|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 66 post(s) |
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
196
   |
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
If ultra HAVs are going to be 1 large AI turrent combined with small AI turrents(blaster/fragmented missiles).....then please make sure that the UHAVs have very slow top speeds and very slow base acceleration.
I would suggest roughly 45% of a gallente tanks current base top speed and roughly 70% of the current gallente tanks acceleration rate. This would really help offset the UHAVs high anti infantry power and defense.
Because it would allow infantry to have a decent chance at retreating to cover and assist infantry in ambushing the UHAVs in great infantry numbers. It would also have the added benefit of allowing infantry (that are not AV specialists) to move more easily "around or stealthily through" groups of UHAVs.
Groups of HAVs are currently a big threat at the moment in ambush pubs matches because they can easily accelerate and catch up to speed specialized infantry and have other HAVs flank them at the cover the infantry are retreating to at the same time. Currently infantry have a extremely hard time evading HAVs outside of "outposts" and outside of medium and small "sockets" that are placed on maps.
If those HAVs had much slower top speeds and acceleration and were more durable like UHAVs, infantry would be able to have a larger chance at surviving a little longer so they could participate in infantry battles instead if they chose, by being able to evade those tanks a bit more easily.
If UHAVs end up OP or end up balanced but are at the same time becoming far too troublesome for infantry then I would suggest lowering there top speeds and there acceleration speeds before changing there defense stats. (if you change there speeds later make sure they have more friction on the ground so they can at least still scale large hills like other tanks) I hope you could figure out some way of preventing stationary UHAVs from sliding off hills that are at 60 degree angles and allow those tanks to scale those hills directly. |
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
197
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 09:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
I cant figure out what MBTs are, could someone clarify please. |
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
197
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 09:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Doc DDD wrote:From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 5 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Gunnlogi currently reps at a higher rate than a Complex Armor Repairer with max skills. This means that a Gunnlogi can spend 0 modules to have a better rep rate than a Madrugar which spends 1. I have no issue with the Gunnlogi repping faster than the Madrugar, but it should need to spend at least 1 module in order to achieve it.
That sounds reasonable. |
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
201
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Harpyja wrote:
So essentially DHAVs are going to become the current missile HAVs, except that they will be able to insta-pop every HAV out there as opposed to just armor. Not from what I can tell on the spreadsheet as they will only get a max 10% damage bonus.
Except that 2 railgun shots and they're dead, or one full clip of swarms...
Isn't that the definition of a Glass Cannon? I guess my question to you then is, if DHAVs have the same defense as UHAVs, is there any point in running a SHAV at all?
from what ive read and can make sense of, SHAVs are supposed to be better at anti infantry compared to DHAVs (destroyers) and UHAVs would be better at anti infantry combat than SHAVs. The SHAVs would likely also have less "Damage Per Second" towards other DHAVs (despite there lower defense which probably ONLY means less total health points) and less DPS towards other UHAVs. The only advantage is that the SHAV is completely controlled by only 1 person. This would appeal to only those players that like to work on there own.
In PC this may mean that a if only 1 player can be spared for a tank role they will just use UHAVs but no one will pilot the small turrents until its convenient for the team (saves time having to recall a SHAV and call a UHAV in).
In uprising 1.10, HAVs without small turrents are usually worse at anti infantry combat compared to HAVs with 2 small blasters
and 1 large blaster. This is just like a SHAV having less anti infantry DPS compared to UHAVs, and SHAVs having less DPS towards UHAVs. Looking at the above example, it may be as if smaller changes have occurred to tank gameplay than originally believed.
The only large difference might be that SHAVs may have the same PG and CPU potential as UHAVs (if you exclude the small turrent costs on UHAVs, assuming you used turrents of the correct tier and type that Rattati designed the tank for) We shall see eventually.
SHAVs in there final iteration may perhaps have more speed and acceleration compared to UHAVs but less than DHAVs. We don't know, it might be done so SHAVs have a few very small advantages compared to UHAVs and DHAVs. If you want something like that for SHAVs, you should let rattati know.
Perhaps you could suggest a 5% increase in armor regen rates for armor SHAVs and 5% increase in shield regen rates for shield SHAVs.
OR maybe SHAVs could have 40% larger vertical aiming movement range in degrees (able to aim much higher at dropships).
Any of these suggestions might be worth debating on with rattati.
|
WeapondigitX V7
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
201
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? |
|
|
| |
|