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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15378	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:22:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Derrith Erador Heaven's Lost Property 3326	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:29:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet For the DHAV, would these turret skills benefit its AI capabilities, or its AV capabilities? I'm of the belief that there should be an AI and an AV variant to tanks. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15379	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:31:00 - [3] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet For the DHAV, would these turret skills benefit its AI capabilities, or its AV capabilities? I'm of the belief that there should be an AI and an AV variant to tanks. Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 314	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:32:00 - [4] - Quote Ok did I see that your using stand in models for Amarr and Minmatar vehicles? Edit: True will be happy No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Derrith Erador Heaven's Lost Property 3326	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:39:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets Gotcha. Well, honestly speaking, if you're trying to make the Ultras AI, dealing more damage is going the wrong direction. I would instead improve features of the turrets themselves. For instance, the problem with the blasters is their god awful dispersion. Changing the bonus to lower the dispersion of the AI tank will definitely increase its AI capabilities per level, without improving any AV functionality. adding damage to destroyers is a good concept, except in the case of the blasters. I would recommend making the skill to be something like increased ROF and decreased heat build up to make up for the ROF. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Oh yeah?! Well, I love redheads.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15382	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:44:00 - [6] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets Gotcha. Well, honestly speaking, if you're trying to make the Ultras AI, dealing more damage is going the wrong direction. I would instead improve features of the turrets themselves. For instance, the problem with the blasters is their god awful dispersion. Changing the bonus to lower the dispersion of the AI tank will definitely increase its AI capabilities per level, without improving any AV functionality. adding damage to destroyers is a good concept, except in the case of the blasters. I would recommend making the skill to be something like increased ROF and decreased heat build up to make up for the ROF. These bonuses should be up for discussion, when we get past the design vision in the OP. They were meant as "generally better small blasters" for Ultras, Destroyers "generally better at destroying Vehicles. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 730	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:52:00 - [7] - Quote Actually , I approve of almost everythng here. AI Large missile turrets, oh you make me swoon. 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. Skillbooks: What i find contentious is having Two skill books/ SP sinks for solo tanks, and tanks with small turrets, basically double the SP for the same tank. I do believe that fitting small turrets should be up to the player who is paying for the hull and investing the SP, its like asking infantry to speccing into a proto heavy suit twice, once for an HMG and once for a forge gun. Why not a bit of tiericide in this regard, e.g. level 1 tanks gives the option of either buying the tank with small turrets but more PG and CPU or a solo tank with realtively less PG and CPU. A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 175	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:56:00 - [8] - Quote Reserved Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15383	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:56:00 - [9] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5521	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:57:00 - [10] - Quote 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. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.

Supacharjed Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 129	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:58:00 - [11] - Quote This is probably a stupid question, but: "all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank." So, we are unable to change this? If that is so, can we assume that: HAV = 1 AV turret (Gunnlogi) and 1AI turret (Madrugar) DHAV = All AV turrets, but different ones. UHAV = All AI turrets, but different ones. Has been playing Dust for ages. Can't aim for peanuts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15383	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:59:00 - [12] - Quote Supacharjed wrote: This is probably a stupid question, but: "all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank." So, we are unable to change this? If that is so, can we assume that: HAV = 1 AV turret (Gunnlogi) and 1AI turret (Madrugar) DHAV = All AV turrets, but different ones. UHAV = All AI turrets, but different ones. You can always override the turrets with different small turrets, you just can't remove the base turret from the fitting. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2284	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:04:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet For the DHAV, would these turret skills benefit its AI capabilities, or its AV capabilities? I'm of the belief that there should be an AI and an AV variant to tanks. Destroyers are purely AV, Ultras are AI and should be able to withstand quite a lot of infantry AV punishment, especially fitted with dmg boosted small turrets You need to be careful when deciding how much damage UHAVs can withstand versus how much damage DHAVs can deal. The DHAV's damage bonuses should outweigh the UHAV's defense bonuses. Otherwise UHAVs will simply be better all around because they will 1) have better AI capabilities and 2) their strong defence against infantry AV also allows them to withstand the damage from a DHAV, buying them time to get through the weaker defense of the DHAV. In my honest opinion, the UHAV should have the weaker defense and the DHAV the stronger defense. If the UHAV is to be primarily AI, then its defense against infantry AV should be its infantry offence. This will make it weak against the DHAV since the DHAV will have the higher defense and higher AV capability. The DHAV will have less AI power so it should rely on defense against AV rather than offense. Otherwise, as has been posted, giving UHAVs a strong infantry AV defense will require that DHAVs have an insane amount of offense to get through a UHAV's defence before the UHAV can use its weaker AV capability to get through the DHAV's weaker defense. Another problem with this setup is that DHAVs will be nearly insta-killing one another and their low defense against infantry AV will probably make DHAVs extremely costly to operate. I'd much prefer my suggestion, where DHAVs have the higher defence allowing them to easily beat UHAVs while giving up the ability to fight infantry and will be forced to retreat under AV fire. This setup will also allow for meaningful and tactical DHAV vs DHAV combat as opposed to the other setup where the first person to shoot wins due to massive damage and a weak defence. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5163	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:06:00 - [14] - Quote Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Neckbeard for Good charity shave

