DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

Soraya Xel wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

Aero Yassavi wrote:

Soraya Xel wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization.

Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect.

Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least.

Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3).

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?

Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system.

And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill.

Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people.

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)
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 734	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:00:00 - [121] - Quote The way ratio I envision damage distribution VS infantry UHAV 1.25 HAV 1 DHAV 0.75 VS Vehicles UHAV 0.75 HAV 1 DHAV 1.25 This can be done by tweaking the bonuses to hull damage ouput so that the UHAV and DHAV remains on the oppossite sides of the spectrum, and the HAV remains dead center. UHAV can have an anti infantry bonus to Fragmented Missiles clip size and a bonus to reduce Blaster Dispersion. DHAV gets a bonus to Missile reload speed and reduction to Blaster Heat build up. I am purposely leaving out the rail, it does too high damage and is too easy to abuse. I don't want to boost base turret stats, as we currently have them they are sufficent for tank vs tank fights, we need creative bonusss that makes bringin out a UHAV or a DHAV make more sense rather than a "I win button" Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6648	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:07:00 - [122] - Quote Rails are a correctable problem. VHCL
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 734	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:58:00 - [123] - Quote We can deal with the rails in the hopefully soon to be Turrets feedback. I would not like hull bonuses tied to rails precisely because it would encourage that type of hull to be abused a redline camper. CAL UHAVs wont need it if they are heading into the fight as A.I. Fragemented missiles FTW. DHAVs should be encouraged to get in close and be at risk to kill UHAVs, but limited vs infantry. Planting a bonus to OHK rail turret on it defeats the purpose of having it focused on tanks. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 178	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:10:00 - [124] - Quote One interesting way to make tank battles I propose to add a triangle of fight like in other games with sword, axe and lances SHAV > DHAV > UHAV > SHAV How? By adding resistencia between tanks, like 15% + - This to make tank battles something strategic. Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4487	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:21:00 - [125] - Quote Out of curiosity, is the intention to have two separate skill trees that lead to each of the Specialist HAVs? Normal HAV (1 Large, 2 Small) --> Ultra HAV (1 Large, 2 Small) Solo HAV (1 Large, 0 Small) --> Destroyer HAV (1 Large, 0 Small) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 430	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:22:00 - [126] - Quote Question about the UHAV vs DHAV vs AV infantry balance: Is it possible to make these vehicles take different amounts of damage from infantry vs vehicle weapons? If so the way I see a balance being set is like this: UHAV: Resistant to Infantry AV, weak to Tank AV HAV: (regular) No resistances / weaknesses to specific AV DHAV: Weak to Infantry AV, Resistant to Tank AV (idea: And perhaps total immunity from small turrets?) In this way regular HAVs still have a place on the battle field (being the all-rounder) while the UHAV and DHAV can both have their specific roles. This also allows the UHAV to go all out in being AI without risking it becoming some super tanked AV platform that kills other tanks on account of how hard it is to take down.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6652	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:28:00 - [127] - Quote You're overcomplicating a simple issue. VHCL
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 42	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:35:00 - [128] - Quote Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. A proud member of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Don't fix what's not Baroque
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4490	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:39:00 - [129] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Then use a Solo HAV "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6652	Posted - 2015.01.22 18:42:00 - [130] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. VHCL

