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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:40:00 - [331] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 776	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:53:00 - [332] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Not_knowing_when_to_quit.gif Anyway, about the light Lazer rifle as AV. Juno runs the lazer rifle alot, so take him at his word when he thinks lazers might be a bit difficult to balance as AV. A decent lazer rifleman(?) is used to hitting infantry at around 80+ m, hiting a vehicle would be like hitting he broadside of a barn. What about a combination of the scrambler rifle and laser rifle, assault forge gun mechanics? Breach Lazer Rifle: - Requires approx. 2.5 second charge (like scrambler/ assault forge gun) - Fires powerful approx. 5 second AV pulse ( increases in damage up to 5 seconds mark player has to keep full pulse on target for maximum effect) - Lazer damage profile vs shields - can be used vs infantry, but long charge time means infantry have a chance of escape. - fills in missig lazer rifle variants. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6742	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:53:00 - [333] - Quote Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6742	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:56:00 - [334] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Not_knowing_when_to_quit.gif Anyway, about the light Lazer rifle as AV. Juno runs the lazer rifle alot, so take him at his word when he thinks lazers might be a bit difficult to balance as AV. A decent lazer rifleman(?) is used to hitting infantry at around 80+ m, hiting a vehicle would be like hitting he broadside of a barn. What about a combination of the scrambler rifle and laser rifle, assault forge gun mechanics? Breach Lazer Rifle: - Requires approx. 2.5 second charge (like scrambler/ assault forge gun) - Fires powerful approx. 5 second AV pulse ( increases in damage up to 5 seconds mark player has to keep full pulse on target for maximum effect) - Lazer damage profile vs shields - can be used vs infantry, but long charge time means infantry have a chance of escape. - fills in missig lazer rifle variants. I statted this weapon and gave it the arc cannon name from templar one actually AV
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:57:00 - [335] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. People will just fit ehp and AV on the AI tank. Making the AV tank worthless vs the AI tank. Unless CCP cooks up some good role bonus(es) for these new hulls, exploitation will commence. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6745	Posted - 2015.01.25 18:10:00 - [336] - Quote Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. People will just fit ehp and AV on the AI tank. Making the AV tank worthless vs the AI tank. Unless CCP cooks up some good role bonus(es) for these new hulls, exploitation will commence. all the large turrets are AV Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4540	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:01:00 - [337] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:13:00 - [338] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: all the large turrets are AV Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. When was the last time you rolled a tank? Ion blasters with a dmg mod cant budge a double hardened gunni/maddy. Missles are AV I'll admit that. Rails can be AV if the attacking HAV doesn't know about rotation (and if said rail is on a rooftop..) I'm not even going to comment on blasters lest someone cry for another nerf making them the tank mounted snowball shooter.. AVHAV needs large turret dmg, rof, and dispersion buffs AIHAV needs rotation, dispersion, (FOR ALL TURRETS) and passive recovery buffs Maybe, just maybe, blasters on an AVHAV will prove good to hunt tanks again. I'm hopeful with active coolant mods I can go back to stamping hulls on my hull. I just don't see how less EHP will prove effective against more EHP even with a speed boost. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 777	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [339] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [340] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: ... 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. ... 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 5. 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 ... 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. 1. Until something changes and that change is on the positive side of things the replies will always be the same 4/5. Im still seeing 3/2 on a PRO HAV in your spreadsheet and nothing about modules and skills - Until that changes i will call it as i see it and you will call my comment a willful misunderstanding Sigh From the OP CCP Rattato 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. ... 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. ... MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4541	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:33:00 - [341] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... I think people are getting hung up on intended design vs how ** currently works. Currently Blasters suck as AV, but that doesn't change the fact that they're SUPPOSED to be AV. In short, Blasters need a buff, but large and small (though likely in different ways) "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7417	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:33:00 - [342] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. Posted in the Barbershop. I am fairly certain we can get numbers for you. @ Godin I think you are overly concerned with the side arms and weapons they are talking about adding. No one complains that NKs being able to do 50% damage has been a problem for tanks, and I certainly thought it would when it was announced. I also don't think