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)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6998	Posted - 2015.02.07 14:29:00 - [901] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 8x means less investment of SP than a dropsuit. 10x. Alright So someone that hasn't played in months, and doesn't use vehicles, gets to decide the path vehicles take? And now you want tanks to use more SP? Please, go ruin a different game. Spkr why don't you depend less on a buggy user interface to get your intel? To anyone who knows me, I'm in match at least twice a week for a few hours. So since we've decided that we're going to ignore Rattati's request for civility in the thread rather than obstructive accusations, do please enlighten me as to why an HAV should require less SP than a fully-fitted, max-cores dropsuit? I'm of the opinion that the SP counts should be comparable. So tell me. Why should a tank that has to get a x2 skill to 3, a x6 skill to 3 as prereqs cost less than a dropsuit that has to do the same? The current proposed SP cost is an x12 modifier for specialist racial HAVs. I want it to cost x10 to match a specialized racial dropsuit. But by all means, do enlighten me as to how my suggestion is ruining the game. Also please educate the class as to why an HAV should cost less to skill into than a fully skilled dropsuit. I'm not playing this game with you anymore. Defend your position with facts or shut up. AV
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 189	Posted - 2015.02.07 14:38:00 - [902] - Quote When can we expect new vehicles to drop in?? TNX ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2116	Posted - 2015.02.07 14:47:00 - [903] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: sp costs I'm against making vehicles cost more SP myself. They're already expensive in terms of sp and SP spent on them isn't spent on infantry skills which are more applicable. The 'equalising factor' for sp should be the as of yet unreleased pilot suit which is the thing that should determine who the 'dabblers' are and who the 'career' vehicle users are (I have spoken about how pilot suits and vehicle equipment in this thread IIRC). It also makes it harder for one to 'dabble' and be relevant compared to one who goes 'no, this is all I want to do'. In short I think that increasing SP costs will make it much less likely that people will skill into any vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:12:00 - [904] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: To anyone who knows me, I'm in match at least twice a week for a few hours. I'm in the DevHangout chat too. I've seen you once the whole time I've been in it. So since we've decided that we're going to ignore Rattati's request for civility in the thread rather than obstructive accusations, do please enlighten me as to why an HAV should require less SP than a fully-fitted, max-cores dropsuit? How can I ignore bad ideas from people that don't use something? That would be like me commenting on the rail rifle, even though I don't use it. I do, however, have level 5 in all skills for the AR, SMG, HMG, shotgun and nova knives, so I can certainly comment on those, as I use them. As far as less SP, no, they won't use less SP at 8x, they'll require the same amount. As far as HAV operation goes, we'll need level 5 to get the 'PRO' hull, while infantry only needs the basic frame operation to 3 to access the role suits. Dunno what could possibly make you think an 8x would be less SP. I'm of the opinion that the SP counts should be comparable. Tanks being 10x is not comparable. Role dropsuits are 8x, basic frame operation is 4x. I know these things without needing the game on, why can't you remember it? Oh wait... So tell me. Why should a tank that has to get a x2 skill to 3, a x6 skill to 3 as prereqs cost less than a dropsuit that has to do the same? Isn't HAV operation already 4x? Dunno what multipliers you're talking about. The current proposed SP cost is an x12 modifier for specialist racial HAVs. I have nearly 75 mil SP, and all of that won't be enough to cover all vehicle operation skills, turret skills and core skills. Why must it be 12x? How do you expect people with 50mil or so to get into vehicles if you want the operation multipliers increased? Oh wait........ infantry wants tanks to be in another galaxy as far as SP required for use. I want it to cost x10 to match a specialized racial dropsuit. Dropsuits aren't 10x, they're 8x. But by all means, do enlighten me as to how my suggestion is ruining the game. You don't use vehicles, and you don't play the game. All I have to do is add someone to my friend's list, and check their weekly, monthly and all-time kills. Also please educate the class as to why an HAV should cost less to skill into than a fully skilled dropsuit. Again, I didn't say less, I said the same. We had a lot of SP gained per match during Chrome, but I can't remember what it was for early Uprising. Those Enforcers were useless anyway, as an average pilot in a Madrugar or Gunnlogi could easily destroy an Enforcer driven by a competent pilot. I'm not playing this game with you anymore. Defend your position with facts or shut up. You're getting all your ideas without playing the game. I get my ideas from a year and a half in tanks. I know the turrets like I know my own hands, I know how the hulls handle, I know how to hit close LAVs with a railgun because I intuitively know the spool and refire times. I know how difficult it is to use the blaster now, because of its inverted dispersion when compared to the HMG. I know how fast missiles can melt any hull when caught unaware. All I see are tons of bad ideas, because I can tell people have little to no experience with tanks. And I'll now answer why I said "your response tells me all I need to know." Why did I say that? Because I knew from I think Pokey's response that he's never used a tank at all. He didn't realize the variety we lost when we lost hulls, turret variants, modules and hull slots when 1.7 was deployed. We had active reps that could shrug off AV to take on our real, preferred target, and that was another tank. We could fit out a tank purely for defense, purely for offense, or the best compromise between the two. We could build spider tanks, we could do logi LAVs to keep a tank in the fight while its modules cooled down. My early PC days were filled with 3 or 4 forge guns pounding me, and living, while chasing a red tank inside a compound. Tanks used to have incredible durability. That was all taken away with 1.7. To repeat, I knew he's