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5532	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:14:00 - [131] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). 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? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:19:00 - [132] - Quote Hi. First reaction: - I like the "tiericide" approach to HAV progression. That seems like the right way to go about it. - I like that anti-infantry and anti-vehicle tanks are a thing. This gives HAVs a purpose. Be careful about having AV-tanks deny HAV-deployment within the home-redline. We had that before. - I'm glad you're introducing stand-in variants for the lacking racial HAVs. I agree with giving Amarr tanks the Gallente model and Minmatar tanks the Caldari one. That way shield-tanked HAVs look alike and armor-tanked HAVs look alike. That's much more intuitive than the other way around. Suggestion: - Fitted DHAVs should be sitting at the defensive capabilities of a fitted current MLT tank. For orientation we already know the dual damage amped rail Sica that can be a threat to any vehicle on the field, but can't leave the redline since it'll be popped by any sort of AV. Combine this offensive power with the ehp of a less glass-cannon MLT HAV and this may be a viable role. - Consider reducing all large turret damage by X% but giving a X% role bonus to damage to DHAVs. This will hopefully put a disincentive on doing AV work with a UHAV without overpowering the DHAV against infantry. For orientation even today a damage amped pro blaster on a MLT tank is not very useful against AV-infantry. The role bonus can thus be up to 20%. (There will be bickering about DHAVs being used against infantry anyhow. It's bound to happen whenever there's a lack of AV.) - Consider restoring the normal large missile launcher as a hybrid AV-AI turret and offer variants from there once we get to that. The current large missile launcher doesn't deliver very interesting gameplay to anyone. - I believe increasing the total amount of slots on HAVs would make their fitting more interesting. However, getting the numbers right will be difficult. Since hardeners are a thing on HAVs it is difficult to quantify the 'utility' of a slot as a number. This would be made easier by reducing the effectiveness of hardeners, but they're in a pretty sweet spot right now. It's a tough decision. - Consider introducing passive resistance modules. They're extremely easy to balance: 2.5 shield hardeners grant 40% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 2.5 slots and 525 CPU / 562 PG (source, protofits incl. max skills) Therefor: 2.5 shield resistance plates should grant 40% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 2.5 slots and 525 CPU / 562 PG Therefor: 1 shield resistance plate should grant 16% resistance for 100% of the time at the cost of 1 slot and 210 CPU / 225 PG
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 590	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:19:00 - [133] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). 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? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. 1. If it takes 1 AV to 1 SOLO HAV then will it take 3 AV to take a 3man HAV?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4492	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:29:00 - [134] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. At the same time you can't make the 3 man HAV innately better than the 1 man HAV in terms of defense, otherwise there would be no reason to use the Solo HAV and solo players would just leave the gunner seats empty in the 3 man HAV. In order to achieve what you're describing, you would have to intentionally build the system around stacking the bonuses from the gunners on top of the pilot to assure than all seats are filled in order to achieve the desired effect. However this is also problematic because you're then making the correlation of "1 Additional Person in the tank has enough of a benefit from SP Bonuses alone, to combat an additional AV enemy". But if you go with that logic, 3 people in the tank would provide bonuses to combat 3 AV enemies....but then where does the fitting of the tank come in? In order to achieve what you describe, the HAV's fittings would have to provide no benefit at all, which obviously can't be the case. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5532	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:29:00 - [135] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If it takes 1 AV to 1 SOLO HAV then will it take 3 AV to take a 3man HAV? With the rough point that there's ups and downs to fitting and gear quality and such, yes, that's roughly what I'm suggesting. One player should equal one player. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Hector Carson G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 153	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:43:00 - [136] - Quote I just have to make one suggestion, when they go to make these new additions could they give a respec only in vehicle command OR Even a better idea make individual respec for the different areas plus a full respec option. Assault c.k0 Proto Tankers
Buwaro Draemon WarRavens Capital Punishment. 833	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:48:00 - [137] - Quote Can it be asked to add an UI change for vehicles? Letting you, as the pilot of the vehicle, see each of your every turret's performance and ammo reserves is a must. Why? Because sometimes I run with my 3 seater tank or DS and have randoms shoot at people while covering me. Also remember that not everyone uses mics when squadded up so saying "lol get a squad" is out of the question. Making it so on tanks, the top turret's ammo reserve and heating should be displayed on top of your Main turrets UI but smaller form and the bottom turret's to be displayed on the bottom left right next your Main Turret's UI. For DS's the side turrets UI should be displayed on each side if the corresponding turret. I don't know if it's too late to ask for this but this change can help the Vehicle pilot be more aware of their gunner's performance. Changes to Damage mods!
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 181	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:50:00 - [138] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If it takes 1 AV to 1 SOLO HAV then will it take 3 AV to take a 3man HAV? With the rough point that there's ups and downs to fitting and gear quality and such, yes, that's roughly what I'm suggesting. One player should equal one player. I disagree with this, because of the prices, I feel u make tanks like 200 thousands isk as some proto logi fits, go ahead, but if vehicles prices goes up like 1 million per tank hell no, I was a tank driver, and believe me paying 2.3 millions for a tank that is able to be destroyed for another guy that spent 140 thousands isk to completely destroy me is out of mind, also here comes specialists.. What if I spent 60 millions SP to train tanks because I love them.... And a militia guy destroys me... That isn't fair for those that spend fortune in tanks, depending on survival and sp I would say 3:1 3 being Av 1 the tanker, As I mentioned, if the damage goes into a 85 or so let's add to tanks a penalty of movement and recovery, because also something that took effort to deal damage and fight against a tank deserves some payment, and also something that throws fire from all the hull isn't a good signal... Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*
Hector Carson G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 154	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:55:00 - [139] - Quote Buwaro Draemon wrote: Can it be asked to add an UI change for vehicles? Letting you, as the pilot of the vehicle, see each of your every turret's performance and ammo reserves is a must. Why? Because sometimes I run with my 3 seater tank or DS and have randoms shoot at people while covering me. Also remember that not everyone uses mics when squadded up so saying "lol get a squad" is out of the question. Making it so on tanks, the top turret's ammo reserve and heating should be displayed on top of your Main turrets UI but smaller form and the bottom turret's to be displayed on the bottom left right next your Main Turret's UI. For DS's the side turrets UI should be displayed on each side if the corresponding turret. I don't know if it's too late to ask for this but this change can help the Vehicle pilot be more aware of their gunner's performance. I would have to agree adding this will make it easier when your alt turrets need a reload that way if a person in your squad has no mic you can see if he needs a reload just by simply looking at it on your HUD Assault c.k0 Proto Tankers
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1386	Posted - 2015.01.22 19:58:00 - [140] - Quote Hector Carson wrote: Buwaro Draemon wrote: Can it be asked to add an UI change for vehicles? Letting you, as the pilot of the vehicle, see each of your every turret's performance and ammo reserves is a must. Why? Because sometimes I run with my 3 seater tank or DS and have randoms shoot at people while covering me. Also remember that not everyone uses mics when squadded up so saying "lol get a squad" is out of the question. Making it so on tanks, the top turret's ammo reserve and heating should be displayed on top of your Main turrets UI but smaller form and the bottom turret's to be displayed on the bottom left right next your Main Turret's UI. For DS's the side turrets UI should be displayed on each side if the corresponding turret. I don't know if it's too late to ask for this but this change can help the Vehicle pilot be more aware of their gunner's performance. I would have to agree adding this will make it easier when your alt turrets need a reload that way if a person in your squad has no mic you can see if he needs a reload just by simply looking at it on your HUD Hector Carson, I remember that name. It will come to me from where. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:28:00 - [141] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I don't really like Marauders being a infantry killing/suppression platform, but more of a defensive platform. Enforcers are the opposite of Marauders, being the offensive platform. BO HAV's seems like thebetter option to have a more infantry platform, it being fast and moderately tanked, but it has a weaker medium turret. It's made to be a real infantry suppression tool, but against a HAV with a large turret, it won't do much of anything. Marauders aren't being discussed. Ultra Heavy HAVs are The idea is that you can get full progression for a hull type actually will put the proto main battle tanks where they WERE in theory. So instead of having marauders that stand head and shoulders above all other chassis we will have solid progression from start to finish. 1: Isn't that the same thing? If not, what's the difference? 2: Marauders being better than T I hulls was a balance issue, same as infantry's T I suits being worse than the T II suits. We're basically going backwards, not forwards. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:30:00 - [142] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Prefitted tanks: As long as we can switch out the prefitted turrets to turrets of our own choice to play with the fit. Also, nothing to stop me from fitting basic small turrets on a proto tank and having the extra PG and CPU to beat up on a solo tank. We don't have "PRO" tanks. That's a myth. There's no vehicle with the PRO tag attached to it. Those were the Kubera and Chakkram during Chromosome. They were the Black Ops HAVs with a built-in mCRU. Codex, they didn't exist in Chromo. They weren't even "Better" than a Maddy or Gunnlogi, more of a difference (Although both Kubera and Chakram and Kubera had a 4/4 slot, so it was pretty modular). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6655	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:33:00 - [143] - Quote Next one should be named Chupacabra. VHCL
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1388	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:37:00 - [144] - Quote I remember now. Hector was CEO over a corp I sort of adopted and tried to help before I quit playing. He was a know it all and basically spit in my face. I see you are in Gods. Tell Shizzle I said what's up. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:47:00 - [145] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:48:00 - [146] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). 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? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. Take out =/= kill. Just sayin click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6655	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:48:00 - [147] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted. Take the tinfoil hat off Godin. You suck at conspiracy theories. VHCL
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 739	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:51:00 - [148] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). 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? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. Please dont. Not in a 'your not a tanker" sort of way, but in a "your ideas and comments have been counterproductive concerning vehicles on every possible level" kind of way. Your idea of a buff is to make solo tanks very weak against solo AV. 3 people just means more offensive/defensive firepower, should not mean better defensive modules or ehp modules. That should be a party tanks only advantage over solo tanks. UHAVs and DHAVs i consider seperate as they are a seperate class. For the MBTs and the solo HAVs aside from having the extra pg and cpu to fit small turrets, otherwise they should able fit the exact same ehp modules. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:53:00 - [149] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their? Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank. Basic smalls will automatically come equipped on the chassis along with a heavy turret. So you're not required to "pay" for them unless you want better. Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted. Take the tinfoil hat off Godin. You suck at conspiracy theories. What are you talking about? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:55:00 - [150] - Quote Seriously though, this Rocket shotgun thing needs to stop. It's silly seeing it, it makes blasters useless as a short range weapon, and it makes Rockets only useful at killing HAV's, and nothing else. 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