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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15389	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:08:00 - [31] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. Are we talking talking 2 small turrets and 1 large turret? or are we talking unchangeable large turrets? Presuming the former the main reason vehicles petitioned so hard to not have mandatory small turrets was because of the incredible frustration of dealing with people who would get in vehicles and NEVER leave them, or do things like fire turrets at nothing warning enemies of your location. This should only be done if there squad-lock on vehicles. If we're talking the latter I strongly disagree as it severely removes a lot of customization options. It would like forcing AR's/shotguns on all gallente suits. Read, not rage "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1955	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:11:00 - [32] - Quote ^I wasn't raging, was asking for clarification. Which I've found in the SHAV skill. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21002	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:14:00 - [33] - Quote 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? Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 277	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:15:00 - [34] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I have been discussing this with Xel. One normal HAV with 3 manned turrets - "will" win a solo HAV, just due to extra fire power One normal HAV with only driver - will have exactly the same fitting power as a solo HAV with only driver - draw Where does the solo HAV must be worse than an empty HAV come from? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. You can also create substantial fitting bonuses to small turrets as part of the MBT skillbook
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7948	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:16:00 - [35] - Quote What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15390	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:20:00 - [36] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4481	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:22:00 - [37] - Quote 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. Well this would deal with the issue of AV being tiered and vehicle hull not. It allows you to balance Proto against Proto. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. I'm going to assume that these are Yellow turrets and can be swapped out for what we really want. 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. Reasonable approach. I like consistency. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. I'm a little confused by what this means. Are these basically Highs/Lows/Main Turret/Small Turrets? 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto This is consistent with dropsuits and what was discussed in the thread. 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. This seems kind of pointless unless the price point is lower (minus the cost of the prefit turrets) which I assume is your plan. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets Basically Marauders - as discussed. +1 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. Basically Enforcers - as discussed. +1 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments Agreed. Consider less effective passive versions in addition to active ones. We've had these in the past and they were useful 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Sounds fair. Though we really need to take a look at the normal Missile Launchers in general...there are issues Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Yep Yep, as discussed. Always good to have them ready in case ...you know, we get racial models at a later date. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons Good stuff. That's later down the link but I'll start updating my existing proposal to the next version taking this roadmap into account, and begin working with the others to start looking at values for the new vehicles as well as reworking existing ones. Keep in mind that as you are aware there are several key things that make the Gunnlogi and Madrugar imbalanced against one another, and I believe in order to make them balanced without breaking them, some additional modules (which have existed in the past) may be needed to achieve this goal. Is it your intention to also look at modifying existing modules to meet these new HAV changes? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:30:00 - [38] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Good stuff Yes, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret, have fixed OP. Existing modules can be changed relatively easily and I need the player base to propose changes to make them useful, as you all know I am not a big fan of ehp being the only choice. sHAVs being a specialized choice is not useless as it allows balancing of solo Havs against each other, instead of some using the HAV fitting power intended for small turrets to not fit small turrets and fit higher tiered modules. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 175	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:38:00 - [39] - Quote About pre fitted turrets I don't really think is a good idea because there would happen the same as apex suits, versatility is what many of us love from this game, and being forced to use a certain weapon isn't something that would completely attract ppl attention... Names for minmatar comes from Nordic myth, animales, blades, natural disasters and war. I would never them them with Excalibur Snake or howl Gungnir (Odin's lance) Tsunami Earthquake Those are the names I would use to name minmatar tanks Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:39:00 - [40] - Quote Our Resident Lore Keeper has started the naming thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583546 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 812	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:44:00 - [41] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them. The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead. If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers?

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:48:00 - [42] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them. The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead. If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? The turrets are there for team play, not for commanders to be even more efficient at everything. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