anyone is suggesting a single merc should be able to unload his ScP ammo at a tank and take it down. If a Solo HAV pulls up to a defended objective that has no supply depot, it seems reasonable to me that 5 or 6 mercs should be able to scare it off. If the fool decides to just sit there for 20 or 30 seconds and try and take them all down, then he should deserve to be heavily damaged or blown up. In that example, a Solo HAV should see he is outnumbered, and provided he has no squad support to attack the defenders while they aren't paying attention, should be forced to flee. If the HAV had multiple manned turrets and a decent pilot, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fight off the defenders before significant damage is done to the HAV. Dropships and LAVs shouldn't even need to worry given the limited range and utility of the weapons Rattati is talking about adding. Its not like it is being said that the CRs and RRs should do 100% damage, then I could understand your concerns. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:36:00 - [343] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. I noticed no mention of R.E.'s.. and as far as it being difficult to AI with handheld AV.. the swarm launcher does suck at killing infantry I'll give ya that. In case you were thinking I'm one of the infantry blaster farmers of old, you can just eat that. I popped more tanks than anyone else back in pre 1.7 all the way to beginning. Sorry I'm not part of one of the big groups, but my voice can still be heard. Ask NS or AE how many tanks they would have to field to deal with me and the one random crap tanker they could find to ring against big corps. If your team was tired of losing tanks to me I would kill any troops dumb enough to rush an 80gj barrel yup. This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Honestly idk why I care, the sad truth is well funded corps will just roll 3 squads and keep dropping crap tanks till you are overwhelmed at every corner. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4542	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:51:00 - [344] - Quote Devadander wrote: I noticed no mention of R.E.'s.. and as far as it being difficult to AI with handheld AV.. the swarm launcher does suck at killing infantry I'll give ya that. In case you were thinking I'm one of the infantry blaster farmers of old, you can just eat that. I popped more tanks than anyone else back in pre 1.7 all the way to beginning. Sorry I'm not part of one of the big groups, but my voice can still be heard. Ask NS or AE how many tanks they would have to field to deal with me and the one random crap tanker they could find to ring against big corps. If your team was tired of losing tanks to me I would kill any troops dumb enough to rush an 80gj barrel yup. This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Honestly idk why I care, the sad truth is well funded corps will just roll 3 squads and keep dropping crap tanks till you are overwhelmed at every corner. o_O not really sure why you feel the need to sound so hostile.. And sure remotes can be used for AP and AV, just mentioned Plama Cannons and Forge guns because they're pretty commonly used, I wasn't intentionally leaving out remotes. Just FYI, EVE PvP is hardly click and forget, there is a lot of stuff going on like managing modules, adjusting orbit range, ect. The fact of the matter is that Large Turrets obviously have to do more damage to fulfill the role of fight larger, high HP vehicles. If they were equally good at killing infantry as they are vehicles, you run into serious issues where solo tankers are capable of doing far more damage to infantry consistently than the infantry can do to the vehicle. I know people will often spout "Well this isn't EVE!", but the fact of the matter is that while you can't make direct comparisons between the two games in many cases, there are systems and mechanics that do work between the two, and it is not unreasonable to make comparisons when it makes sense. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:30:00 - [345] - Quote Are you ever going to add a militia large missile turret? Why aren't missile turrets called rockets turrets? Here's some spreadsheet related feedback: HAV tab The Short description for the U & DHAVs say "Side grade to MBT" instead of "Side grade from MBT" which implies that it sidegrading into an MBT. On the skills section by the DHAV skills you have a fitting bonus to railguns and on vehicle modules tab under Tentative Steps you have "Enforcers do NOT get fitting bonus to Rails". On Step 2 Modules you have the typo "ACtive" Can the spool up and tracking mods be for low slots and can new modules be added too, like a low slot shield regulator that reduces shield recharge delay by around 10/20/30% per tier? Also can you get shield booster to work? A lot of times they don't give any HP back. For the Large Turrets tab under the Random thoughts section, I would classify the turrets like this: Best to Worst Alpha Rail Missile Blaster and add a Bust section: Missile Railgun Blaster Lastly, can you say around what time will we get the racially re-purposed hulls? MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16801	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:35:00 - [346] - 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4543	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:55:00 - [347] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... You have to earn it with your fingers. And sometimes thumbs. Honestly though I would love to drop some people into EVE PvP and see how well they do with the "fire and forget" combat. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 164	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:04:00 - [348] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! I've got a little of all of that in my proposal... My Hypothesis on Shield Boosters is that they're either glitched, in which case I theorise remove shield recharge delay would help it, or they may need to provide more HP per cycle (To avoid appearance of them Stopping mid-cycle) Low Slot...Power Diagnostic Systems and Shield Regulators are one way to go (decreasing DRD). Now my do require a slight adjustment to HP mods (actually them going up) , in addition to requiring a lot of skill bonuses, and a look at hardeners...but I believe that I'm on the right track here. All Base HAVs, and sHAVs get 2325 HP base, split between Shields and armor in a racial flavor way...SHAVs and DHAVs are then adjusted based on the relative HP values of Sentinels and Commandos, and adjusted to be nice round numbers with approx even HP totals. (at least, that's what I started in on)...I'm currently working on trying to extrapolate fitting values for tiered progression right now Where'd you pull 2325? Your butt? based on maintaining approx current levels of eHP on shield tanks with module and slot changes in my proposal Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:10:00 - [349] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I'd only be ok with the the breach flaylocks, breach scrambler pistols, bolt pistols, and KN being able to hurt vehicles. Balancing the LR effectiveness as AV would be difficult and I would very much prefer having a heavy LR instead; however, I do support the MD performing better against vehicles. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7418	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:13:00 - [350] - Quote @ Breakin Stuff I got the Flaylock DPS from Protofits, for whatever that is worth: Std: Basic, 364.58 Breach, 295.93 Adv: 382.81 Pro: 401.04 For NKs, I just used the known delays, with the first assumption being the delay between Knife 1 and Knife 2 in a swipe, which I think is resonable to say is 0.2 seconds. For charged strikes, I ignored the usual delay between strikes as I to the best of my knowledge you can charge knives immediately after a strike. I also assumed both knives hit. The numbers do not take into account the 50% reduction, nor any Minmatar Scout bonuses. Std: Uncharged, 282.35 Charged, 375 Adv: Uncharged, 376.47 Charged, 571.43 Pro: Uncharged, 470.59 Charged, 833.33 Hope that helps. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6754	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:26:00 - [351] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ Breakin Stuff I got the Flaylock DPS from Protofits, for whatever that is worth: Std: Basic, 364.58 Breach, 295.93 Adv: 382.81 Pro: 401.04 For NKs, I just used the known delays, with the first assumption being the delay between Knife 1 and Knife 2 in a swipe, which I think is resonable to say is 0.2 seconds. For charged strikes, I ignored the usual delay between strikes as I to the best of my knowledge you can charge knives immediately after a strike. I also assumed both knives hit. The numbers do not take into account the 50% reduction, nor any Minmatar Scout bonuses. Std: Uncharged, 282.35 Charged, 375 Adv: Uncharged, 376.47 Charged, 571.43 Pro: Uncharged, 470.59 Charged, 833.33 Hope that helps. I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:33:00 - [352] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:55:00 - [353] - Quote 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.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 198	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:57:00 - [354] - Quote 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. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:28:00 - [355] - Quote 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 for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:40:00 - [356] - 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.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:00:00 - [357] - Quote 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.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11998	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:06:00 - [358] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I 100% support giving MD, flaylock, and other weapons getting better AV capabilities. I also would suggest taking a look at swarm launchers vs plasma cannons: both are AV launchers, yet one requires much less skill to operate (lockon, tracking), yet is much more effective than the skill-intensive one. Support 'Keshava' for the new Gallente HAV name in honor of Cat Merc's cat which recently passed away.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:06:00 - [359] - 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.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1592	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:58:00 - [360] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! I've got a little of all of that in my proposal... My Hypothesis on Shield Boosters is that they're either glitched, in which case I theorise remove shield recharge delay would help it, or they may need to provide more HP per cycle (To avoid appearance of them Stopping mid-cycle) Low Slot...Power Diagnostic Systems and Shield Regulators are one way to go (decreasing DRD). Now my do require a slight adjustment to HP mods (actually them going up) , in addition to requiring a lot of skill bonuses, and a look at hardeners...but I believe that I'm on the right track here. All Base HAVs, and sHAVs get 2325 HP base, split between Shields and armor in a racial flavor way...SHAVs and DHAVs are then adjusted based on the relative HP values of Sentinels and Commandos, and adjusted to be nice round numbers with approx even HP totals. (at least, that's what I started in on)...I'm currently working on trying to extrapolate fitting values for tiered progression right now Where'd you pull 2325? Your butt? based on maintaining approx current levels of eHP on shield tanks with module and slot changes in my proposal Approved. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris