DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4511	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:42:00 - [211] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. Fear not. I've already spoken with CPM and they've assured me that the 3/2 2/3 layout is very much not set in stone and was simply left there because that's what we're currently at. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:43:00 - [212] - Quote shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. The thing that pissed me off the most in the current meta is: armor tanking shield tanks. Every tank balance pass, which allow caldari vehicles to be succesfully armor tanking for me is not good at all. Armor on caldari vehicles should mean troll fit, same goes for fuel injector. To make a good comparison: fitting a plate on a caldari vehicle should be like fit a shield regulator on gallente dropsuit, it's simply not its place. Please Rattati there are some very good models lying around here on the forums, pick one of them, use it as base, then modify what you wish, idk if you have played in vehicles before 1.7 (or in chromo), but i can assure it was 100% more fun, even with all the problems and vehicle vs vehicle unbalance there was. AV is secondary problem and can be balanced on vehicles. ^ click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:44:00 - [213] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. Fear not. I've already spoken with CPM and they've assured me that the 3/2 2/3 layout is very much not set in stone and was simply left there because that's what we're currently at. Wonderful. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3758	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:57:00 - [214] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: shaman oga wrote: I saw those fit in HAV loadout page.... We are still in deep water. Fear not. I've already spoken with CPM and they've assured me that the 3/2 2/3 layout is very much not set in stone and was simply left there because that's what we're currently at. Good to know. I wonder what will come out of all this process, i really hope we will have old variety in tanks. My double damage modded blaster gunlogi was rather unique at the time and quite fragile, but still the most funny tank fit i've ever made. /tank nostalgy Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15634	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:19:00 - [215] - Quote Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:23:00 - [216] - Quote Ratattati: I am excited for the proposed changes and for the chance to see different fittings on vehicles. - the loadouts you have on the sheet you made are terrible builds, please do not balance around these. Gunlogis need two hardeners at least vs todays iteration of av, rails, missles and nitro ramming blaster maddies, just to peek out of the redline... Nitro in the high=death. Anyone fitting a gunlogi with an armor rep is going to have problems. Madrugars need Nitro to close the gap and to get away from av as they can't tank as much damage as a double hardened Gunlogi. For the Gunlogi, this means 2 high slots will forever be spoken for by hardeners unless you want to pop everytime advanced swarms lock on you. Madrugars have either lots or armor or lots of reps and nitro. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for build diversity. If the new advanced and proto hulls have any chance of survival with the current slot layout ( 3/2 2/3 ) they will need stat buffs equal to a proto hardener or shield extender for caldari, armor plate or armor repper for gallente, otherwise there is not much point to skilling up to get marginally more ehp when a bunny hopping minmitar commando is still going to pop you in 5 seconds from behind random hill number 32. Even with gunners on all turrets, hit detection with swarms is near 100% and if he is on top of some building or tower that the tank can't even aim up at then 1 player > 3 players plus 100xs isk. The damage buffs per level seem to make sense and I like the increase to shield regen and armor. I would like to see a madrugar blaster fit be able to survive as long as a double hardened gunlogi blaster fit vs todays alpha av damage as it is a much better chassis to shoot infantry with.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 164	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:39:00 - [217] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! I've got a little of all of that in my proposal... My Hypothesis on Shield Boosters is that they're either glitched, in which case I theorise remove shield recharge delay would help it, or they may need to provide more HP per cycle (To avoid appearance of them Stopping mid-cycle) Low Slot...Power Diagnostic Systems and Shield Regulators are one way to go (decreasing DRD). Now my do require a slight adjustment to HP mods (actually them going up) , in addition to requiring a lot of skill bonuses, and a look at hardeners...but I believe that I'm on the right track here. All Base HAVs, and sHAVs get 2325 HP base, split between Shields and armor in a racial flavor way...SHAVs and DHAVs are then adjusted based on the relative HP values of Sentinels and Commandos, and adjusted to be nice round numbers with approx even HP totals. (at least, that's what I started in on)...I'm currently working on trying to extrapolate fitting values for tiered progression right now Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:47:00 - [218] - Quote Of course I type this as Rattati makes a post 7 slots would be a great start, would be nice to see 3 players in a tank survive a full clip of swarms. Shield boosters would be more useful in the low slots, tank wise, they cost alot of resources which can generally be equalled by using another hardener or extender depending on playstyle. Otherwise there is nothing to put in low slots save for plates or ammo. Some sort of damage reduction control device would be nice if it could go in either a low or high. even if its 10% at proto. More cpu and pg would be great I know you will try your best to do this right so good luck.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 816	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:53:00 - [219] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Ratattati: I am excited for the proposed changes and for the chance to see different fittings on vehicles. - the loadouts you have on the sheet you made are terrible builds, please do not balance around these. Gunlogis need two hardeners at least vs todays iteration of av, rails, missles and nitro ramming blaster maddies, just to peek out of the redline... Nitro in the high=death. Anyone fitting a gunlogi with an armor rep is going to have problems. Madrugars need Nitro to close the gap and to get away from av as they can't tank as much damage as a double hardened Gunlogi. For the Gunlogi, this means 2 high slots will forever be spoken for by hardeners unless you want to pop everytime advanced swarms lock on you. Madrugars have either lots or armor or lots of reps and nitro. Doesn't leave much wiggle room for build diversity. If the new advanced and proto hulls have any chance of survival with the current slot layout ( 3/2 2/3 ) they will need stat buffs equal to a proto hardener or shield extender for caldari, armor plate or armor repper for gallente, otherwise there is not much point to skilling up to get marginally more ehp when a bunny hopping minmitar commando is still going to pop you in 5 seconds from behind random hill number 32. Even with gunners on all turrets, hit detection with swarms is near 100% and if he is on top of some building or tower that the tank can't even aim up at then 1 player > 3 players plus 100xs isk. The damage buffs per level seem to make sense and I like the increase to shield regen and armor. I would like to see a madrugar blaster fit be able to survive as long as a double hardened gunlogi blaster fit vs todays alpha av damage as it is a much better chassis to shoot infantry with. hey i run a gunnlogi with a nitro, light shield booster, extender, plate and light rep. missile turret. you would be surprised what i can do with it lol
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 763	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:11:00 - [220] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:34:00 - [221] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 764	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:52:00 - [222] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. Monitoring them is easy. once every 60 ecods flip the wheel. What wont be easy is fighting a 5-2 tank with two extenders ad three hardeners .You always manage to have one on and the other two in reserve, or pop all three on at the same time. given the majority of AV infantry and turrets arearmor based, its basically circling around being untouchable. Right now with tanks its requires a two vs one to beat a gunlogi with 2 hardeners and 1 extender, how are you going to best a gunlogi with an additional hardener and extender? I don't want to see turrets or Av overbuffed to compensate for this. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 02:05:00 - [223] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. Monitoring them is easy. once every 60 ecods flip the wheel. What wont be easy is fighting a 5-2 tank with two extenders ad three hardeners .You always manage to have one on and the other two in reserve, or pop all three on at the same time. given the majority of AV infantry and turrets arearmor based, its basically circling around being untouchable. Right now with tanks its requires a two vs one to beat a gunlogi with 2 hardeners and 1 extender, how are you going to best a gunlogi with an additional hardener and extender? I don't want to see turrets or Av overbuffed to compensate for this. That logic only works if you couldn't change the cooldown timers, active timers, resistance, etc. Also, that logic only applies if AV doesn't change, and all modules don't change. Do you see what the problem is? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:03:00 - [224] - Quote Just to point out, you didn't cover two things that is close to me (although you're doing a ** ton, and I see now why you're actually asking us to help you do stuff, so I get it, keep up the good work). I know that you said that those stats were not even set in stone, but were just to show us progress and stuffz, I'm just pointing these things out to keep in mind. 1: Blasters and missiles needs fixing. Blasters are not what people see as "Large turrets". They don't even match what blasters are; high DPS in a short range relative to everything else. As I have said numerous times, as have others (Pokey, Thaddeus, and to some extent Breakin and even True) wants blasters to change into a hard hitting shotgun turret, that has the highest DPS (not the lowest, which is what rails should be), but lowest range (it should have one of if not the lowest optimal's, but a spread to where hitting infantry at any decent ranges will be tricky, but hitting vehicles will be somewhat easy). This will make it into the proper large turret that it should be. As for missiles, they aren't missiles, they are OP rockets. Missiles I do agree need to come in, as I think mostly everyone agrees on. As for what I think they should be, they should be a semi-auto launcher that has a high alpha per missile, similar to the rail, but the differences being it has a higher damage per shot, but slower projectile, but it has either a guiding feature, a passive tracking for each missile, or some sort of similar homing feature. They would also have a slightly larger splash due to having a slower flying projectile. Rockets needs to be balanced to not out DPS blasters, and pretty much anything else that could come into existence. Rather, they need to be a similar ROF, and a higher splash, along with a better reload and a shotgun-like reloading system (imo, all turrets should have this, hell even some infantry weapons should too), it's damage (both direct and splash) gets reduced. 2: this doesn't cover the fact that HAV's really don't have a role atm, and because of that, they are left to just kill anything they see, which is pointless. Either infantry * because HAV's (and vehicles in general tbh) are slaying them, or Pilots * because either AV (which is atm irrevelant, just pointing this out) or other vehicles kills them too easy. This game is too focused on killing other , and as I point out with my concept of Logistic triangle concept, everything or a lot of the same thing can't have the same primary role, otherwise it'll end up being what can do tha trole the best and the cheapest, and that will be the things only used, and that is terrible for balance. I say that Vehicles should have their own specific roles, and their T II's being based around such a thing. HAV's in my opinion naturally takes up a role of large scale support and suppression/destruction. Basically, if someone needs a lot of damage done yesterday, or to scare the out of the enemy because they are so badass, they ask a HAV to do it, cuz' DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA! So how would we go about these two things? Simple: A- Large vehicle removal obviously, but that's not enough as explained above; rather, additional installations and structures to be added. What's the difference between Structures and Installations you ask (if you didn't ask, now you just did)? Well, Installations can be dropped in by both teams (maybe a Squad leader or team leader benefit only?), and when blown up can't be used anymore, and another must be called in. Structures on the other hand are Installation like, but built into the map, so attackers can't call them in (a benefit of owning the land), and it can be destroyed "or put into hibernation mode, or something), but it can also be repaired. These things would give HAV's, and really all other vehicles a thing to have to work around. gate locked down, and the only feasible way to get in is through it? Blow it open. Bridge in the map that saves 5 minutes, but is held down? Let infantry kill what's inside, and then lower it to cross. Hell, you could even use the bridge to get a HAV to come up to it to tr and cross, and blow it up, sending it to its death. B- Large turrets obviosuly shouldn't be as good as a infantry killer as should smaller turrets or actual dropsuit weapons should be. However, large turrets should be able to intimidate the ** out of them. I assume most of you has been on one side of the "HAV chasing a infantry around a crate with a railgun" or "Infantry constantly dodging a blaster shots to cover" situation. That should stick with this, although HAV's should have to rely on infantry, lighter vehicles, or their smalls to deal with AV imo. a big ass gun shouldn't be particularly good against a small ass target. The same fears should get although less, still stay when dealing with smaller vehicles. As far as variants goes, They should be shaped around these two concepts, and for that I don't agree with MArauders being a Ai platform or Enforcers a AV platform and nothing else. I get that these things don't exist right now, but that is a concern for me and I'm asking that they do exist. As for waiting on these things to exist provided you are willing to do these things, I have a proposal: seeing as MAV's aren't in yet (and assuming you do plan on putting them in at some point), Breakin and Thaddeus came up with the idea of increasing HAV passenger slots to make them a pseudo-MAV (and imo Thaddeus's idea of it is much more balanced). Both of their ideas however would be really not a good idea once MAV's come in, so I say this: add such a thing of some variation to at least temporarily give HAV's a solid role. However, once release all this stuff with MAV's, and take the extra slots away. Sounds like a good idea? That's all human. Get back to work. Blub. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:45:00 - [225] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! Sure thing, give me a day or two (this week sucked and I'm bushed tonight) However in general expect move more towards less base HP and more HP tied to modules. I'm planning on keeping hardeners around 30% at proto but with shorter duration and a longer cooldown with the intention of allowing players to cycle hardeners for a more constant boost to eHP, or allow them to stack them for massive resists for a short period but with a long downtime where they would be very vulnerable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Jigoku ReizaSan Heaven's Lost Property 1	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:48:00 - [226] - Quote As we are speaking about HAV Hulls may we have a railgun variant that has faster dps but lower damage with more heat build up??
