DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

CCP Rattati wrote:

DarthJT5 wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

Foundation Seldon wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active.

The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules.

A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead.

Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility.

My suggestion would be :

Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well.

Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails.

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

I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:19:00 - [1] - Quote Hi. First reaction: - I like the "tiericide" approach to HAV progression. That seems like the right way to go about it. - I like that anti-infantry and anti-vehicle tanks are a thing. This gives HAVs a purpose. Be careful about having AV-tanks deny HAV-deployment within the home-redline. We had that before. - I'm glad you're introducing stand-in variants for the lacking racial HAVs. I agree with giving Amarr tanks the Gallente model and Minmatar tanks the Caldari one. That way shield-tanked HAVs look alike and armor-tanked HAVs look alike. That's much more intuitive than the other way around. Suggestion: - Fitted DHAVs should be sitting at the defensive capabilities of a fitted current MLT tank. For orientation we already know the dual damage amped rail Sica that can be a threat to any vehicle on the field, but can't leave the redline since it'll be popped by any sort of AV. Combine this offensive power with the ehp of a less glass-cannon MLT HAV and this may be a viable role. - Consider reducing all large turret damage by X% but giving a X% role bonus to damage to DHAVs. This will hopefully put a disincentive on doing AV work with a UHAV without overpowering the DHAV against infantry. For orientation even today a damage amped pro blaster on a MLT tank is not very useful against AV-infantry. The role bonus can thus be up to 20%. (There will be bickering about DHAVs being used against infantry anyhow. It's bound to happen whenever there's a lack of AV.) - Consider restoring the normal large missile launcher as a hybrid AV-AI turret and offer variants from there once we get to that. The current large missile launcher doesn't deliver very interesting gameplay to anyone. - I believe increasing the total amount of slots on HAVs would make their fitting more interesting. However, getting the numbers right will be difficult. Since hardeners are a thing on HAVs it is difficult to quantify the 'utility' of a slot as a number. This would be made easier by reducing the effectiveness of hardeners, but they're in a pretty sweet spot right now. It's a tough decision. - Consider introducing passive resistance modules. They're extremely easy to balance: 2.5 shield hardeners grant 40% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 2.5 slots and 525 CPU / 562 PG (source, protofits incl. max skills) Therefor: 2.5 shield resistance plates should grant 40% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 2.5 slots and 525 CPU / 562 PG Therefor: 1 shield resistance plate should grant 16% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 1 slot and 210 CPU / 225 PG
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:05:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. Hi. Some issues: - From MLT Gunnlogi to STD Gunnlogi you add a STD light shield booster but don't add any defensive power. This seems problematic. At least add 25-50% of the hp-effect to defensive power from STD to CPX. - Armor repair modules don't appear to add to defensive power. Suggestion: Add 5 seconds worth of repairs to defense. This is shorter than some fights, but also longer than some (remote explosives come to mind). - Hardener's effect on defensive power should be weighted by their relative activation time. E.g. a shield hardener at max skills right now is active 40% of the time and grants an average shield hp boost of 16% (40% resist * 40% activation time = 16%). - DPS for the first ~7k hp of damage is a better measure of offensive power. This is comparatively easy to calculate and can take heat sinks into account. It is also most relevant for HAV vs HAV fights. - If your statistical toolset is good you can derive 'power' from 'popularity' (while excluding free MLT stuff). This came to me when I realized that std shield boosters will never be fit on anything while their cooldown is still at 70 seconds. Suggestion: Use something like a 55/50/45 progression with active modules. This seems like a small progression, but the core skills deduct another 25%. Alternatively decrease the core skill effect (e.g. 2%/lvl) and use a taller progression (e.g. 55/45/35). - You noted that there're no low slot modules to fit on shield HAVs. Suggestion: Add passive support modules like resistance plates on 'opposite' slots (shield resistance in low, armor resistance in high) - this somewhat imitates the Eve:Online doctrine (hardeners mid, resist low) that fully avoids the "shield tankers don't have low-slot modules" issue. Additionally, consider re-introducing passive mobility modules such as torque modules (passive +X% engine torque) and make them follow the same 'opposite from the active module' rule. I'd like to refer to my last post in this thread for a simple mathematical rule to derive X from the stats of a fuel injector. Super vain post scriptum: I read in the excel sheet that you were looking at the AUR Madrugar. On that topic, please make the Kaalakiota Recon Dropship a STD aurum variant. Preferably unfit and reasonably priced. Its red skin is totally sick and could actually earn you a few dollars if it was used on something useful. [Edit] I also noticed the "add AI small missile turret"-thing. Are you sure about that? Missiles are the best anti-infantry turret right now. ... From the perspective of a DS-pilot ...
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:53:00 - [3] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. This only holds true if mobility (or "time to disengagement") is kept constant. This isn't necessarily the case.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 922	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:05:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok nerds: So far I have compiled the DPS and damage numbers for the Forge, Swarms, PLC and AV nades. Spreadsheet is here Thanks for that. The math seems sound on first glance (I started in column AB and went down the formulas from there). It's really funky. The SL has the much higher long-term DPS, but has to rely on the target staying within lock-on range long enough. The IAFG doesn't have the DPS but can keep hitting for longer. These numbers exactly line up with my experience. An IAFG at 8.5k damage per clip can take out my Grimsnes before I escape, but a pro SL can't because it can only unload one clip at 6.2k hp damage against armor before I'm out of range. My Myron however can withstand an IAFG clip (6k hp damage against shields) but is more of a hassle to operate due to active mods. That sheet would be very useful for large turrets too, you know? ... Just for your information ... not asking for anything ...
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:50:00 - [5] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Rattati once upon a time ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles. [...] As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it? Both these points seem like viable long-term goals. The original intent, I believe, was to allow everything to work that looks like it should work. If you try to kill a car with a plasma shotgun, that should work. If you shoot an MCC with a railgun, that should work. It may be comparatively ineffective, but it should work. However I see no short-term way of introducing this. Finally, back on the topic of HAV progression: I've come to the (personal and subjective) conclusion that the best method of going forward is to do these things: - Higher tier HAVs are introduced with the 3/2 slot layout and additional CPU/PG - Passive versions of active modules are introduced (resistance plates, shield regulators, engine upgrades, weapon mods) to improve fitting variety - Existing broken modules are fixed (light armor plates and extenders, shield boosters) Hopefully then we'll be able to fit all 5 module slots in a useful manner instead of only the three main ones. That would be a huge improvement in my opinion. In the midterm we should be looking at: - Cleaning up large turrets and their individual purpose - Introducing small & large turret variants - Cleaning up AV options to always be capable of some limited AI-functionality (- Increasing module count, if someone comes up with an easy way of predicting the effect that would have)
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 932	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:47:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. 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 I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use. OK May I refer the discussion on active/passive variants of currently existing modules to this thread? Thanks.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 933	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:57:00 - [7] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 We do have skills for that too. Using modules to shorten the activation and cooldown phase of your modules to make fits that excell at hit&run tactics or inversely having really long up-times in exchange for longer cooldowns instead of going for plain old buffer tanks sound like legitimate player choices that are meaningful to both the pilot and his opponents. Maxing your character skills is not a choice, especially not for veteran players. We should definitely give this a thought. If we don't have implemented mechanics for it the idea has to go on the backlog, but it's a good idea.