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15384	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:10:00 - [15] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Tiered progression of "you are not a true Amarr vehicle" Sinner Unbeliever Stigmatus Repentant But this belongs in another thread, who is going to go start it! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 410	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:11:00 - [16] - Quote So we are going to have an Anti-Infantry tank (Ultra) that can take more punishment than the best Gunnilogi's can at the moment... but there will be an optional Anti-Tank tank (Destroyer) that can pop it. Destroyers are fast glass cannons, Ultras are slow with AV resistances. See... the issue of OP tanks we had in the past meant that most matches were decided by which team had the most Solid State Harddrive upgraded tank players. They spawn in way faster, drop in their tank and get position. Then the team that spawned in LAV's or had less SSD tank players would lose the first round. From there the OP tanks would press their advantage and wipe out the remaining players with fast scouts. Tanks push up to the red line, dropping most other tanks before they can get out of their redline. Infantry pushes up... and match is over. It boiled down to who got 5 tanks on the field first. Infantry were a non factor aside from hacking a letter or two, otherwise they just padded the stats of the Vehicle players... could have been replaced by AI bots for all that they mattered. I trust that this will not lead to Tanks 514 2.0 Shooting at vehicles from the redline that have a 200 meter range when you have a 173 meter lock on range is not fun. Nor is being head shot by Thales/Charge snipers while you are trying to fire a forge gun... from the red line... because the other team got 5 tanks on the field before your team did. It really was horrible in Ambush before the vehicle restriction was brought into play. Non-vehicle players literally spawned in with AV on the first spawn... and knew they were going to go negative KDR. Others just avoided it and Skirmish altogether due to the OP vehicle spam, and resided to sniping or AFK'ing in dom matches. Seeing thoughts on a Marauder tank re-purposed to have Dmg bonuses vs infantry and have an ability to take extreme punishment from Infantry based AV seems like a huge step right back to OP tanks. The only thing to take them out being Destroyer tanks... which is a high progression option... How many weeks or months will I have to train SP to finally be able to take one of the Ultras down? Will we have to take up to 1/4 or 1/3 of our team to take out one of them? Leaving the objectives undefended? Will it take my whole squad 10 minutes to win 1 tank battle and lose my matches because of the distraction it is to my entire team? In my opinion... this Ultra tank idea will throw all the balancing to the game modes themselves right out the window in short order. Infantry weapons, gear and ewar have all been reeled in or balanced to a great degree... Dust is more balanced and offers more options today than it has in it's entirety. One OP tank can and will make all my options worthless, as I will only have two. AV with the help of an entire squad, or snipe from the redline... unless I am lucky enough to have all the prerequisites to quickly jump into a Destroyer, that will be so weak... that all the bored infantry on the Ultra's team will switch to AV and make short work of my Glass Cannon. After a few weeks, this cycle will be much like it was in the past, wherein infantry spawn in with sniper or AV fits by default as they watch to see who won the "Spawn 5 tanks first" competition. Those unlucky tankers that do spawn in late will be met by a hail of AV from infantry and other vehicles alike... unable to turn the tides of a battle that was decided on the first spawn. tl:dr Ultra Tank = Bad Idea http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9304	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:11:00 - [17] - Quote 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). Amarr are the good guys Join "PIE Ground Control" for secure Amarr FW syncing and orbital support
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 730	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:16:00 - [18] - Quote 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. I really don't want this thread to degenerate through bickering. Looking right at you Soraya. You're beating a dead horse, Just to make things clear for you currently i can fit an identical ehp gunlogi with a small turrets or without, one's called Groot, the other is called Groot+ Rocket base of this fit Two complex extenders /1 complex hardener adv large missile. Groot has complex CPU + missile mag Groot+Rocket has 2 complex CPU and Two Protoype Small Particle Cannons. Thats like having two Incubus shoot you at the same time as the large missile without sacrificing any eHP. They already are more powerful. However, i only pull out Groot + Rocket if i can have squadmates jump in because rule no 2 of tanking is never rely on blueberries. rule no 1 is never leave your tank. @ Rattati, thanks for that compromise, any thoughts on how deep the SP sink will go? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:19:00 - [19] - Quote 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? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:24:00 - [20] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16748	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:24:00 - [21] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15386	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:27:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. Who cares what True thinks, wait, is he right behind me? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 410	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:28:00 - [23] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. Glad to hear it. Thanks. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16748	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:28:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Not even remotely. This is not Warhammer 40k. Who cares what True thinks, wait, is he right behind me? * Peers into the CCP Offices from X stories up. "I think you'll find I am everywhere......and no where CCP Rattati" *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:34:00 - [25] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 175	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:42:00 - [26] - Quote As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15388	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:42:00 - [27] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. I need to see how the numbers pan out. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16749	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:48:00 - [28] - Quote Alex-ZX wrote: As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Why would you have to be stationary to fire a standard conventional tank gun? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15389	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:50:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alex-ZX wrote: As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Why would you have to be stationary to fire a standard conventional tank gun? nownow, this is not a future/real world/eve lore/bickering thread! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1954	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:05:00 - [30] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. Are we talking talking 2 small turrets and 1 large turret? or are we talking unchangeable large turrets? Presuming the former the main reason vehicles petitioned so hard to not have mandatory small turrets was because of the incredible frustration of dealing with people who would get in vehicles and NEVER leave them, or do things like fire turrets at nothing warning enemies of your location. This should only be done if there squad-lock on vehicles. If we're talking the latter I strongly disagree as it severely removes a lot of customization options. It would like forcing AR's/shotguns on all gallente suits. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15389	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:08:00 - [31] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. Are we talking talking 2 small turrets and 1 large turret? or are we talking unchangeable large turrets? Presuming the former the main reason vehicles petitioned so hard to not have mandatory small turrets was because of the incredible frustration of dealing with people who would get in vehicles and NEVER leave them, or do things like fire turrets at nothing warning enemies of your location. This should only be done if there squad-lock on vehicles. If we're talking the latter I strongly disagree as it severely removes a lot of customization options. It would like forcing AR's/shotguns on all gallente suits. Read, not rage "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1955	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:11:00 - [32] - Quote ^I wasn't raging, was asking for clarification. Which I've found in the SHAV skill. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21002	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:14:00 - [33] - Quote True, Rattati is hinting at an Amarr HAV. Why aren't you busy worshipping him? What kind of skill multipliers are you thinking of for the new skills Rattati? Sometimes, one just has an overwhelming urge to throw a potato at someone.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 277	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:15:00 - [34] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. You can also create substantial fitting bonuses to small turrets as part of the MBT skillbook
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7948	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:16:00 - [35] - Quote What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15390	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:20:00 - [36] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4481	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:22:00 - [37] - Quote 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. Well this would deal with the issue of AV being tiered and vehicle hull not. It allows you to balance Proto against Proto. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. I'm going to assume that these are Yellow turrets and can be swapped out for what we really want. 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. Reasonable approach. I like consistency. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV. I'm a little confused by what this means. Are these basically Highs/Lows/Main Turret/Small Turrets? 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto This is consistent with dropsuits and what was discussed in the thread. 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. This seems kind of pointless unless the price point is lower (minus the cost of the prefit turrets) which I assume is your plan. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets Basically Marauders - as discussed. +1 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. Basically Enforcers - as discussed. +1 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments Agreed. Consider less effective passive versions in addition to active ones. We've had these in the past and they were useful 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Sounds fair. Though we really need to take a look at the normal Missile Launchers in general...there are issues Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Yep Yep, as discussed. Always good to have them ready in case ...you know, we get racial models at a later date. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons Good stuff. That's later down the link but I'll start updating my existing proposal to the next version taking this roadmap into account, and begin working with the others to start looking at values for the new vehicles as well as reworking existing ones. Keep in mind that as you are aware there are several key things that make the Gunnlogi and Madrugar imbalanced against one another, and I believe in order to make them balanced without breaking them, some additional modules (which have existed in the past) may be needed to achieve this goal. Is it your intention to also look at modifying existing modules to meet these new HAV changes? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:30:00 - [38] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 175	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:38:00 - [39] - Quote About pre fitted turrets I don't really think is a good idea because there would happen the same as apex suits, versatility is what many of us love from this game, and being forced to use a certain weapon isn't something that would completely attract ppl attention... Names for minmatar comes from Nordic myth, animales, blades, natural disasters and war. I would never them them with Excalibur Snake or howl Gungnir (Odin's lance) Tsunami Earthquake Those are the names I would use to name minmatar tanks Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15391	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:39:00 - [40] - Quote Our Resident Lore Keeper has started the naming thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583546 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 812	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:44:00 - [41] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. 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. 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. 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. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers?

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:48:00 - [42] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. 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. 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. 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. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? The turrets are there for team play, not for commanders to be even more efficient at everything. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

LAVALLOIS Nash 460	Posted - 2015.01.22 07:55:00 - [43] - Quote I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15395	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:01:00 - [44] - Quote LAVALLOIS Nash wrote: I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched. I was just thinking aesthetically amarr and gallente look more similar, and caldari and minmatar. plus, easier to retrofit an armor rep tank to plate tank, than a shield based hull to armor. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 812	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:22:00 - [45] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the plausibility of changing turret mechanics? For instance, the Fragmented Large Missile Turret having missiles that have bullet drop instead of firing straight? A blaster that fires much slower with high damage rounds primarily for AV use? Just a few spit-balled ideas. As far as the overall progression presentation demonstrated in the OP I found it rather... confusing. Need time to wrap my head around it and the spreadsheet before I can give better feedback, but even then it'll be limited for reasons mentioned in the previous thread. No physics based changes. Current mechanics can be changed. 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. 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. 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. And can we get vehicle mounted swarm launchers? The turrets are there for team play, not for commanders to be even more efficient at everything. Why is there no option besides ADS to operate a small turret as a driver? You want battles to escalate, then we need a vehicle similar to the LAV that we can use as AI. Small and cheap. Could we allow driver to operate the small turret on LAVs? Currently we no ground based solo AI vehicle
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 176	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:37:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alex-ZX wrote: As a future weapon I would add artillery turrets. U can't move while using them, so u are in a siege mode. It has to be a medium range turret to prevent redliners. To make it viable in the battlefield it should have the bonus to reduce all ur profile. Or in a future add something like a kind of stealth tank, to make it more tactical in the battlefield. To shoot it u have to see the map, like using a strike. Short periods of fire, long reload time. Anti infantry. Why would you have to be stationary to fire a standard conventional tank gun? nownow, this is not a future/real world/eve lore/bickering thread! Apologizes for that comment, if u can erase it just do it. If u are going to introduce amarr and minmatar tanks at least give them good things, following the same thing of usual dropsuits Amarr heavy armor tank low movement Caldari heavy shield tank decent shield regeneration Gallente viable rep tanking Minmatar high speed good shield regeneration Another thing that could help with the specialist role in tanks is a kind if bonus in modules, like 3% bonus in shield modules and armor, in their respective races Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3621	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:50:00 - [47] - Quote 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. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3621	Posted - 2015.01.22 08:57:00 - [48] - Quote LAVALLOIS Nash wrote: I really like the entire idea, its well thought out. Now, im not a full time tanker, so I cant contribute that much in terms of CPU/PG balance, but there is one part I do want to comment on: CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I understand the reason (Armor tanking philosophies, ect), but does the models have to be the same? I mean, lore wise, it would make sense that if the Minmatar were having problems sourcing their own HAVs inhouse, that they would turn to their ally, the Gallente, and work something out to either buy old stock from them or new stocked contracted out. I just think that it makes more sense that the factions without tanks acquire them by contracting their allies best manufacturers. They should still keep the same stats as on your spreadsheet, but the actual, visual models should be switched. Bearing in mind the lack of staff currently working on DUST, about a half dozen at last count, now go lookingnat the dev blog where they showed you step by step how they made the rail rifle, now scale it up for a tank, include it's programming to make it a moveable object in game, yada yada. Don't think of them as being caldari tanks being used by the Minmatar, just think of them as Minmatar tanks that look very similar. Besides once the object exsists in-game, changing it's apperance can be done at a more leisurely pace, to give it the intention it deserves. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:09:00 - [49] - 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. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:14:00 - [50] - Quote Since you seem to have a guiderail now a couple notes. My spreadsheet was incomplete but I'm sure you can extrapolate my intent based on what I changed vs. What was kept from chrome. I am assuming you intend for these new HAV guidelines to run opposite of AV as it is now. If this is the case, would it be helpful to convert the stats of my proposed AV weapons such as the autocannon, scram lance, plasma mortar and Arc cannon to conform to today's AV meta? I'm inclined to leave the actual hammering on hulls to the people who know better than I the strengths and weaknesses of the HAVs. But I know AV like the back of my hand. I know where it is strong, where it's weak and now that I understand the weapon relations between stats I'd like to help. The elephants in the room do need to be addressed though for your hull initiative to work well. That is the plasma cannon underperforming and swarms rocking almost 400 dps higher at baseline than even the IAFG. Would you like me to do the conversions for my chrome base AV to today? Or any other DPS range you care to name. My turret numbers should still be viable. VHCL

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4327	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:16:00 - [51] - Quote 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. This is probably one of my favorite parts about this idea. I know you mentioned visiting at a later date, but I think it would be a good way to go with drop suits as well. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:17:00 - [52] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Since you seem to have a guiderail now a couple notes. My spreadsheet was incomplete but I'm sure you can extrapolate my intent based on what I changed vs. What was kept from chrome. I am assuming you intend for these new HAV guidelines to run opposite of AV as it is now. If this is the case, would it be helpful to convert the stats of my proposed AV weapons such as the autocannon, scram lance, plasma mortar and Arc cannon to conform to today's AV meta? I'm inclined to leave the actual hammering on hulls to the people who know better than I the strengths and weaknesses of the HAVs. But I know AV like the back of my hand. I know where it is strong, where it's weak and now that I understand the weapon relations between stats I'd like to help. The elephants in the room do need to be addressed though for your hull initiative to work well. That is the plasma cannon underperforming and swarms rocking almost 400 dps higher at baseline than even the IAFG. Would you like me to do the conversions for my chrome base AV to today? Or any other DPS range you care to name. My turret numbers should still be viable. What is missing in my sheet is the total current Infantry AV capability as a baseline, it would be very helpful if you tackle that, just like I set up the Turret sheet in my doc. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:19:00 - [53] - Quote 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. VHCL
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16752	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:22:00 - [54] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: True, Rattati is hinting at an Amarr HAV. Why aren't you busy worshipping him? What kind of skill multipliers are you thinking of for the new skills Rattati? It's been dangled before...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7948	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:27:00 - [55] - Quote - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:29:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:37:00 - [57] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. so skill into the solo HAV ;) "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15403	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:40:00 - [58] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:43:00 - [59] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. This is beside the point. We are keeping solo HAVs , which hopefully can perform on a realtively similar level. you don't have to run turret fit HAVS if you dont want to. Soraya Xel wants to jump inside of somebody elses tank that they invested a ton isk/ SPtank into to experience shooting an LAV turret. And it looks he's getting it. My concerns are just that 1) Solo HAVs run just as well as min-max fit MBTs and 2) that having both options doesn't become an unessecary SP sink. Believe me, i am just as much against mandatory turrets are you are. But we we need to stay on topic here, and have a constructive approach. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:47:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18393	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:51:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Flagellant (madrugar hull) Lol, clever name for the Amarr tank Rattati. I wonder if True Adamance will approve of it too. Tiered progression of "you are not a true Amarr vehicle" Sinner Unbeliever Stigmatus Repentant But this belongs in another thread, who is going to go start it! I have! https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583639#post2583639 CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:55:00 - [62] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. so skill into the solo HAV ;) That wouldn't solve #1, or any variation of #1. It would also hinder #2 in certain variations (I had AV sit outside of my HAV in wait before, but otherwise they were inside of my HAV). You're 1 for 3. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:56:00 - [63] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. A properly tanked LAV, especially in the past would out tank DS's......... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 902	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:57:00 - [64] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. This seems the right idea.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 10:00:00 - [65] - Quote I have a issue with the tiering of HAV's. You shape it around AV so it's easier to balance around AV. I get that. What I don't get is pricing. The CPU and PG skills did the same thing for a one time price, yet this would end up being much more expensive, particularly at PROTO level. People has been telling me "Then just nerf vehicles to reduce the price", and that would end up in a 1.6 situation, and I simply refuse for that to happen. I don't want to be made of freaking paper ever again. So, what is your solution to this exactly? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
John Psi Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 1169	Posted - 2015.01.22 10:35:00 - [66] - Quote 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. Please support fair play!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 10:58:00 - [67] - Quote My recommendation for pricing is that DHAVs be around 30% cheaper than a main battle tank at baseline. They need to be poorman HAVs. There is also no reason to have three seats in a suicide sled. The only historical justifications for glass cannons have been "scout tanks" or more commonly expense. I recommend UHAVs be no more than 30% more expensive than main battle tanks. While I recognize they are going to be hard to kill, pilots should not feel punished for choosing to run an infantry suppression vehicle. Depending how the progression goes and what the bonuses are I would recommend that they be priced similarly to the main battle tanks. So far as turrets and AV: IF you are actively working on meta locked battles then the tiers of turrets and AV need to be balanced to fight matching hulls . I.E. a standard/mlt gunnlogi/maddy/chameleon/amarr MBT needs to be primarily counterable by militia and standard AV weapons. Right now ALL HAV variants are balanced against proto AV. If we are breaking into tiers then we'll needs to account for this. If the only solution is an IAFG/Wiyrkomi swarm at all levels I think we're doing it wrong. VHCL
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:01:00 - [68] - Quote Also, something just occured to me: Often times, people will spawn in a obscenely large amount of LAV's for personal transport, cutting me and other actual pilots of spawning their own vehicles, cutting us off from actually playing how we want. I get that vehicel limits needs to be there, but cutting us off of our vehicles shouldn't be a thing. So I say this: Being a piloit should come with the added bonus of getting priority to spawn in their vehicle within a certain time period at the start of the match. So say 10-15 seconds at the start of the match, only pilots can spawn in their vehicles. And to keep it from being tied to a skill and useless until it is at lvl 5, or too easy to get, you should only unlock the bonus if you're 1: Either lvl 3 in the skill 2: Enough SP into vehicle skills 3: Wearing a Pilot Suit click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7949	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:04:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. Heh heh heh, nice. Might actually go back into AV in that case. Tesfa Alem wrote: Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. Bearing in mind of course that the ADS can/will fire back and probably one/two shot whatever infantry it's aiming at with a small missile turret. I like the idea of DHAVs being good against UHAVs but I can't stress enough how they should be vulnerable to infantry. ADS weren't "vulnerable" unless they were just an absolutely terrible pilot. They can run away, they can fire back, they can engage hardeners/boosters, what-have-you. Not really the point though. Breakin Stuff wrote: My recommendation for pricing is that DHAVs be around 30% cheaper than a main battle tank at baseline. They need to be poorman HAVs. There is also no reason to have three seats in a suicide sled. The only historical justifications for glass cannons have been "scout tanks" or more commonly expense. I recommend UHAVs be no more than 30% more expensive than main battle tanks. While I recognize they are going to be hard to kill, pilots should not feel punished for choosing to run an infantry suppression vehicle. Depending how the progression goes and what the bonuses are I would recommend that they be priced similarly to the main battle tanks. Pricing should be considered after everything else. It's a terrible balance mechanic, we're already working on more ways for players to accumulate ISK, and it's basically just a random number for anyone other than newbros. Which, to my knowledge, we're already addressing. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:05:00 - [70] - Quote Only the third option on your list wouldn't tremendously punish novice pilots godin. Never mind transport LAVs are often critical to squads for getting into position. Pilots should havea way to call their stuff. But other players SHOULD NOT be punished for not being pilot primary. VHCL

Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1193	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:07:00 - [71] - Quote 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. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:08:00 - [72] - Quote I'm not suggesting they be used as a balance mechanic tesfa. But I have to acknowledge that DHAVs are going to get stacked up like cordwood on the battlefield. VHCL
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 279	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:13:00 - [73] - 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. only exit is needed, calling in a vehicle already leaves you vulnerable enough
anaboop NECROM0NGERS 157	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:13:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments My only concern is this, could something more suited for missiles be added? Before anyone says tracking modules would help. I've never had troubles with turning so i wont need it. Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:15:00 - [75] - Quote Missile shotgun needs to die. VHCL
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1193	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:23:00 - [76] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: 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. only exit is needed, calling in a vehicle already leaves you vulnerable enough Im talking about the heavy that jumps out, low on health, gets scared and hops back in his death machine.. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 573	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:30:00 - [77] - Quote 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?