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 194	Posted - 2015.01.24 05:53:00 - [227] - Quote Will two turret tanks still be an option? I have specific fits for a friend of mine that guns all the time, but I only use one small turret. Are we screwed? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.24 05:58:00 - [228] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Will two turret tanks still be an option? I have specific fits for a friend of mine that guns all the time, but I only use one small turret. Are we screwed? Another problem with the issue of making these solo HAV's. I'm still trying to figure out what's the point of them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:00:00 - [229] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Will two turret tanks still be an option? I have specific fits for a friend of mine that guns all the time, but I only use one small turret. Are we screwed? I guess a 3rd variant with a single turret? And then a 4th variant with a single turret in the other slot? Or just add vehicle locks and everything will be fine with the normal 3 turret HAV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 786	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:02:00 - [230] - Quote on the topic about shield hardened gunnlogis: ive fought today a guy who survived 8 forgegun hits in a row and then bugged off. And with 8 rounds i mean i and my buddy pummeled him up close. So 2 forgegunners couldnt do jack vs that thing. So could we finally get a proper anti shield AV weapon? Maybe a swarm launcher with EM warheads? Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 194	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:05:00 - [231] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Will two turret tanks still be an option? I have specific fits for a friend of mine that guns all the time, but I only use one small turret. Are we screwed? I guess a 3rd variant with a single turret? And then a 4th variant with a single turret in the other slot? Or just add vehicle locks and everything will be fine with the normal 3 turret HAV. Very much this. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:24:00 - [232] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Good stuff Yes, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret, have fixed OP. Existing modules can be changed relatively easily and I need the player base to propose changes to make them useful, as you all know I am not a big fan of ehp being the only choice. sHAVs being a specialized choice is not useless as it allows balancing of solo Havs against each other, instead of some using the HAV fitting power intended for small turrets to not fit small turrets and fit higher tiered modules. So you want the HP modules to go back to what they used to be like for Chrome, where hardeners offered more damage attenuation as they went up in meta level? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:27:00 - [233] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Can we allow a driver to operate all three turrets at once if no one else is in the tank? As people get in they would take control of them. Pilot suit The operation would be that you would aim your main turret as normal, and the small turrets would attempt to aim at that location as well. When you shoot all turrets capable of hitting the target would fire, any others such as the front turret when aiming behind you would not fire, or the too turret when aiming too far down as it would hit the tank instead. Pilot suit If this is not possible, can we add the small turrets to the module wheel so we can switch to them without having to change seats? This would let us move and operate our small turrets when needed, either against infantry or drop ships. That allows some idiot to get in the driver's seat and put it in the redline. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? I like being able to aim. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:28:00 - [234] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Firstly, I'm glad your refitting small turrets as a compulsory item and I'm liking the specialisations your going for too. Just be careful with difference between solo and regular HAV, if solos aren't comparable to regulars everyone will just use a regular with the 2 empty turrets. You're not a pilot, why do you care? Oh wait, you're here to look at any nerfs. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:33:00 - [235] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Absolutely. I will provide both today's AV to give you a baseline and then give my recommendations. And I am always happy to explain my logic. Will give baseline, max skilled so you can compare. Oh great I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:35:00 - [236] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. That's just silly, that's like a PRO tanked assault of any race being near killed by 2 rounds from a mass driver, and not a PRO one at that. That's not balance, that's just wrong. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:38:00 - [237] - Quote John Psi wrote: Dear Rattati, may be appropriate to completely remove the tanks from Ambush Gamemode? This saves infantry from the possible consequences of improper balance, which is very difficult to deal with the severe restrictions on the number of vehicles. Here we go again, someone wanting the game balanced around ambush. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:40:00 - [238] - Quote Syeven Reed wrote: As an infantry player and as potential AV, please create a 3 second timer (similar to the hacking circle) to enter and exit all vehicles. Then infantry has to wait 3 seconds after selecting a different suit at a depot before they can move. Oh, and you can be shot too. Does that sound fair? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:42:00 - [239] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. Regarding the above sentence, will the number of high/low slots stay the same as today? I understand no additional slots will be available through the progression, but will the "base" number (for all tiers) be altered? That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea. No, there wasn't a single pilot that wanted slots to stay the same. We want the STD tanks to have more, we want the Marauders to have even more. Keeping the slots the same offers little to no fitting variety, which is what we lost with 1.7. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2812	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:43:00 - [240] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Regis Blackbird wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 1 1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option. Regarding the above sentence, will the number of high/low slots stay the same as today? I understand no additional slots will be available through the progression, but will the "base" number (for all tiers) be altered? That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea. If we ever want game wide tiericide it is a necessary first step. Tiercide for vehicles, but no tiercide for infantry. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



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.