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)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 17:32:00 - [781] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 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. Is it just me, or does anyone see a problem with having an HAV designed around dealing infantry also being the toughest out there while the one that is to deal with other tanks and not infantry the weakest in terms of eHP? Let me just provide an example of our current "UHAV". Yes they are already in game and they go by the name of a gunnlogi: Fit: Highs -Double proto shield extenders --- Single hardener Lows - Cpu and Pg mods Turrets - Large proto rail with 2 small proto rails This is my go to fit, and works incredible with GOOD gunners. I'm already able to withstand a fairly large amount of AV fire. But throw in 2 gunners laying waste to the AV out trying to get me and my eHP skyrockets into the realm of being indestructible. Not only to Infantry AV but tank AV as well! I ran this with some pretty good gunners and between the 3 of us we racked up close to 60 kills. And no type of armor could touch it, as the small rails reduce the TTK against other vehicles to levels of ridiculousness. We did this for several matches, and I just laughed. It was quite ridiculous and funny to watch the vain efforts of those out on the field that meant us harm. So do you really consider it a good idea that an UHAV that is more or less designed for killing infantry to be so much stronger than one deigned to kill them. Just skimming the numbers, I see a UHAV to be just about the only tank to use. dHAV seem more novelties that are not going to fill the intended role to a large enough extent. And forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm just now jumping into the conversation. I honestly thought that an AV tank would be stronger against infantry AV as they aren't designed around killing them, where a AI tank would be weaker in comparison but able to effectively deal with infantry AV to counter for the weaker defenses. Am I missing something here?? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 182	Posted - 2015.02.04 21:54:00 - [782] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? Choo Choo
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1705	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:20:00 - [783] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4749	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:17:00 - [784] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. If you're talking about Swarms, they're explosive. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 184	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:52:00 - [785] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. Thanks, forgot if missles were projectile or not. Gallente get missle resistance and caldari get blaster and rail resistance. My neuron blaster will be fun, and using a module the blaster will be able to hit something...for once. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6954	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:36:00 - [786] - Quote Projectiles and laser AV don't exist yet. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 190	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:57:00 - [787] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Projectiles and laser AV don't exist yet. Gallente UHAV has projectile resists. Choo Choo

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16587	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:50:00 - [788] - Quote Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 854	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:56:00 - [789] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea these are good. im not sure about missile rof though. are their mechanics being changed from what they are currently? no more full auto? if theres no full auto then yes rof would be nice, but if theyre still going to be full auto, then range would be good, or blast radius, or even clip size. dispersion decrease is good too
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8436	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:09:00 - [790] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea Just spitballing here. Please note that bonuses mentioned aren't mean to be considered "all at once". More of a pick and choose sort of deal. DHAVs: -- Offensive: Geared toward killing large targets and punching through buffer > Forward move speed > Tracking Speed > Turn Speed > Heat Reduction > Large Turret Damage Output > Damage Amplifier Duration/Cooldown > Reduced Large Turret fitting costs -- Defensive: Regeneration to focus on hit-and-run/ambush > Armor Repairer repair rate > Shield Booster recovery rate > Reduced fitting costs of above -- Utility: Getting into/out of target range, finding large targets at longer ranges > Fuel Injectors > Vehicle Scanners (range) UHAVs: -- Offensive: Geared toward killing infantry, staying for for long durations > Ammo Expansion Bay Bonus > Small Turret Damage Output > Heat Reduction > Reload speed > Reduced Small Turret fitting costs -- Defensive: Buffer to focus on long-duration sieges against infantry > Armor Plate HP > Armor Hardener Duration/Cooldown > Shield Extender HP > Shield Hardener Duration/Cooldown > Reduced fitting costs of above -- Utility: Finding infantry at close ranges and acting as mobile spawn to assist siege > Vehicle Scanners (Precision) > MCRU spawn time reduction Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*

Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2352	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:17:00 - [791] - Quote For the Dhav, the general bonus should really be just blanket turret damage. The racial should increase damage application of a specific turret,although i would like (personal feeling) to have each tank bonus 2 turrets... Give each race a CQC and range option. As for how this would work for Gallente... Not sure. For UHAVs i would prefer hardener duration as a general bonus, with a bonus to either shield/armor resist or to repair modules. General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 234	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:27:00 - [792] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea (Copy and pasted from different part of the thread with some adjustments) My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield recharge and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to defensive module Duration and/or cooldown and Small turret damage Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction. Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor repair and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets/ cooldown/duration Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets. What do you think of those? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:19:00 - [793] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea Is the caldari DHAV missile oriented or rail oriented? Are we playing up missile 'alpha' damage? Are we focusing a bit more on utility? Damage mod duration / cooldown is potentially good. Inherent dispersion reduction also has some potential. Speed should be an attribute of the hull. Small passive damage increases or increased ammo carried might also be okay. For UHAV's I feel like they should have some movement penalties in exchange for passive resists. I'd also like to see them get some bonuses to small turrets (in particular ammunition carried for small turrets). Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2306	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:36:00 - [794] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 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. Is it just me, or does anyone see a problem with having an HAV designed around dealing infantry also being the toughest out there while the one that is to deal with other tanks and not infantry the weakest in terms of eHP? Let me just provide an example of our current "UHAV". Yes they are already in game and they go by the name of a gunnlogi: Fit: Highs -Double proto shield extenders --- Single hardener Lows - Cpu and Pg mods Turrets - Large proto rail with 2 small proto rails This is my go to fit, and works incredible with GOOD gunners. I'm already able to withstand a fairly large amount of AV fire. But throw in 2 gunners laying waste to the AV out trying to get me and my eHP skyrockets into the realm of being indestructible. Not only to Infantry AV but tank AV as well! I ran this with some pretty good gunners and between the 3 of us we racked up close to 60 kills. And no type of armor could touch it, as the small rails reduce the TTK against other vehicles to levels of ridiculousness. We did this for several matches, and I just laughed. It was quite ridiculous and funny to watch the vain efforts of those out on the field that meant us harm. So do you really consider it a good idea that an UHAV that is more or less designed for killing infantry to be so much stronger than one deigned to kill them. Just skimming the numbers, I see a UHAV to be just about the only tank to use. dHAV seem more novelties that are not going to fill the intended role to a large enough extent. And forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm just now jumping into the conversation. I honestly thought that an AV tank would be stronger against infantry AV as they aren't designed around killing them, where a AI tank would be weaker in comparison but able to effectively deal with infantry AV to counter for the weaker defenses. Am I missing something here?? I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 187	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:51:00 - [795] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea My personal Opinions for skill bonuses: DHAVs: Fitting Bonus to Large Destroyer Turrets Damage Bonus to Large Destroyer Turrets Bonus to Damage Mod Cooldown Caldari RoF Bonus to Large Missile Turret Bonus to Top Speed Gallente: Reduction in Heat Buildup for Large Blasters (or RoF increase to Large Blasters) Bonus to Acceleration UHAVs: Fitting Bonus to Small Turrets Bonus to General HP Caldari Bonus to Shield Resistance Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Damage Bonus to Shield Module Cooldown Gallente: Bonus to Armor Hardener/Armor Repair Efficacy Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Damage Bonus to Armor Module Active Duration Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1260	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:57:00 - [796] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. Agreed, I don't understand the line of thinking going on or how people think it's a wonderful idea. I honestly think a few people need a bit more experience with tanks and their current usage to comment. Don't want to come off like a ** but it really seems like everything is being view from the POV of the paper (spreadsheet) and not how things actually pan out in usage. I think we have done plenty of, "oh looks great on paper" but in practice it under performs or it over performs. There is never any balance because people are simply assuming that this is how it's going to work. I'm just going to say oh well, you guys win. I'm certainly not going to mind the proposed OP tanks one way or another. Be it using a UHAV, with a large rail and small rails for tank hunting and AI suppression (like I do NOW), or using a DHAV to 3 shot tanks like we had not that long ago. Here I come double damage mods and nitro, armor tanking over shield. I don't mind going back to something like tanks were after 1.6 dropped. I'll be here to say, told ya so (** move I know)! I sure do love me some AV tears! Best of all, they will have had a hand in it! Enjoy your spreadsheets boys, I look forward to the crying I'm going to cause!!!! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4757	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:18:00 - [797] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea Don't forget we're trying to make every level of every skill give some benefit, so don't forget the basic HAV operation skills! Basic operation for vehicles and dropsuits should reflect and define that race's tanking style further. Amarr HAV Operation +% Reduction to Armor Plate Speed Penalty Caldari HAV Operation +% Bonus to Shield Regulators Gallente HAV Operation +% Bonus to Armor Repairers Minmatar HAV Operation +% Bonus to Shield Rechargers/Boosters Destroyer HAV Operation +% Bonus to Large Turret Damage (You have to be very careful about this one, balancing it against the UHAV's defenses properly) Amarr Destroyer HAV +% Reduction to Blaster Heat Buildup (Effectively Better Sustained Fire) Caldari Destroyer HAV +% Bonus to Missile Flight Speed (Effectively Better Range) Gallente Destroyer HAV +% Reduction to Blaster Dispursion (Effectively Better Range) Minmatar Destroyer HAV +% Bonus to Reload Speed of Missiles (Effectively Better Sustained Fire) Ultra HAV Operation +% Damage Resistance (Again be very careful. You want to make UHAVs tanky but not to a point where such extreme tank negates any damage advanage the DHAV has) Amarr Ultra HAV +% Duration of Armor Hardeners (Longer Engagements) Caldari Ultra HAV +% Duration of Shield Hardeners (Longer Engagements) Gallente Ultra HAV +% Cooldown of Armor Repairers (More Frequent Engagements/Faster Recovery) Minmatar Ultra HAV +% Cooldown of Shield Boosters (More Frequent Engagements/Faster Recovery) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4757	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:24:00 - [798] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6959	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:46:00 - [799] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets? They wouldn't. Because the UHAV with weaker defenses would be dead meat versus any competent AV gunner. The DHAV is intended to make MY job harder by being mobile and not holding still long enough for me to lock down and kill it. The UHAV makes my job harder by wading in, and parking on an enemy force and systematically massacreing them while I hammer away at it. Having more EHP to resist my Forge Gun or the swarms trying to killsteal me is critical to this. The UHAV has to be designed with the understanding that Infantry will drop everything to KILL IT and be armored accordingly. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2875	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:47:00 - [800] - Quote I'll do more tonight after hockey. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4759	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:56:00 - [801] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets? They wouldn't. Because the UHAV with weaker defenses would be dead meat versus any competent AV gunner. The DHAV is intended to make MY job harder by being mobile and not holding still long enough for me to lock down and kill it. The UHAV makes my job harder by wading in, and parking on an enemy force and systematically massacreing them while I hammer away at it. Having more EHP to resist my Forge Gun or the swarms trying to killsteal me is critical to this. The UHAV has to be designed with the understanding that Infantry will drop everything to KILL IT and be armored accordingly. I think the main issue people are having here is trying to balance the damage advantage of the DHAV vs the defensive bonus of the UHAV. I firmly believe that the UHAV has to be tanky as ** against infantry, otherwise it wont be able to fulfill its role. Others do raise good points that in order for the DHAV to overcome this bonus, they'll need insane damage bonuses which is just going to lead to insane damage creep, which isnt fun either. So...why not just remove that comparison completely? Make the UHAV's bonus not work against turrets, but be highly effective against infantry weapons. The DHAV can maintain a reasonable damage bonus that will do more damage than the MBT and not be hindered by the UHAV's defensive bonus, and the DHAV can have the defense it needs to take on infantry head on for longer periods of time. If the UHAV is difficult to kill by infantry, then it gives you a very solid and reasonable reason to bring a DHAV to the field to quickly remove said UHAV from combat. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 815	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:03:00 - [802] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: things Starting to feel the same. What started with returning the old hulls and fixing stats is turning into a massive SP sink. I already have pro modules, so to use them i have to drop: 1,244,000 SP for my current tanks. (pro modules on a gunlogi with proto small turrets) 1,766,000 SP to fit modules on a tank thats not open to blueberries. (gunlogi or madrugar with pro modules) 2,015,200 SP to fit my pro modules on either racial destroyer 547,360 SP to unlock UHAVs 3,732,000 SP to fit proto modules on either racial UHAV. Thats 1,044,960 SP from level 3 to level 4. Bare minimum to invest is 646,400 SP for a basic destroyer that can only fit basic modules. 