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:32:00 - [78] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Only the third option on your list wouldn't tremendously punish novice pilots godin. Never mind transport LAVs are often critical to squads for getting into position. Pilots should havea way to call their stuff. But other players SHOULD NOT be punished for not being pilot primary. I was just throwing out ideas, I didn't really think about them much at all. I just want some way for this not to be a issue. It's bad when I have to wait just for infantry to get a speed boost (when in reality they shouldn't be calling in vehicles for solo transport other than say a speeder, but rather, a pilot transports them imo), but it's even worse when I can't even call my own vehicles in because multiple people instead of getting into one LAV or so, calls in their own individual LAV's, going so far as to making people walk because they don't want to wait 2 seconds for them to walk over to them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:34:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Missile shotgun needs to die. And Blaster shotgun needs to come alive click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:35:00 - [80] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2710	Posted - 2015.01.22 11:53:00 - [81] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:26:00 - [82] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow) 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet I don't think any pilot is going to like only having 3/2 and 2/3 for slots on the Marauders and Enforcers. If you really do want say, the Surya to be destroyed by a laser, you're looking at base armor of at least 10,000, with all 3 low slots having reps, and probably a bonus to the reps as the racial skill. The class skill could be passive armor hardening. Sagaris could have a bonus to shield recharge. But yeah, I love the idea of an ultra heavy tank, but the lack of slots.... doesn't allow much variety, which is what we want back. And as far as the tanks and ADS go, the fitting is invalid unless we put a main turret on them, so being prefit with a turret is kind of moot. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:33:00 - [83] - 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. If we ever want game wide tiericide it is a necessary first step. VHCL
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:36:00 - [84] - Quote 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. VHCL
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:48:00 - [85] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: Ok did I see that your using stand in models for Amarr and Minmatar vehicles? Edit: True will be happy I can wait on the Amarr and Minmatar vehicles for a while, I just want the Gunnlogi and Madrugar to be worth it for now. 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. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:50:00 - [86] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1958	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:51:00 - [87] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: Ok did I see that your using stand in models for Amarr and Minmatar vehicles? Edit: True will be happy I can wait on the Amarr and Minmatar vehicles for a while, I just want the Gunnlogi and Madrugar to be worth it for now. It's better for balance reasons to have them and their progression (and maybe even placeholder turrets) to have them in the game now. That way we don't have the problems of figuring out fittings and the like later. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:52:00 - [88] - Quote 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. Solo HAVs piloted by an experienced pilot will still be devastating. Having an irrational fear and hatred of vehicles is not healthy. 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. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 12:56:00 - [89] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Supacharjed wrote: This is probably a stupid question, but: "all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank." So, we are unable to change this? If that is so, can we assume that: HAV = 1 AV turret (Gunnlogi) and 1AI turret (Madrugar) DHAV = All AV turrets, but different ones. UHAV = All AI turrets, but different ones. You can always override the turrets with different small turrets, you just can't remove the base turret from the fitting. DHAVS won't have small turrets, they are essentially a rapid redeployment AV cannon. Can I fit a solo HAV with whatever flavor of turret I want? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2865	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:19:00 - [90] - Quote Please remove the Caldari DHAV damage bonus to rail guns. First, it's unfair to the Galente DHAVs having only a short range damage bonus application. Second, it promotes redline rail sniping DHAVs look like they're the agile hit-and-run types, close combat should be their specialty. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:31:00 - [91] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Please remove the Caldari DHAV damage bonus to rail guns. First, it's unfair to the Galente DHAVs having only a short range damage bonus application. Second, it promotes redline rail sniping DHAVs look like they're the agile hit-and-run types, close combat should be their specialty. Agreed. Bonus should be to missiles, not rail turrets. Yes, high alpha missile strikes are a concern, so instead of a direct damage buff, a bonus to reload speed. DHAVs only have a short time to engage due to low HP, so being able to get out two full missile ammo clips may come in handy. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 587	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:37:00 - [92] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow) 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet Phase 1 1. When i get ADV/PROTO dropsuits apart from an increase in PG/CPU i also gain more module slots - I expect this for vehicles also 2. So if i have 3 rails pre-fitted i take it i can swap out to 3 missile turrets? 3. Okay but is it still factored if you change the turret? 3a. Okay 3b. Some suits can fit all proto but if it takes alot of SP to get the optimizations then i am fine with that 4. Okay 4a. I want a locking mechanism for the non solo HAV because me putting 30mil SP into a vehicle and funding it i do not want a stupid blueberry jumping in it and firing the turret and using all the ammo at anything that happens to move 4b. Use Planetside 2 locking - No lock so anyone can get in, Squad lock so only players who are in my squad can get in because of course i trust squad members more than blueberries and also if i change from No lock to Squad lock it kicks out players in my turrets who are not in my squad 5. Highly armored - fine 5a. Fewer slots? - so i have more base HP? but less slots to tank the vehicle? what? 5b. Damage and bonuses to small turrets - Better make small turrets better than and worth it to use against infantry ie blaster no having luck instead of accuracy 6. Very fast - Speed of a LAV? 6a. Lightly armored - Okay 6b. Damage to blaster and missiles - okay but why not railgun too? 6c. No small turrets - Okay allows ambushes at least 7. For modules just add in what is needed from chrome - Also i feel a back to chrome stats for modules is best - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml - that doc has all modules in it 8. I also have fragmented missiles in my doc sheet above - I put them with more splash then direct damage do they are just AI and not AV at all Phase 2 1. Cant complain gives me more to skill into Phase 3 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml - Like i said modules and ideas in this google doc
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:39:00 - [93] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: AI Large missile turrets, oh you make me swoon. The forums will light up within an hour calling it OP, and wanting it nerfed into oblivion or outright taken out of the game. Skillbooks: What i find contentious is having Two skill books/ SP sinks for solo tanks, and tanks with small turrets, basically double the SP for the same tank. I do believe that fitting small turrets should be up to the player who is paying for the hull and investing the SP, its like asking infantry to speccing into a proto heavy suit twice, once for an HMG and once for a forge gun. Doesn't matter to me, I'm space rich and want a good reason to buy a second respec to go full pilot. Like you said below, I absolutely hated having a Neebs in my tank, and during Chrome and Uprising I've redlined more than 10 tanks to show them why I don't want them in my tank. 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. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:40:00 - [94] - Quote Alex-ZX wrote: I mean what happens if I put into the field a lot of those super tanks covering their backs each other, I know those are specific situations but, sometimes those are the most op You make it sound like the only ones allowed to use teamwork are infantry, and that pilots covering each other is OP and needs to be nerfed. 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 587	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:42:00 - [95] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. 1. 3 tanks? Not having that i dont see the option to restrict proto pub stompers to only 3 proto suits on the field at any one time 2. Balance for PC/FW and not pubs, most of stylie complaints are at pub matches where MM is broken and acedemy players get put with vets and when you balance too much for pubs they become useless in PC like now
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 587	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:43:00 - [96] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay 1. I do not want new players jumping into my 30mil SP invested vehicle and have them shooting at everything and wasting ammo
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2804	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:45:00 - [97] - Quote Harpyja wrote: You need to be careful when deciding how much damage UHAVs can withstand versus how much damage DHAVs can deal. The DHAV's damage bonuses should outweigh the UHAV's defense bonuses. Otherwise UHAVs will simply be better all around because they will 1) have better AI capabilities and 2) their strong defence against infantry AV also allows them to withstand the damage from a DHAV, buying them time to get through the weaker defense of the DHAV. He said in his first tank thread that he wants the destroyers to have a fighting chance, not destroy an ultra heavy ultra armored tank in a few seconds. Shouldn't take just one volley of missiles or 8 seconds of sustained fire from a blaster. They're essentially laughing off MLT and ADV AV to be able to take on a destroyer and try to escape. In my honest opinion, the UHAV should have the weaker defense and the DHAV the stronger defense. That's just silly. What would then be the point of going into the ultra heavy ultra armored tank if it's going to have weaker defense than a tank with maybe 1/6th the HP? If the UHAV is to be primarily AI, then its defense against infantry AV should be its infantry offence. It's defense against AV is going to be its extremely high HP. Otherwise, as has been posted, giving UHAVs a strong infantry AV defense will require that DHAVs have an insane amount of offense to get through a UHAV's defence before the UHAV can use its weaker AV capability to get through the DHAV's weaker defense. See above Another problem with this setup is that DHAVs will be nearly insta-killing one another and their low defense against infantry AV will probably make DHAVs extremely costly to operate. His own words, the Falchion will insta-pop the Vayu. 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 587	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:53:00 - [98] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. 1. What is to stop the normal HAV from having a PLC jump out and pop it in 1 shot? 2. Why would i want to skill into the DHAV and get popped in 1 shot when it will take more SP to skill into it than the PLC and also if it has a blaster for the turret which requires CQC distance to the enemy vehicle which will most likely be guarding a point or has someone in the small turret like in 1? 3. Really the railgun should be on a DHAV since it has range but if a PLC can pop it then a FG will OHK also which again why should i use the DHAV and not a solo HAV instead which can take a beating?
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3745	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:02:00 - [99] - Quote 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. I really love to have people on my tank, as my main objective is hunt other vehicles, gunners defend me from infantry. I don't want to lock all my tank, there are 2 different features needed. 1) Driver seat lock - i called the tank ,i payed isk, it's mine and of no one else, if have to jump down to go to the toilet, no one should be able to steal it. 2) Kick passenger button - L2 (or R2 i never remember) is unused since you don't want to add rear view in 3rd person, let us kick unwanted passenger. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:08:00 - [100] - Quote Will drivers be required to skill into party tanks before they can spec into solo? Or will they simply be branches off the base skill path? VHCL

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 732	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:09:00 - [101] - Quote Concerning SP dump it looks the requirements will be HAV operation I : Tank with turrets HAV operation III : Tank with turrets HAV operation V : Tank with turrets HAV proffieciency I : Same Tank without turrets HAV proffieciency III : Same Tank without turrets HAV proffieciency V : Same Tank without turrets GAL UHAV I GAL DHAV I CAL UHAV I CAL DHAV I It really should'nt be an SP sink to use the same tanks. Forget the 'i dont want randoms to jumpinto the tank thing", i think it is asking too much of players to have drop twice SP to run a identical tank with less PG /CPU just to have a turretless option. There already is a proposed tradeoff between fitting power to make them essentially the same tank. Thats a 1.2 million SP difference between a madrugar without small turrets and a madrugar with small turrets at no discernable benifit. Its akin to making infantry suits take basic dropsuit skills to proto before starting into the racial bonus suits. - Perhaps we can have two different skill trees, MBT Operation and SHAV operation independent of one another. - Or merge both into one skill tree and have both of them purchasable from the market. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3745	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:16:00 - [102] - Quote About slot progression, i still think that only 5 module slots are not enough, i would rather have more and less powerful modules, but have the possibility to personalize MY HAV. It would not be interesting to skill in powerful suits if they have the same slot layout of STD suit, but more PG/CPU, same applies to HAV. I almost completely agree with Breakin Stuff model, as it was reintroducing chrome variety, but at this point i think that almost all my hopes in having fun again with tanks, are just wasted. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 333	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:23:00 - [103] - Quote shaman oga wrote: About slot progression, i still think that only 5 module slots are not enough, i would rather have more and less powerful modules, but have the possibility to personalize MY HAV. It would not be interesting to skill in powerful suits if they have the same slot layout of STD suit, but more PG/CPU, same applies to HAV. I almost completely agree with Breakin Stuff model, as it was reintroducing chrome variety, but at this point i think that almost all my hopes in having fun again with tanks, are just wasted. What a news? The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18397	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:34:00 - [104] - Quote Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits. however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall. +1 or +2 every hull. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:40:00 - [105] - Quote Agreed. More slots is good. The fewer slots, the more cookie cutters. Look at sentinels. Five slots and maybe five people who don't brick them. We might want to consider making utility/customization mods lower pg/cpu than straight damage mods or tank mods. That way we can get around people who want to stack four 180mm plates in the lows. VHCL
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2286	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:51:00 - [106] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. I honestly think that's a terrible idea. DHAVs should have the higher defence than UHAVs. UHAVs should instead be able to defend themselves against AV infantry through their AI capabilities. See my post on the first page for further detail you seem to have missed. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 194	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:53:00 - [107] - Quote Just one question. Will the UHAV have two variants as well? One with smalls and one without? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2286	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:54:00 - [108] - Quote Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 413	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:55:00 - [109] - Quote hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. Disciple,Evangelist Amarr Tribe,Clan Mimitar
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 413	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:59:00 - [110] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits. however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall. +1 or +2 every hull. Do we need mid slots for vehicles?

