. We have said we want AV to be a deterrent, and deterrent =/= useless. If a single Minmando with double swarms can take me out in 5 volleys with the 6th having already been launched, that's a problem. I like armor hulls and want to use them, but their survivability is just pathetic, especially with the hardener and rep nerfs from 1.8.
Again, I have the experience to point out why so many proposals are bad ideas. I've been tanking for a year and a half, and I had 5-10 PC battles, not including re-ups, for a month straight when I joined Red Star. I know what I'm talking about. Proposing a supposed ultra-heavy tank with less than 20,000 HP is useless. The game should be balanced around FW and PC, not the ability for one person to solo a tank.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 15:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:
In short I think that increasing SP costs will make it much less likely that people will skill into any vehicles.
I'm getting the feeling that that's the ultimate goal.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 15:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
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.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 18:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people.
I am providing counter arguments, you just won't listen to them.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 19:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
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.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2884
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 21:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Because you present and argue them poorly.
Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy.
Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics.
I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something.
People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them
See above
Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A ****ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]".
That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks?
Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken.
He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point.
He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2884
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:08:00 -
[46] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
But my point stands that I believe that a fully max-core HAV should require about the same SP investment as a max-core dropsuit.
HAV operation is a 4x, I would imagine the role tanks will be 8x. There's no good reason for them to be 12x.
that's the thesis statement even without the numbers being right. If that means drop the SP costs a bit, then by all means.
Why should the multipliers for suits be lowered when vehicles will remain the same?
If that means there needs to be more SP costs to compensate for less skills in the tree whatever.
This makes no sense.
Equal investment. That's what I think needs to happen on the SP front.
It already is equal. We don't have specialized tanks, so all we need is level one. We have assault dropships; that skill is a 6x, which is higher than the basic frame, and the racial ADS skills are 8x. Turrets are equal as well, problem is, we only have one of each, so that's of course less SP required. There's no variety there. There's also little reason to go into vehicle core skills, due to not having many passive bonuses.
With infantry, you can do whatever you want with the SP you have. Don't need eWar? Don't worry about it, they're each 3x anyway, that's 3mil SP. Don't like most of the sidearms? Don't skill into them. Don't like the forge (because you actually have to aim it), don't go into it. Swarm operation is 2x, and at level 5 you get PRO. Proficiency is an option, it's not required to use the regular Wiyrkomi.
What do we get with turret proficiency? Rotation speed. That's really not much of a good bonus. We don't get a bonus for individual turret operation; infantry gets CPU reduction bonus for weapons.
It takes less SP to go full into vehicles as they are right now because we have few options. We also don't get half as many passive bonuses as infantry do. Infantry needs more SP because there's 5 role suits for 4 races; 5 sidearms, 9 or 10 light weapons, 2 heavy weapons, and a ton of core skills that actually make the suit better. Of course, it takes more SP for a suit to be good, because as I just said, there are a lot of core skills that make a suit better.
You don't even have a good argument when you complain that infantry needs so much SP. Don't like Minmatar? Don't use any of their gear. Nobody's forcing you to use the knives, mass driver, combat rifle, flaylock, or SMG, or their scout, assault, logi, commando or sentinel suits.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2887
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:03:00 -
[47] - Quote
duster 35000 wrote:Players being childish wrote:words and more combatitiveness and arguing pointless arguing derailing random childish You guys are derailing the thread again. UHAV and DHAV skill should be 8x or 10x as 12x 4.5m sp is too much.
8x
10x is too much. The suits aren't 10x, there's no reason specialized tanks should be 10x.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2887
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:05:00 -
[48] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle usersFyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av.
So who do you consider users on here? There's obviously Doc, Harp and Godin. Anybody else.... not so sure.
And again............... I can't say the Cal scout is a great suit because I don't have it.
All the same as people can't say tanks are easy to use if they don't use them.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2889
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:18:00 -
[49] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Because you present and argue them poorly.
Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy.
Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics.
I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something.
People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them
See above
Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A ****ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]".
That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks?
Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken.
He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point.
He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't.
1: Pokey Pilots. He's not a very good DS pilot (  ), but he's a pretty decent HAV pilot. Breakin does too, although not nearly as much, however at least tries to listen to people. 2: links to what Breakin said, and I'm pretty sure you took that out of context. 3: Your argument is flawed, as it pretty much says that AV or infantry can't talk about balance of vehicles because they don't use them. You must not understand the fact that THEY STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM. Just Letting you know that. 
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.
Infantry can go bugger off, I'll take care of enemy tanks, instead of them launching asteroids at us. It was just fine during Chromosome, there was no need to reverse it.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2889
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:21:00 -
[50] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I would say that the average infantry that complains when vehicles don't kill them, but refuses to use AV or vehicles to counter or Pilots such as Sparky who refuse to take the opinions of others shouldn't even comment.
I do read their comments, problem is, what they say just sounds dumb. Blaster easy to use? Not at all. Large missile good against infantry? Not when an explosive the size of a golf ball has a larger splash radius and more splash damage than a missile the size of a human.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked.
I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure.
We have specializations for each race to worry about, commando and sentinel for arguments' sake, then there's turrets and core skills. Of course that's more SP than a single dropsuit. We also have the ADS and Saga II, for lack of the logi LAV, so let's call those the assault and scout for arguments' sake.
Assuming the tank operation is 4x and 8x:
So that's what, 8 PRO suits? More SP if you want the base tank operation to need to be level 5 for PRO tanks.
Then there's core skills, and most of them should be useful. Shield, armor, PG and CPU 5%, etc.
Then there's turrets, and I'm really hoping the small fragmented won't be its own tree.
I don't have enough SP to get everything to level 5. I'm going to have to make due with 3s here and there, until I get at least 90mil SP.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:12:00 -
[52] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked.
I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. I only have 1 question about the skills. Are we going off the sa,e system we have right now where HAV operation unlocks both racial vehicles when you level it up, or the old system where you did HAV operation< Racial HAV operation< specialized racial HAV operatio. The old system was much better IMO.
Dropsuit operation = unlocks access to all dropsuit skills: 1x = HAV operation unlocks access to all tank skills: 1x.
Absolutely no need to change that.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:23:00 -
[53] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out.
If that was the case, nobody would bother with them, because you're looking at what, 12mil for that book to 5?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive )
I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled.
Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing.
Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots.
I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks.
Armor tanks aren't useful at all unless you have very extensive experience in a tank.
Armor needs to be brought up to the level that shield is at, rather than knocking down shield to be at the level armor is at. That gives us two broken, useless tanks instead of just one. If you bring armor up, that gives us two okay tanks, and armor can actually put up a fight against shield.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 13:33:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet
@ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x.
The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank.
It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm.
You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well.
I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work.
I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:59:00 -
[56] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet
@ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x.
The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank.
It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm.
You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work. I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then. Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point.
It'll cost too much if the multiplier is too high, and I doubt AV will ever be rebalanced.
It needs to be easy to destroy us. My Python easily countered by MLT swarms. I also lost another to a pair of forge guns and a swarm. Teamwork in action, though the way infantry are on here, they resolutely believe it should take only one person to take out a tank. Funny thing is, I can easily destroy some random that doesn't know what they're doing, using AV, yet they complain they can't take out people like that.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:13:00 -
[57] - Quote
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.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2891
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:52:00 -
[58] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
Intelligence is OP.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
| |
|