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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16748	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:24:00 - [1] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16748	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:28:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. Who cares what True thinks, wait, is he right behind me? * Peers into the CCP Offices from X stories up. "I think you'll find I am everywhere......and no where CCP Rattati" *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16749	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:48:00 - [3] - Quote Alex-ZX wrote: As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Why would you have to be stationary to fire a standard conventional tank gun? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16752	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:22:00 - [4] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: True, Rattati is hinting at an Amarr HAV. Why aren't you busy worshipping him? What kind of skill multipliers are you thinking of for the new skills Rattati? It's been dangled before...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16801	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:35:00 - [5] - Quote 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..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:40:00 - [6] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. I always sound hostile idk why, just me I guess. Just saying there is a HUGE difference between, left click, ctrl click to lock, F1 for gun group, then orbit - keep at, and trying to sight a nugget actively with sticks while they are doin the MKB dance dance revolution. Not really. It's just a different skill set with different imputs. More looking at the data on screen than attempting "dance revolution" though I have to admit dodging half a dozen or so Rifters and running them off a plex was really enjoyable and pretty tense. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:06:00 - [7] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further. Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods. The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs. I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff? Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now. Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. I'm also going to assume those are unmodified damage values for the missiles. If you add in the 20% damage profile for them (though I've heard they use the Projectile Profile) thats an additional 1600 damage.... ish.... which does put you into 10,000 damage in the space of very few seconds. If its not please let me know. That still fundamentally renders the armour tank useless. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16811	Posted - 2015.01.26 03:37:00 - [8] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. If the client based show info panes are out-of-date, that's something that needs to be hotfixed ASAP... but as I said, the damage numbers don't entirely negate your arguments, particularly about the handling (and application) of each of the weapons. But bear in mind that the "Missile" Turrets are designed to be an alpha (by way of quick burst) weapon, which should rightly have a lowered sustained and/or applied DPS than a more sustained DPS Weapon. and as stated, they are very similar to the arguments against the Calmando getting a bonus to Sniper Rifle Damage...and avoiding a "Purpose built" Redline tank is something that needs to be considered when building the DHAVs... I have never stated that your concerns weren't valid, just that your data wasn't entirely accurate (Just based on what the client showed), and that the difference between the turrets isn't as pronounced. If the issue is the redline why not simply institute mechanics that prevent firing and damage application in the redline and for units like tanks a weapon systems delay to prevent them simply popping in and out. HAV need range........it's a core piece of functionality of any tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16817	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:58:00 - [9] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules. But it's EASIER to manage 1 pool than keep track of many multiple cooldowns. You can make passive fits with high regen and you can have a fit where you turn on your hardener and you'll be cap stable. That's LESS work than the current system. It's good and all but I think players would have fits once Neuts and Nosferatu's be made available. God Amarr and Blood Raider tanks would be nasty. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16864	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:26:00 - [10] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots? For example: Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks) Blaster should be high Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI) Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability. These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc Heavily disagree. Changes way to much. Fair enough, I can agree on the point with the small turrets. (Just trying to spit ball ideas) However, I would argue a bit more on the main damage mods. Why do you feel that changing the slot layout for different types is too extreme? As I understand it, Rattati is already leaning toward splitting of damage mods to be different mods per weapon. With that in mind, I feel it would not be too extreme to split these mods off to be in different slots. I agree with Pokey on that adding passive on top of active mods would be too much when combined, especially on DHAVs. I am of the opinion that TTK is currently fine as is (for the most part) between tanks. Adding additional damage would only drive that down. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16864	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:45:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. But it's not a "hard DPS" increase/module since you can still be outside the range or moving too fast to hit.....however you make a valid point. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:05:00 - [12] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: With more active modules being thrown in the mix I think we're going to have to start addressing the elephant in the room with respect to vehicles, their limited slot number, and the relative power of active damage mods in comparison. Does anyone here honestly believe that they'll be equipping active spool up or heat sink modules over an active damage mod assuming they both took high slots? And if they took low slots does anyone here honestly believe they'd remove either a PG/CPU upgrade that allowed you to buff up your tank/weapon power or a plate/hardener so that you could turn faster for a limited time or shoot longer? My current Gunnlogi fit, with maxed armor/shield fitting proficiency, is an Enhanced Heavy Shield Extender, Enhanced X Damage Mod, Shield Hardener, Enhanced Heavy Armor Plate, Armor Hardener. If you give me more slots I'm going to fit more tank, not something that allows me to turn my turret faster. So long as 1. Vehicle TTK stays as low as it is to the point where either I'm a smoking crater or my opponent is a smoking crater before heat becomes a factor. 2. These rather obscure modules are competing with either an additional plate, damage mod, or hardener ... I'm really failing to see a situation where I'd bother fitting them. I honestly would pick the damage module over active functionality modules unless those modules directly had some affect on my damage out put. E.G- God forbid a Laser Turret functions like the infantry version duration of the beam will allow for more total damage than a damage module. Under any other circumstance I would think that increasing damage per shot value on these rapid fire turrets would be more beneficial to you in a general sense. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16870	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:30:00 - [13] - 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. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16870	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:01:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. With a disp mod, you might be able to take down a tank at medium with full auto, that's what I am thinking. Like an assassination, line the shot up just right... It would certainly allow for better application of damage in a short amount of time which I assume is your intended vision for missiles, especially at range..... Dispersion definitely would help nab stationary tanks but I don't know about applications beyond that...... Still I won't deny that it would help most tankers engage at longer ranges. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16894	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:26:00 - [15] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening. as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself. My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice. shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them. I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls. To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay. I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go. I'm more inclined to side with Thaddeus, Pokey, and Breaking on this one. One of the many reasons Shield Tank trump armour tanks currently is the inherently high regenerative power the possess after a very manageable 4 seconds of down time. This is also one of several reasons AV is wholly ineffective against Shield HAV. No HAV should have high passive regenerative power without fitting modules to it for any reason. Thaddeus had a wonderful suggestion of the 90 second passive shield regeneration value on tank hulls which means that if you do not fit any boosters or other value modifying shield modules your shields will constantly and passively recharge over a duration of 90 seconds. This is a fair down time as it means HAV cannot return to fully HP within the space of 20-30 seconds (something that we have taken for granted for far too long) without having to undertake action outselves. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16931	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:41:00 - [16] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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 don't think you understand what I'm getting at here. I simply don't think the solo HAV should even exist. Seeing as you can make basically the exact same fits, why won't the turrets themselves take up very little fitting cost? Therefore, taking off turrets won't do anything, just gives you options. Pretty much the same on this one. Pilots should be encouraged to use small turrets and our developers towards actual vehicle locks rather than a half measure. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:04:00 - [17] - Quote 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? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:13:00 - [18] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Smashes head against a brick wall. "Whatever am I buying digitally injected skill books for then if everyone has the capacity to do all of this *** anyway?"* But that's derailing. Get back on topic you lot! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:54:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If it works it works. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:59:00 - [20] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. I can somewhat agree with this. Yes UHAV seem to be Rattati's Infantry Tanks (aka tanks designed to withstand lots of fire power and engage and support infantry) but the turrets bonus seems woefully out of place and honestly more suited for something generalist like an MBT. I understand you can't really mess with certain statistics like passive resistances, etc especially if you haven't accounted for them from the start but module durations and cool downs can still work well. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16962	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:06:00 - [21] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. Eh, 2% per level wouldn't be enough. More like 3% or 4% per level. That would insanely over powered. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17038	Posted - 2015.02.09 20:15:00 - [22] - Quote 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17056	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:45:00 - [23] - Quote 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%...... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."