LAVALLOIS Nash 460	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:55:00 - [43] - Quote I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:01:00 - [44] - Quote LAVALLOIS Nash wrote: I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched. I was just thinking aesthetically amarr and gallente look more similar, and caldari and minmatar. plus, easier to retrofit an armor rep tank to plate tank, than a shield based hull to armor. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 812	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:22:00 - [45] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them. The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead. If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? The turrets are there for team play, not for commanders to be even more efficient at everything. Why is there no option besides ADS to operate a small turret as a driver? You want battles to escalate, then we need a vehicle similar to the LAV that we can use as AI. Small and cheap. Could we allow driver to operate the small turret on LAVs? Currently we no ground based solo AI vehicle
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 176	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:37:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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? nownow, this is not a future/real world/eve lore/bickering thread! Apologizes for that comment, if u can erase it just do it. If u are going to introduce amarr and minmatar tanks at least give them good things, following the same thing of usual dropsuits Amarr heavy armor tank low movement Caldari heavy shield tank decent shield regeneration Gallente viable rep tanking Minmatar high speed good shield regeneration Another thing that could help with the specialist role in tanks is a kind if bonus in modules, like 3% bonus in shield modules and armor, in their respective races Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3621	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:50:00 - [47] - Quote Firstly, I'm glad your refitting small turrets as a compulsory item and I'm liking the specialisations your going for too. Just be careful with difference between solo and regular HAV, if solos aren't comparable to regulars everyone will just use a regular with the 2 empty turrets. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3621	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:57:00 - [48] - Quote LAVALLOIS Nash wrote: I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched. Bearing in mind the lack of staff currently working on DUST, about a half dozen at last count, now go lookingnat the dev blog where they showed you step by step how they made the rail rifle, now scale it up for a tank, include it's programming to make it a moveable object in game, yada yada. Don't think of them as being caldari tanks being used by the Minmatar, just think of them as Minmatar tanks that look very similar. Besides once the object exsists in-game, changing it's apperance can be done at a more leisurely pace, to give it the intention it deserves. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:09:00 - [49] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Firstly, I'm glad your refitting small turrets as a compulsory item and I'm liking the specialisations your going for too. Just be careful with difference between solo and regular HAV, if solos aren't comparable to regulars everyone will just use a regular with the 2 empty turrets. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:14:00 - [50] - Quote Since you seem to have a guiderail now a couple notes. My spreadsheet was incomplete but I'm sure you can extrapolate my intent based on what I changed vs. What was kept from chrome. I am assuming you intend for these new HAV guidelines to run opposite of AV as it is now. If this is the case, would it be helpful to convert the stats of my proposed AV weapons such as the autocannon, scram lance, plasma mortar and Arc cannon to conform to today's AV meta? I'm inclined to leave the actual hammering on hulls to the people who know better than I the strengths and weaknesses of the HAVs. But I know AV like the back of my hand. I know where it is strong, where it's weak and now that I understand the weapon relations between stats I'd like to help. The elephants in the room do need to be addressed though for your hull initiative to work well. That is the plasma cannon underperforming and swarms rocking almost 400 dps higher at baseline than even the IAFG. Would you like me to do the conversions for my chrome base AV to today? Or any other DPS range you care to name. My turret numbers should still be viable. VHCL

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4327	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:16:00 - [51] - Quote CCP Rattati 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. This is probably one of my favorite parts about this idea. I know you mentioned visiting at a later date, but I think it would be a good way to go with drop suits as well. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:17:00 - [52] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Since you seem to have a guiderail now a couple notes. My spreadsheet was incomplete but I'm sure you can extrapolate my intent based on what I changed vs. What was kept from chrome. I am assuming you intend for these new HAV guidelines to run opposite of AV as it is now. If this is the case, would it be helpful to convert the stats of my proposed AV weapons such as the autocannon, scram lance, plasma mortar and Arc cannon to conform to today's AV meta? I'm inclined to leave the actual hammering on hulls to the people who know better than I the strengths and weaknesses of the HAVs. But I know AV like the back of my hand. I know where it is strong, where it's weak and now that I understand the weapon relations between stats I'd like to help. The elephants in the room do need to be addressed though for your hull initiative to work well. That is the plasma cannon underperforming and swarms rocking almost 400 dps higher at baseline than even the IAFG. Would you like me to do the conversions for my chrome base AV to today? Or any other DPS range you care to name. My turret numbers should still be viable. What is missing in my sheet is the total current Infantry AV capability as a baseline, it would be very helpful if you tackle that, just like I set up the Turret sheet in my doc. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:19:00 - [53] - Quote Absolutely. I will provide both today's AV to give you a baseline and then give my recommendations. And I am always happy to explain my logic. Will give baseline, max skilled so you can compare. VHCL
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16752	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:22:00 - [54] - 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.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7948	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:27:00 - [55] - Quote - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:29:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:37:00 - [57] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. so skill into the solo HAV ;) "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:40:00 - [58] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:43:00 - [59] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. This is beside the point. We are keeping solo HAVs , which hopefully can perform on a realtively similar level. you don't have to run turret fit HAVS if you dont want to. Soraya Xel wants to jump inside of somebody elses tank that they invested a ton isk/ SPtank into to experience shooting an LAV turret. And it looks he's getting it. My concerns are just that 1) Solo HAVs run just as well as min-max fit MBTs and 2) that having both options doesn't become an unessecary SP sink. Believe me, i am just as much against mandatory turrets are you are. But we we need to stay on topic here, and have a constructive approach. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:47:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. 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.