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)
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 816	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:19:00 - [241] - 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! or you could give us our pilot suits. let the pilot suit reduce the fitting cost of modules as a role bonus
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:39:00 - [242] - Quote Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:50:00 - [243] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Overhauling stats on a vehicle is not a ton of work and more in line with the capabilities of the current development team. Capacitor would basically be writing the code from scratch which is a shitload more work. As much as I would love to see a proper capacitor system, I really don't see it as a viable option at this time. When I do the numbers I plan to have a mix of active and passive modules that perform the same function to simulate non-cap stable and cap stable fits (the latter being passive and less effective, but always on). It's not quite the same as capacitors but it's a half way point and more within the limitations of the development staff. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4516	Posted - 2015.01.24 08:27:00 - [244] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: 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? The issue isn't lack of anti-shield weapons. It's that the Gunnlogi gets better passive reps than a complex armor repairer without spending a single slot in order to do so, and then uses the extra slot to stack a second hardener to push its eHP up to Madrugar levels, and then can fit armor plates in the lows to gain even more HP. The whole thing is ridiculous. I plan to help fix this by castrating the passive shield regen and then using shield Rechargers/Energizers/Boosters to push it back up if the player wants higher regen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6699	Posted - 2015.01.24 08:49:00 - [245] - Quote Hey Rattati if you focus on the hulls and making them fun, once we have a finalized setup and examples of rock-solid fits with EHP counts I'll be happy to make recommendations for AV on how to keep up with HAVs. I intend to keep my recommendations in the closer to the lower end of what I consider viable just to make sure your HAV rebalance isn't negated instantly by overperforming AV. If we do have to retouch AV then dropships will likely need some love shortly thereafter. I would like to see LAVs be less tanky without fittings. I am of the opinion that free disposable transports should be utterly inferior to a dedicated vehicle driver in even a militia LAV. I look at tanky free LAVs the same way I see logi tourists. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6699	Posted - 2015.01.24 08:52:00 - [246] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 want tiericide for dropsuits more than I want it for vehicles spkr. But if vehicles make it a solid "proof of concept" I will take it. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3758	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:23:00 - [247] - 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 may sound repetitive, but old stuff was actually good to fit proper racial HAV, Breakin spreadsheet. The low powered slots were for passive utilities (overdrive, damage mod and other turret enhace modules). High powered were for active mod (fortunately there wasn't active damage mod). There were also armor and shield transporter, but they need some change to prevent them from being OP and i disagree with Breakin model on this point. This model can be improved with after 1.6 good changes, such as turret reload, tank mobility and isk costs. AV can be successfully balanced when vehicles are in a good place with numbers. There is no need to hurry up, just take the time you need, i know it's long work, but i would rather wait more and have better stuff. Thanks Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:59:00 - [248] - Quote I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. The turret remote reps were to prevent easy spider tanking and to allow the removal of the cooldown the old rep modules had. I intended it to be so you could have a trailing logi LAV or dropship constantly repping without the pilot having to worry about anything other than staying both in range and focused on keeping AV from killing the logi team. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:02:00 - [249] - 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! 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml - This doc contains all the modules we had in chrome for shield/armor/engineering/electronics etc 2. It also contains the core PG/CPU skills - 5% per level to PG/CPU per level for engineering and electronics 3. Old marauders had 8 slots btw and the old basic HAVs had 7 slots and for chrome and uprising they were balanced mostly but armor was still king and the turrets were a bit off 4. I can brick tank a suit why is it against the rules to do so for vehicles? This is the whole point of variety being able to do something them making it work with experience 5. Power diagnostic systems, shield regulators, shield flux coils (EVE modules) 6. Shield boosters need to go back to being 5 pulses and each pulse over 3 seconds - Currently if anything hits it while boosting it stops and its wasted 7. These propsed fits are terrible 7a. Gunlogi never fits 2 extenders, its 2 hardeners because there is no other choice really and also the shield regen is not constantly passive either and the delay kills the shield regen ability 8. Unusable modules - There is barely any to begin with because the variety is at an all time low - Now if you compared the modules we have to chrome/uprising for me nearly all the current modules we have now are sub par to chrome/uprising modules 8a. Armor hardeners - Really useless in my book an armor rep is better or even a plate 8b. Shield boosters - Due to either not working or the regen being halted if it gets hit and the boost time of 1sec is the main problem i find
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3758	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:20:00 - [250] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. AV is not of my interest at the moment, i care to have enjoyable and worty vehicles. AV can then be buffed or nerfed as needed, once vehicle setup is in the right place, AV is dependant from vehicles not viceversa. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6701	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:46:00 - [251] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. AV is not of my interest at the moment, i care to have enjoyable and worty vehicles. AV can then be buffed or nerfed as needed, once vehicle setup is in the right place, AV is dependant from vehicles not viceversa. For game balance they are interdependent, not independent. Each has to go with the other. Neither exists in a vacuum. As far as fixing them? Until Rattati comes to the end or very close to the completion I literally CANNOT offer changes, only tag what we have. It's why I'm participating. So as soon as we have finalized numbers, then I'm going to work. Im just here to point out what might go pear shaped. my chrome numbers were based on what worked. But right now we are working basically from scratch. So I'm mostly here to watch, crunch numbers, poke soraya occasionally when he misbehaves and stand by to give recommendations. The reason I used the AV values in my chrome spreadsheets was because those AV nunumbers WORKED at the time. From what I'm seeing from ratman those numbers are no longer valid. So I'll cook new numbers based on what you HAV nerds hash out. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3758	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:51:00 - [252] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: For game balance they are interdependent, not independent. I'm just talking about theory, of course when things will be added to the game, they have to be balanced with each other. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:05:00 - [253] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. AV is not of my interest at the moment, i care to have enjoyable and worty vehicles. AV can then be buffed or nerfed as needed, once vehicle setup is in the right place, AV is dependant from vehicles not viceversa. For game balance they are interdependent, not independent. Each has to go with the other. Neither exists in a vacuum. As far as fixing them? Until Rattati comes to the end or very close to the completion I literally CANNOT offer changes, only tag what we have. It's why I'm participating. So as soon as we have finalized numbers, then I'm going to work. Im just here to point out what might go pear shaped. my chrome numbers were based on what worked. But right now we are working basically from scratch. So I'm mostly here to watch, crunch numbers, poke soraya occasionally when he misbehaves and stand by to give recommendations. The reason I used the AV values in my chrome spreadsheets was because those AV nunumbers WORKED at the time. From what I'm seeing from ratman those numbers are no longer valid. So I'll cook new numbers based on what you HAV nerds hash out. 1. Thats wrong - vehicles can exist without AV because vehicles can knock each other out, AV only exists for infantry but vehicles can do the job just fine
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6705	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:20:00 - [254] - Quote Your way means vehicles can kill infantry but not the reverse. This is not balance. Nor is it fun. I am not wrong because infantry and AV exist together in a combined arms shooter. Your assertion only works if there are no infantry to be casually farmed for free KD. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:27:00 - [255] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Your way means vehicles can kill infantry but not the reverse. This is not balance. Nor is it fun. I am not wrong because infantry and AV exist together in a combined arms shooter. Your assertion only works if there are no infantry to be casually farmed for free KD. 1. Never said anything about killing infantry or balance 2. Its a fact - vehicles can exist just to kill each other, they do not need AV but AV needs vehicles or it is useless - vehicles just exist now in dust to kill each other while AV does it better than a vehicle does anyways
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:18:00 - [256] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:22:00 - [257] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati if you focus on the hulls and making them fun, once we have a finalized setup and examples of rock-solid fits with EHP counts I'll be happy to make recommendations for AV on how to keep up with HAVs. I intend to keep my recommendations in the closer to the lower end of what I consider viable just to make sure your HAV rebalance isn't negated instantly by overperforming AV. If we do have to retouch AV then dropships will likely need some love shortly thereafter. I would like to see LAVs be less tanky without fittings. I am of the opinion that free disposable transports should be utterly inferior to a dedicated vehicle driver in even a militia LAV. I look at tanky free LAVs the same way I see logi tourists. Agreed click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:23:00 - [258] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. 1. Caps create balance 2. If caps were to be added all vehicles and modules have to be done from scratch 3. If caps were to be added just look at EVE, copy and paste what you need and its halfway there problem is i dont think PS3 can deal with it or CCP cant code it in or we would have had it by now - expect it in Legion
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:25:00 - [259] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I like my spreadsheet but you literally cannot use the HAVS without also sharply boosting AV capacity. The AV values there were from when in chrome a solid AV gunner could put those listed HAVs, including marauders, in check. The turret remote reps were to prevent easy spider tanking and to allow the removal of the cooldown the old rep modules had. I intended it to be so you could have a trailing logi LAV or dropship constantly repping without the pilot having to worry about anything other than staying both in range and focused on keeping AV from killing the logi team. 1: Spider tanking had several problems that kept them from being OP 2: LDS doesn't make any sense as a repping platform. 3: LLV actually does, but you want to make the pilot do jack **** but drive around in a LAV, forcing him/her to find someone else to operate it.That is forcing teamwork, and that never works. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2728	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:28:00 - [260] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. 1. Caps create balance 2. If caps were to be added all vehicles and modules have to be done from scratch 3. If caps were to be added just look at EVE, copy and paste what you need and its halfway there problem is i dont think PS3 can deal with it or CCP cant code it in or we would have had it by now - expect it in Legion 1: Caps don't create balance, balanced numbers create balance. 2: So more work for the dev. are you for this or against this? 3: Even in Legion it wouldn't work. I don't think you understand how much cap management takes up for brain power. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 621	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:35:00 - [261] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Rattati, are capacitors completely off the table? Adding capacitors and real Ewar (e.g. Webs, neuts, tracking disrupters) would solve so many of the balancing problems with vehicles and AV. You could for example brick the thing to hell, but you'd be ungodly slow and have little cap to run speed mods if you got into trouble. Or you could fit for cap regen and fit a repper that could run constantly, making you very strong in 1 v 1, but very vulnerable to burst alpha damage. Overall, with the ability to cripple vehicles through Ewar, you open up opportunities for fights to take longer, which is more strategic, satisfying, and fun gameplay. Capacitors should be the centerpiece of a vehicle overhaul. It provides many additional balancing vectors that only affect survivalbility indirectly. Caps would add too much to try and do at once on top of what we have now. 1. Caps create balance 2. If caps were to be added all vehicles and modules have to be done from scratch 3. If caps were to be added just look at EVE, copy and paste what you need and its halfway there problem is i dont think PS3 can deal with it or CCP cant code it in or we would have had it by now - expect it in Legion 1: Caps don't create balance, balanced numbers create balance. 2: So more work for the dev. are you for this or against this? 3: Even in Legion it wouldn't work. I don't think you understand how much cap management takes up for brain power. 1. They do in my book 2. Frankly if cap got added to all vehicles and just say it would take a solid 6months to a year i think i could deal with it considering i could perma run a hardener or 2 3. It would work in Legion because iots on PC, also its in EVE and only idiots cannot deal with caps, in uprising i handled 5active mods and that was fine
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:13:00 - [262] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. Frankly if cap got added to all vehicles and just say it would take a solid 6months to a year i think i could deal with it considering i could perma run a hardener or 2 Passive modules (Resistance Amps for your example) would accomplish a psuedo cap-stable fit. Also CCP is not going to dedicate months to implement a capacitor system. Maybe if they had a full Dev team dedicated to the game, but we don't. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 625	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:31:00 - [263] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. Frankly if cap got added to all vehicles and just say it would take a solid 6months to a year i think i could deal with it considering i could perma run a hardener or 2 Passive modules (Resistance Amps for your example) would accomplish a psuedo cap-stable fit. Also CCP is not going to dedicate months to implement a capacitor system. Maybe if they had a full Dev team dedicated to the game, but we don't. 1. We had them in chrome and uprising to begin with, CCP took them away 2. They are availible in EVE 3. Its a better system overall
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:13:00 - [264] - Quote Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust. Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2821	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:16:00 - [265] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: [quote=CCP Rattati]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. If you have devhax to get a character on an internal server to get enough SP required to do that, that's great. If not, it's going to take you a glacially long time to get the SP to get vehicle core skills to level 5. Join a squad with me some time, I'll tell you how it's been. 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. There aren't any vehicles with the PRO tag attached to them, therefore we don't have PRO vehicles. 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. You're adding mobile fortresses and destroyers at the same time, we didn't have that for Chrome/Uprising. A baseline for the STD tanks should be 4/2 and 2/4. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. If we get good bonuses to the ultra heavies, such as bonus to reps for armor, recharge for shield, and resistance as a class bonus, then people won't be brick tanking tanks. There would then be purpose into a Caldari vehicle being a shield vehicle; I'd say the reverse for the Gallente vehicles, but it's incredibly difficult to fit shield extenders, boosters or hardeners on one of those hulls. A bonus to small turrets is just silly. That makes it sound like they'll be able to take on tanks by themselves. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. The only shield module for dropsuits in the lows is the shield regulator. All it does is decrease the time it takes for the shield to start recharging. Vehicles shouldn't have a delay recharge, they should recharge at all time, albeit at a slow pace. There won't be able need for low slot shield mods. 