never used a tank due to all the variety we lost with 1.7. With that, I cannot take any of his suggestions seriously. I'm not trolling, I'm not derailing the thread. I'm calling out bad ideas because they're not backed up with any kind of experience. With all these spreadsheets, all I see are mediocre tanks being worked on. Ultra-heavy tanks having only 14,000 effective HP? The Gal hull should have at least 10,000 base armor if it's going to be an "ultra heavy tank," if as Rattati said in his original thread, that you'll need a laser strike to take it out quickly. A destroyer tank easily being dispatched by a plasma cannon? That's not worth the SP investment. None of us have said we want invincible tanks. We have said that we want the SP and ISK required to use vehicles to be worth it, and they're clearly not right now. We have said we want AV to be a deterrent, and deterrent =/= useless. If a single Minmando with double swarms can take me out in 5 volleys with the 6th having already been launched, that's a problem. I like armor hulls and want to use them, but their survivability is just pathetic, especially with the hardener and rep nerfs from 1.8. Again, I have the experience to point out why so many proposals are bad ideas. I've been tanking for a year and a half, and I had 5-10 PC battles, not including re-ups, for a month straight when I joined Red Star. I know what I'm talking about. Proposing a supposed ultra-heavy tank with less than 20,000 HP is useless. The game should be balanced around FW and PC, not the ability for one person to solo a tank. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:13:00 - [905] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: In short I think that increasing SP costs will make it much less likely that people will skill into any vehicles. I'm getting the feeling that that's the ultimate goal. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:17:00 - [906] - Quote I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7000	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:29:00 - [907] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks. using crap tanks to prove a point that AV is too easy is a rather sad argument. Use your best tanks and make the video. then I'll take them seriously. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2117	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:33:00 - [908] - Quote Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7000	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:39:00 - [909] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I'll cop to the fact that he was right about the SP costs. It's been a while since I needed to check. I have the four dropsuits I wanted maxed. But my point stands that I believe that a fully max-core HAV should require about the same SP investment as a max-core dropsuit. that's the thesis statement even without the numbers being right. If that means drop the SP costs a bit, then by all means. If that means there needs to be more SP costs to compensate for less skills in the tree whatever. Equal investment. That's what I think needs to happen on the SP front. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2117	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:48:00 - [910] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I'll cop to the fact that he was right about the SP costs. It's been a while since I needed to check. I have the four dropsuits I wanted maxed. But my point stands that I believe that a fully max-core HAV should require about the same SP investment as a max-core dropsuit. that's the thesis statement even without the numbers being right. If that means drop the SP costs a bit, then by all means. If that means there needs to be more SP costs to compensate for less skills in the tree whatever. Equal investment. That's what I think needs to happen on the SP front. I'd be behind equal investment if we had equal ability to affect the battlefield. Vehicles are not currently in a position where they could ever be a 'full time role'. I know you've seen my explanations on a lot of this before, but vehicles outright do not have a lot of opportunities available to them. Equal investment for equal opportunity. Many people are happy to think of vehicles as 'temporary power-ups' and with lower SP costs for partial investment, it allows them to be 'power-ups'. I believe that there are a few more points of iteration that should be hit before SP equivalence is hit for 'full investment'. I want people to be capable of dabbling without having to spend 20m sp. I want people who go 'this is the only thing I want to do' to have equal investment levels. The SP costs should not be tied to hulls, but instead to things like pilot suits. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7004	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:00:00 - [911] - Quote making them not crap is the first step. shaping the battlefield so they have more utility than "Wp farming engine" or "Warpoint pinata" should be the next step. If we can figure out how to shape the battlefields so that HAVs are necessary and USEFUL then we're in business. If we have the stats filled out and actually balanced when we get this thing going? Better still. And defraying a lot of the SP cost to pilot suits in whatever form is a definite good idea. We just need a solid idea on what a pilot suit needs to be and what bonusing it needs to have. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2118	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:15:00 - [912] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: making them not crap is the first step. shaping the battlefield so they have more utility than "Wp farming engine" or "Warpoint pinata" should be the next step. If we can figure out how to shape the battlefields so that HAVs are necessary and USEFUL then we're in business. If we have the stats filled out and actually balanced when we get this thing going? Better still. And defraying a lot of the SP cost to pilot suits in whatever form is a definite good idea. We just need a solid idea on what a pilot suit needs to be and what bonusing it needs to have. To repeat and summarize previous posts: Pilot suits should be the equivalent of 'vehicular logistics'. In phase one of their implementation, vehicles should receive a number of 'vehicle equipment slots' and have a variety of modules moved to those slots (mcru's, remote reps, scanners, certain other things) maybe even with a new module or two implemented. In phase two pilot suits are released which affect the function of those modules (less spawn time on MCRU's + Other bonus for amarr, Higher precision scans + other bonus for gallente, Increased remote rep range + other bonus for minmatar, Increased resupply/repair on activated nanohive module + other bonus on caldari). Even just having the 'other bonus' be something like '3% reduced cooldown on modules' would be good. This allows for further iteration in terms of new equipment modules (like bubble shields), or even different types of pilot suits - some 'combat oriented' (a caldari one that has say a bonus to a bubble shield module) without direct bonuses to damage / resistance that could throw balance off between those who have pilot suits and those who don't. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7007	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:56:00 - [913] - Quote The UHAV and DHAV skills will need a skill multiplier. x12 seems excessive to me. I'm wildly iffy on x10. I'm also against HAVs costing less overall because they're reall only vulnerable to what, maybe 5 weapons That infantry can carry. Forge, swarms, PLC and AV nades. So functionally immune to all but 4 weapons. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:38:00 - [914] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: making them not crap is the first step. shaping the battlefield so they have more utility than "Wp farming engine" or "Warpoint pinata" should be the next step. If we can figure out how to shape the battlefields so that HAVs are necessary and USEFUL then we're in business. If we have the stats filled out and actually balanced when we get this thing going? Better still. You know, honestly they aren't total "crap" like many view them as. I think people need to get the assumption out of their head that right now they are in such an awful place, they don't have any place on the battlefield. Yes the madrudger is in a poor place right now. It doesn't have much function on the battlefield. And yes a blaster is failing to a gunnlogi that double hardens, as I myself have witnessed a few times last night as I ran my blaster maddie. But these are issues that HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST AND FOREMOST. Else this grand plan will not do what you intend it to do. Or go way over the top require another cycle of over the top nerfs. Leaving us back where we started. The issues right now with tanks don't require some huge complicated fix. I'm all for adding new hulls. And I think we have a good baseline right now to balance from. Though only if we address a few issues of WHY things are underperforming first. Many of your own personal thoughts and suggestions honestly just don't jive with me because you are missing a lot of fundamental things going on with tanks right now. My gunnlogi right now, IS , what I imagine a UHAV will be like. I have for a very long time now ran double smalls on my tanks, and with the right team manning it, the thing can win battles on it's own. When I pull out my tank with just a single competent gunner (component gunners are in very short supply), I swear half the team goes AV (only slightly exaggerating here). I become surrounded by swarms, forge guns, plasma cannons and other tanks. And I remember why I loved tanking so much. In the right hands, a gunnlogi will remind players why tanks were so feared at one time. They shape the behaviors of everything on the field, adapt or die. Of course, this can be very map dependent as there are several right now I can think of that are absolutely garbage for a tank. That's why I always keep a logi on hand as many need to accept that many maps are not built around the idea of accommodating tanks. So are tanks "crap" right now. No, they are not. Many just can't wrap it around their heads that they need to run a team to return back to the glory days. I will say they are unbalanced and skewed to the gunnlogi. So fixing that issue first before adding MORE STUFF should be a priority. So what I'm saying here is that we have an excellent baseline for what a UHAV should look like, and more or less how it should perform. Why can't we stop and acknowledge that rather than pulling numbers from our asses, attempting to come up with some new grand plan because the current system "isn't working". Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:12:00 - [915] - Quote Honestly I have not done the math on SP cost...never thought much about it, but all in all it should be a similar amount of SP to spec into a dropsuit as it is to spec into a vehicle. Roughly. I mean you quickly run into issues when looking at say, a Logi as it needs to train more equipment and whatnot, but as a general ballpark it should feel similar. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:59:00 - [916] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I am providing counter arguments, you just won't listen to them. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:03:00 - [917] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks. using crap tanks to prove a point that AV is too easy is a rather sad argument. Use your best tanks and make the video. then I'll take them seriously. I only use bad tanks when someone needs kill assists in a vehicle. Other than that, they're all over 400k ISK. I love how you assume so much about me. You've never seen me in battle, because you don't play the game, so all you can do is parrot what other people say. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:05:00 - [918] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks. using crap tanks to prove a point that AV is too easy is a rather sad argument. Use your best tanks and make the video. then I'll take them seriously. I only use bad tanks when someone needs kill assists in a vehicle. Other than that, they're all over 400k ISK. I love how you assume so much about me. You've never seen me in battle, because you don't play the game, so all you can do is parrot what other people say. lol "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2119	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:31:00 - [919] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday? You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people. I am providing counter arguments, you just won't listen to them. Because you present and argue them poorly. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics. People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A **ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]". Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4783	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:34:00 - [920] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate your maturity and ability to not be a douche when we don't. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2120	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:43:00 - [921] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate your maturity and ability to not be a douche when we don't. I try.... No seriously, I really have to try I have an anger disorder. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7015	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:53:00 - [922] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. It's called learnin' I does it. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4784	Posted - 2015.02.07 20:32:00 - [923] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate your maturity and ability to not be a douche when we don't. I try.... No seriously, I really have to try I have an anger disorder. Well I try not to be overly combative, I know tensions can run high, especially on a forum where voice inflection and intention are not always translated through the text. Even I get snippy at times, so I'm glad that we can keep it (mostly) civil. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2884	Posted - 2015.02.07 21:56:00 - [924] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics. I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something. People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them See above Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A ****ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]". That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks? Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point. He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2884	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:08:00 - [925] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: But my point stands that I believe that a fully max-core HAV should require about the same SP investment as a max-core dropsuit. HAV operation is a 4x, I would imagine the role tanks will be 8x. There's no good reason for them to be 12x. that's the thesis statement even without the numbers being right. If that means drop the SP costs a bit, then by all means. Why should the multipliers for suits be lowered when vehicles will remain the same? If that means there needs to be more SP costs to compensate for less skills in the tree whatever. This makes no sense. Equal investment. That's what I think needs to happen on the SP front. It already is equal. We don't have specialized tanks, so all we need is level one. We have assault dropships; that skill is a 6x, which is higher than the basic frame, and the racial ADS skills are 8x. Turrets are equal as well, problem is, we only have one of each, so that's of course less SP required. There's no variety there. There's also little reason to go into vehicle core skills, due to not having many passive bonuses. With infantry, you can do whatever you want with the SP you have. Don't need eWar? Don't worry about it, they're each 3x anyway, that's 3mil SP. Don't like most of the sidearms? Don't skill into them. Don't like the forge (because you actually have to aim it), don't go into it. Swarm operation is 2x, and at level 5 you get PRO. Proficiency is an option, it's not required to use the regular Wiyrkomi. What do we get with turret proficiency? Rotation speed. That's really not much of a good bonus. We don't get a bonus for individual turret operation; infantry gets CPU reduction bonus for weapons. It takes less SP to go full into vehicles as they are right now because we have few options. We also don't get half as many passive bonuses as infantry do. Infantry needs more SP because there's 5 role suits for 4 races; 5 sidearms, 9 or 10 light weapons, 2 heavy weapons, and a ton of core skills that actually make the suit better. Of course, it takes more SP for a suit to be good, because as I just said, there are a lot of core skills that make a suit better. You don't even have a good argument when you complain that infantry needs so much SP. Don't like Minmatar? Don't use any of their gear. Nobody's forcing you to use the knives, mass driver, combat rifle, flaylock, or SMG, or their scout, assault, logi, commando or sentinel suits. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:09:00 - [926] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics. I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something. People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them See above Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A **ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]". That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks? Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point. He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't. 1: Pokey Pilots. He's not a very good DS pilot (), but he's a pretty decent HAV pilot. Breakin does too, although not nearly as much, however at least tries to listen to people. 2: links to what Breakin said, and I'm pretty sure you took that out of context. 3: Your argument is flawed, as it pretty much says that AV or infantry can't talk about balance of vehicles because they don't use them. You must not understand the fact that THEY STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.** Just Letting you know that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7017	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:18:00 - [927] - Quote quit misrepresenting me spkr. I said (on multiple occasions) the DHAV should be low HP, not the UHAV. FFS at least get your facts straight. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2120	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:39:00 - [928] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle users Fyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 212	Posted - 2015.02.08 00:32:00 - [929] - Quote Players being childish wrote: words and more combatitiveness and arguing pointless arguing derailing random childish You guys are derailing the thread again. UHAV and DHAV skill should be 8x or 10x as 12x 4.5m sp is too much. Choo Choo
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.08 00:42:00 - [930] - Quote I would say that the average infantry that complains when vehicles don't kill them, but refuses to use AV or vehicles to counter or Pilots such as Sparky who refuse to take the opinions of others shouldn't even comment. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-



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.