2,624,400 for proto Destroyer. You get two ADV tanks, 1 ADV HAV and 1 ADV SHAV. 895,640 SP for a basic UHAV that can only fit basic modules. 4,553,000 sp for proto. You only get the ADV HAV. Looking at that sort of SP investment, its better to wait it out, then run the tanks as players usually do. Highest defenses with the highest damage. Taking the other turret poposals into conderation, how could you not go PRO shield UHAV with all pro rail turrets (large and small). For 4.5 million SP their bonues has got to be OP. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:20:00 - [803] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea UHAV passive resists sounds good. Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:27:00 - [804] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Hey, still alive, i need ideas for good bonuses. dhavs general speed dmg mod duration faction ROF on missiles lower heat increase for blaster uhavs general passive resists more hp faction hardener and shield duration amor rep, shield regen any idea is a good idea (Copy and pasted from different part of the thread with some adjustments) My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield recharge and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to defensive module Duration and/or cooldown and Small turret damage Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction and Damage Mod duration/cooldown Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor repair and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets/ cooldown/duration Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets/ Dmg mods What do you think of those? Too much sp sink to get UHAV's. Choo Choo
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2307	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:38:00 - [805] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets? EDIT2: What if we look at it like this MBT = Baseline Average Speed Average Defense Average Offense DHAV High Speed Low Defense High Offense UHAV Low Speed High Defense - vs Infantry AV Average Defense - vs Turrets Average Offense So against infantry the UHAV is a slow tanky beast, but against a DHAV, it's just a really slow MBT. I understand your concerns. Ideally, the UHAV should be the choice for pilots that just want to kill infantry. Its bonuses should be geared towards killing infantry and that should make it a better choice over the MBT. I don't know what to say about your edits. It just feels odd to give UHAVs a damage resistance against infantry AV but not vehicle turrets. I can't really think of what sets infantry AV and vehicle turrets apart in terms of damage application as they are just too similar. If there was a clear distinction, we could give the UHAV a defense bonus that helps it against infantry AV but doesn't do much against turrets. Example: think back to 1.7 before the hardener nerf. A hardened Gunnlogi could regen through swarms, but lost its regen against weapons with higher alpha. Going back to what I mentioned, if there was a clear distinction in damage application, the UHAV would be similar to the hardened Gunnlogi of 1.7 in that it would be hard to break by infantry AV but a vehicle turret could break it. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. But since there is no clear distinction, I just don't want to mess around with giving the UHAV a stronger defense and would rather focus on its infantry fighting capabilities instead. Sometimes, the better offense can be the better defense. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:44:00 - [806] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: I don't see how people are missing this. My support goes to a weaker UHAV and stronger DHAV in terms of defenses. The UHAV will have to rely on its infantry fighting capabilities to defend itself from infantry AV, whereas the DHAV will be better suited against other vehicles and hence needs a better defense against infantry AV. Also, if a UHAV has twice the EHP of a DHAV, then the DHAV will need at least twice the damage output from the large turret in order to beat the UHAV, without having the UHAV use its superior defense to win. But then you got the problem of DHAVs dealing too much damage and will wipe each other out in a fraction of a second. This is not a fun setup where DHAVs will be insta-ganking UHAVs and other DHAVs. What I've been trying to propose is more fun and geared towards having more skill. A weaker UHAV means that the pilot will need to have skill to effectively fight off infantry AV. A stronger DHAV means that it needs only a minimal, if any, damage bonus and will result in prolonged DHAV vs DHAV fights where fitting and pilot skill will come into play, instead of the "shoot first to win" scenario that's currently proposed. I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT. EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets? EDIT2: What if we look at it like this MBT = Baseline Average Speed Average Defense Average Offense DHAV High Speed Low Defense High Offense UHAV Low Speed High Defense - vs Infantry AV Average Defense - vs Turrets Average Offense So against infantry the UHAV is a slow tanky beast, but against a DHAV, it's just a really slow MBT. I understand your concerns. Ideally, the UHAV should be the choice for pilots that just want to kill infantry. Its bonuses should be geared towards killing infantry and that should make it a better choice over the MBT. uh, no. The UHAV is meant for defense, and dealing with infantry, hence the lower speed and 2 small turrets. the DHAG is meant for damage and HAV destruction, speed to flank them, flee, or just out maneuver them. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4761	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:47:00 - [807] - Quote I guess I don't feel like any amount of small turret bonuses will make up for a weakened defense of the UHAV under your proposal. I also dislike that if the DHAV has the highest defense and the highest damage output, that you're edging closer to a situation where the only effective means to fight a DHAV is another DHAV, since it'll be able to simply speed away from infantry and tank more and do more damage than a MBT or UHAV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2307	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:04:00 - [808] - Quote What if the turret bonuses on the UHAV weren't restricted to the small turrets only? Blaster dispersion decrease, missile splash radius increase, and railgun splash radius increase will all provide infantry fighting bonuses without affecting vehicle to vehicle combat. Also I'm not a big fan of making their differences attached to the hulls. It just "hard codes" in other balancing factors to account for. But I just don't want a 2x damage bonus to DHAVs if UHAVs have twice as much EHP sort of thing going on. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:14:00 - [809] - Quote Harpyja wrote: What if the turret bonuses on the UHAV weren't restricted to the small turrets only? Blaster dispersion decrease, missile splash radius increase, and railgun splash radius increase will all provide infantry fighting bonuses without affecting vehicle to vehicle combat. Also I'm not a big fan of making their differences attached to the hulls. It just "hard codes" in other balancing factors to account for. But I just don't want a 2x damage bonus to DHAVs if UHAVs have twice as much EHP sort of thing going on. But heres the rub. So, under you model the UHAV is defensively weak, and slow. Sure I can see some merit to a good offense being a the best defense, that is how glass cannons work. However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up. I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker? You may not like the conditional defenses of resisting infantry AV but not turrets, but you have to admit it does directly address your primary concern of the DHAV's damage bonus being useless against the UHAV's damage resistance. Also to clarify, I still have several issues with Ratatti's proposed numbers as I've pointed out before, I think he's going a little too extreme with some of them, the DHAV being a primary concern of having less slots on top of less HP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1261	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:02:00 - [810] - Quote Lot of interesting conversation going around. I like harpyj idea, as it was the very first thought that came to mind when I first read of the proposals. I am just a little confused on why some assume that it HAS to have higher defenses to deal with infantry. There are instances now, where I have no gunners running with me where yes a high defense (which is offered by the gunnlogi) is essential in surviving infantry AV. But when I run a good set of gunners (which is the idea surrounding the UHAV), defenses are of lesser concern. AV can't do their work if they can't live long enough to see it through to the end. This is how this plays out now, and I run a very tough tank WITH the gunners. I liken my current tank setup with gunners to the proposed UHAV. Ridiculously OP in the right hands against infantry. I honestly just don't see these proposed changes panning out how people expect. Back to tank spammin! A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right. I personally don't think that we need such separation between tanks. I do say that yes a tank not built for AI should have the best time against infantry AV while a tank built around AI should be more on par with the enemy infantry they are designed to fight, not above and beyond them. But I also wonder why we need such a large separation between the two tank types to begin with. What happens when we Make their base HP more or less equal, and emphasize the differences through role bonuses Your UHAV is slower, but has bonuses to small turrets and makes better use of modules that help the large turret kill infantry. Base Hp could sit around 2500, still tough but not over the top. On the other hand your DHAV is slightly faster, with bonuses to their large turrets, and unable to use small guns. Base HP sits around 3000, current proposed for the UHAV. They are slightly tougher than their counterpart, able to more easily survive AV they will struggle to kill. In this way the 2 tank types will still be distinctively different but stat wise there won't be a huge outright difference. Differences come from skills ( as it should be ) and bonuses associated with those skills. Imagine a UHAV versus a DHAV. The DHAV is faster, slightly more HP, and bonuses to their large main turret. The UHAV is slower, slightly less HP, and bonuses to their small turrets. DHAV has an outright advantage over the UHAV when the main gun is considered, but small rails or missiles can play a HUGE part to keeping the UHAV on more even ground against the DHAV. Sure the DHAV seems to have an advantage, but I think it will more or less struggle against a UHAV running rails or missiles, not to mention if it runs anything other than a blaster for the main gun. I think this is something else people don't seem to notice, what happens when you have a UHAV with double the base HP of the counterpart designed to kill it, with small guns that can effectively double DPS against them. I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Tanks - Balancing Turrets



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

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.