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)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:31:00 - [481] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 670	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:35:00 - [482] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:38:00 - [483] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 671	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:48:00 - [484] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. 1. Stops light weapons from causing permanent damage 2. It was also in chrome/uprising and no one complained about it then also
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:03:00 - [485] - Quote Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed. Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable. However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate. You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 974	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:35:00 - [486] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. For HAV's with more fitting options, my first instinct is sure why not. Dropships, it may a bit crippling, especially for Pythons. Seeing how much work is going into tanks, there is not alot of room for dropship changes . Moving it to a low would remove shield booster as an optional fitting on a python, or the incubus for that matter. It would leave the python with just one fit, Hardener, afterburner, extender in the highs and pg upgrade in the low. To make up for this perhaps we can leave the light shield boosters in the high and the heavy shield booster in the lows. Its not very symetrical, but it leaves the dropship pilots something until we get dropships PG and CPU sorted. If you ask me "what if dropships had the PG/ CPU fitting costs to fit a booster in the lows?", then yes, i'd be all for it. Also , passive vehicle reps? i like. I would really like to have heavy shield boosters to be low slots and the light ones to remain on the highs until a solution as made for Dropships and LAVs. I would also like passive armor repair for vehicles, I even made a thread/spreadsheet about passive vehicle regen, for shield and armor, a while back. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 675	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:52:00 - [487] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed. Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable. However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate. You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same? 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:32:00 - [488] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage. II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good. III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason. IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 678	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:38:00 - [489] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage. II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good. III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason. IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;) 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6802	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:50:00 - [490] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement Butte 1: Being petulant again, no one likes whining. Butte 2: Yep we want to spoil your fun by not allowing you to be invulnerable. There are plenty of games where you can use an invulnerability code at any time. go play one. Butte 3: Your facts and what everyone else recognize as anecdote or circular logic share some striking similarities. Butte 4: This isn't EVE Online. Butte 4a: MMOS spaceship game does not balance like an FPS. I ran that statement past a five year old. They said it made no sense. I concur. Butte 4b: You run a gallente assault suit? Filthy infantry you have no business posting in a vehicle thread. AV

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 682	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:55:00 - [491] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement Butte 1: Being petulant again, no one likes whining. Butte 2: Yep we want to spoil your fun by not allowing you to be invulnerable. There are plenty of games where you can use an invulnerability code at any time. go play one. Butte 3: Your facts and what everyone else recognize as anecdote or circular logic share some striking similarities. Butte 4: This isn't EVE Online. Butte 4a: MMOS spaceship game does not balance like an FPS. I ran that statement past a five year old. They said it made no sense. I concur. Butte 4b: You run a gallente assault suit? Filthy infantry you have no business posting in a vehicle thread. 1. You have done it for long enough and you keep getting buffs for it so it must work 2. You mean i want useful vehicles 3. You are saying a vehicle can hack an objective? Please provide video evidence 4. No this is New Eden which is both EVE and DUST514 4a. Missing the point as usual 4b. Neither do you but you are still here [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:59:00 - [492] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation. ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was. iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting. iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually. So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different. So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 682	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:17:00 - [493] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation. ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was. iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting. iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually. So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different. So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good? 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:24:00 - [494] - Quote Oh lawd. You know I try to take the time to hear you out, but 50% of the time you agree with me but don't even realize it, and the 50% of the time you're not even paying attention to the point of what I'm saying. If your intention was to waste my time so I get nothing productive done, I suppose you've succeeded. But I'm done with trying to speak with you, I actually have work to do because people actually care about what I have to say. Have a nice day sir. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6808	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:34:00 - [495] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors there's a bucket over there. please go cry into it when you realize that your efforts are futile. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6808	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:43:00 - [496] - Quote Ok I actually have to call it on the spreadsheet. Rattati, I have to say that even with the charge feature, Nova knives aren't going to be considered a serious AV weapon in any reality. with a base of 111 DPS at the prototype level using rapid strikes versus vehicles this is a troll weapon, and nonviable in any serious fashion as an HAV destroying tool. It's not even borderline as a finisher unless an HAV has less than 500 HP remaining. In my studied opinion after looking at the numbers and watching several nova knifer videos showing HAV destruction the only way you're getting an HAV kill with NKs is under one of two circumstances. 