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" Shield hardeners should go back to a set number of pulses for a set duration of time, but not be useless like they were during Chrome and Uprising. Those boosters offered far too little shield. The extenders should increase the recharge rate - that's what I've been told of EVE lore, adding extenders increases the recharge rate, while also increasing the signature profile. Armor reps need to go back to active. Armor hardeners need to be vastly improved, bringing them much closer to shield hardeners. Dust has always had only one superior hull. It used to be armor for a long time, then it became shield when 1.7 was deployed. They should be roughly equal, with the turrets being the obvious main difference. I liked when you said that vehicle modules would be good if their cooldown was like the cloak: only cools down what was used, rather than going through a full cycle. Hardeners should also offer more damage attenuation from STD - ADV - PRO. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 634	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:18:00 - [266] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust. Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass. 1. You need to take your meds 2. I already said CCP took them away - what part of that dont you understand? 3. Ive beeing saying go back to chrome and uprising for the past 6months it feels like - I guess you missed that also
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2822	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:20:00 - [267] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: For game balance they are interdependent, not independent. V vs V is just fine; the game should be balanced around FW and PC, where there are squads working together, not pubs where it's full PRO squads annihilating academy grads. Each has to go with the other. Neither exists in a vacuum. AV launches vehicles into the vacuum of space. As far as fixing them? Until Rattati comes to the end or very close to the completion I literally CANNOT offer changes, only tag what we have. It's why I'm participating. So as soon as we have finalized numbers, then I'm going to work. We need to make up our own numbers and theorize on the values and modules. my chrome numbers were based on what worked. All of Chrome worked. Vehicles pounded the hell out of each other, and we left infantry alone to do that. poke soraya occasionally when he misbehaves Occasionally misbehaves? He's outright being hateful towards pilots. That is absolutely not the kind of conduct a supposed "community representative" should have towards the people he's supposed to be representing. and stand by to give recommendations. I've looked at them, I've looked at the numbers, and they're all terrible. The reason I used the AV values in my chrome spreadsheets was because those AV nunumbers WORKED at the time. You just want one STD packed AV grenade to instapop LAVs again. From what I'm seeing from ratman those numbers are no longer valid. So I'll cook new numbers based on what you HAV nerds hash out. Sounds like all that bunk about you having a "pilot alt" is exactly that: BS. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4518	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:24:00 - [268] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well that's cute Sparky, but again it's probably not happening considering the lack of Dev support on Dust. Also I'm reintroducing passive modules, as I've said like...a dozen times. But i can't expect you to comprehend things so I'll let it pass. 1. You need to take your meds 2. I already said CCP took them away - what part of that dont you understand? 3. Ive beeing saying go back to chrome and uprising for the past 6months it feels like - I guess you missed that also pats your head Don't try too hard little guy Spkr4theDead wrote: The only shield module for dropsuits in the lows is the shield regulator. All it does is decrease the time it takes for the shield to start recharging. Vehicles shouldn't have a delay recharge, they should recharge at all time, albeit at a slow pace. There won't be able need for low slot shield mods. Well, as I've explained before, if you really want shields to operate like they do in EVE, then the shield recharge rate with compensation for Dust's pace of gameplay would be roughly 10-20 HP/s. Is that what you want? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2822	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:28:00 - [269] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: Spider tanking had several problems that kept them from being OP The rep tank had weak offense and defense while keeping the main tank alive. 2: LDS doesn't make any sense as a repping platform. It didn't before they were removed. I'm a fan of remote reps from a dropship to be in the form of a cone, so the pilot doesn't have to spend 10 minutes locking on to a target. The pilot simply flies over the vehicle that needs reps, activates it, and then can float around the vehicle so they at least have some momentum if they start getting hit. 3: LLV actually does, but you want to make the pilot do nothing but drive around in a LAV, forcing him/her to find someone else to operate it.That is forcing teamwork, and that never works. And it's not even good teamwork. There's not a single thing in the game that requires 2 people to use something for its intended purpose. Logis don't need someone to take their equipment out of a backpack so they can use it. Commandos don't need someone to carry their second light weapon. Heavies don't need 2 extra people to support the weight of a heavy weapon. Scouts don't run around for a bit, find a place to hide, then crouch down on a knee to call up Otacon and tell him what the situation is. Assaults don't need someone to point to them to tell them where to shoot. There's no reason at all that a logi LAV must have 2 people to be used for its intended purpose. Remote reps on those can be a circular AoE, rather than the impossibly clunky system they used to have. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 416	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:49:00 - [270] - 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! How about a Explosive Plate mod that only gives ehp if you are hit by missiles? special plate or frequency shield that only buffs against a certain weapon type (Rock,Paper thing)



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.