1: The HAV driver is an idiot on a scale heretofore unseen. 2: The HAv driver lets you do it because you're making a Youtube video to showcase your new can-openers. I have finished all of the "serious" AV options that we have available today. My assessment on the Mass Driver and Flaylock is that even at 100% efficacy they will underperform compared to swarms, Forge guns and even the PLC in an anti-HAV capacity. I can't say this dismays me. But we can make the Mass Driver a dual purpose AI/Backup AV weapon without torching the balance we have, same with the flaylock. Making similar considerations for the Bolt Pistol and Ion Pistol Charged Shot might not also be out of the bounds of reason. I highly recommend not using the Laser Rifle or the four battle Rifles for AV. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2739	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:48:00 - [497] - Quote Oh dear ****, are you srs right now? Quit yer bitchin and at least TRY to understand what he's saying Lazer. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:58:00 - [498] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok I actually have to call it on the spreadsheet. It's as complete as I can make it without wasting all of our time. Rattati, I have to say that even with the charge feature, Nova knives aren't going to be considered a serious AV weapon in any reality. with a base of 111 DPS at the prototype level using rapid strikes versus vehicles this is a troll weapon, and nonviable in any serious fashion as an HAV destroying tool. It's not even borderline as a finisher unless an HAV has less than 500 HP remaining. In my studied opinion after looking at the numbers and watching several nova knifer videos showing HAV destruction the only way you're getting an HAV kill with NKs is under one of two circumstances. 1: The HAV driver is an idiot on a scale heretofore unseen. 2: The HAv driver lets you do it because you're making a Youtube video to showcase your new can-openers. I have finished all of the "serious" AV options that we have available today. My assessment on the Mass Driver and Flaylock is that even at 100% efficacy they will underperform compared to swarms, Forge guns and even the PLC in an anti-HAV capacity. I can't say this dismays me. But we can make the Mass Driver a dual purpose AI/Backup AV weapon without torching the balance we have, same with the flaylock. Making similar considerations for the Bolt Pistol and Ion Pistol Charged Shot might not also be out of the bounds of reason. I highly recommend not using the Laser Rifle or the four battle Rifles for AV. Hmmmm I'm really not a huge fan AP weapons becoming serious AV weapons. However there is probably some logic in that the Plasma Cannon is an AV weapon that can be use for AP, it's just difficult to do. The reverse can be true for some AP weapons that are difficult to use as AV. The biggest problem with this sort of design is that it makes developing the vehicles even more difficult, as its impossible to predict how prevalent such weapons will be on the battlefield. Proceed with extreme caution, I'd rather there be more 'clean' ways to do this though. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 976	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:42:00 - [499] - Quote I have a thread and spreadsheet on how I feel vehicle regen should be, please look at them. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2740	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:19:00 - [500] - Quote Umm, I was just thinking about the DPS of blasters, and that's overkill. Not sure what kind of eHP you can get out of HAv's in your current proposal, but assuming the are around 10k, they would easily break HAV's, and that's just not needed. We want the TTK to go up, not down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.28 04:08:00 - [501] - Quote Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 05:45:00 - [502] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt. Power Diagnostic Units ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 689	Posted - 2015.01.28 08:57:00 - [503] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors there's a bucket over there. please go cry into it when you realize that your efforts are futile. 1. Infantry win, vehicles lose just as had predicted - off to doomhiem i go [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 188	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:19:00 - [504] - Quote 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ >.<
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:33:00 - [505] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ 1. so far as I can tell, yes. I don't honestly know if the interrupt is a glitch 2. YMMV. some people swear by 'em 3: the depression limit is intended, at that point pick a direction and gun the motor. Seriously. driving away fast is the solution to point blank scouts. 4: Harder to get now, though I'll admit, not impossible. Upshot is high ground AV tends to be easily countered by snipers. 5: I wouldn't count oh HAVs requiring more. In fact any assumptions at this point are premature. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 - [506] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. Why can you only provide a non-answer? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 - [507] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. MLT flaylock reduces my shield and stops the regen. I'll have recording capability in a few weeks, so I can put all the lies to bed with video evidence. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:39:00 - [508] - Quote Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:50:00 - [509] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. Literal cookie cutter fits. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 787	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:21:00 - [510] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ 1) Its best to use shield boosters to recover from aplha strikes. It works well when if you can space it between incoming rail rounds (requires good timing) or missile tank reloads, but very poorly vs blasters. Vs a blaster tank you need to have find a break in between blaster fire. 2) Somewhat agree here, i prefer 2 extender + hardener gunlogi, but I use the booster on my madrugar. Its well worth a high slot in this case. 3) Fittings blasters on a gunlogi has some disadvantages, vs infantry but the high shield regen + resists to explosive AV means you have time to reposition. Otherwise, if fighting a blaster gunlogi, exploit that weakness. Low ground is your friend. 4) Agreed. Without a freindly neighborhood ADS pilot, or Viper heavy combo its best to steer clear till you have the WP to nuke it. 5) Same here. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.



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.