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6647	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:07:00 - [111] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV. A glass cannon's only real defense is speed and agility. DHAVs are intended to be expendable hammers thrown at enemy armor to disrupt armor superiority. UHAVs are the ones intended to sit and slog through the meatgrinder. Main Battle Tanks would be middle ground. VHCL
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18402	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:32:00 - [112] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits. however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall. +1 or +2 every hull. Do we need mid slots for vehicles? Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables) CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 588	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:34:00 - [113] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits. however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall. +1 or +2 every hull. Do we need mid slots for vehicles? Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables) 1. Nope unless the deployable is drones 2. We need Rigging slots and callibration on vehicles
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2286	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:37:00 - [114] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV. A glass cannon's only real defense is speed and agility. DHAVs are intended to be expendable hammers thrown at enemy armor to disrupt armor superiority. UHAVs are the ones intended to sit and slog through the meatgrinder. Main Battle Tanks would be middle ground. I disagree that DHAVs have to be expendable. They should be something a pilot can skill to and make a profession out of as much as a UHAV. I see a huge problem when making DHAVs glass cannons. In order to beat a UHAVs defenses and win instead of being beaten itself due to its lesser defence, DHAVs will need an insane amount of sustained DPS. This will be especially bad when a DHAV comes across another DHAV since it will only be "whoever shoots first wins." I want tactical and meaningful gameplay for both the UHAV and DHAV, and I see it only possible if the DHAV actually has the stronger defense. Here's why. A skilled UHAV pilot will be able to use its AI power to defend itself against AV, but it will easily fall to the DHAV. Any UHAV vs UHAV combat will be tactical and focus on pilot skill and choice of vehicle fitting. Any DHAV vs DHAV combat will also be tactical because 1) they won't have insane DPS and 2) they will have a larger amount of defence to get past. This puts emphasis on pilot skill and vehicle fitting instead of the "shoot first to win" situation. DHAVs give up or limit their AI power in exchange for more defense and better AV capability. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2866	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:37:00 - [115] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Luther Mandrix wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits. however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall. +1 or +2 every hull. Do we need mid slots for vehicles? Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables) What a swell idea. Though I wouldn't just limit it to deployables but to all support mods. Including, but not limited to: MCRU Remote repair mods (unless turret based) Mobile ammo synthesis (nanohive mod) Deployable bubble shield Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4483	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:39:00 - [116] - Quote As a few others have mentioned before, the number of slots on the HAV is too damn low. It not only limits fitting flexibility but also turns piloting into "When I take damage turn this module on and survive". I understand that the original intent was to make piloting easier, but like EVE, piloting a vehicle in Dust is more about being able to skillfully and tactically manage your modules, and currently I just have to press my face to the keyboard and roll it back and forth to win. I would suggest moving back to the old 7 slot system. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 It allows pilots to have more flexibility in fitting, makes piloting more interactive and engaging, as well as widens the opportunity for utility. Also one thing I would caution you on for the Anti Infantry HAVs. If you want to boost up the raw HP that's fine but excessively high raw HP means more time waiting around behind cover or in the redline, waiting for your regen to rep all of the missing HP which isn't exactly fun. Waves of opportunity yes, but not to a point where I can go make a sandwich while my armor repairs in the redline. I'd lean more towards a higher resistance/regen bonuses to compensate and avoid this issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6648	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:52:00 - [117] - Quote I think pokey is on the right track here. The resistance or regen seems the way to go. VHCL
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 43	Posted - 2015.01.22 16:03:00 - [118] - Quote Hearing about all the lock talk. I think what people really want for all vehicles is a kick out the blue berries button. Remove the timer to let them in and add a button to kick them out. We all know the example: I fly in my DS full and one blue berry refuses to leave and flies off with my DS when it was meant to get us here then be recalled. Thanks blue berry. Kick out button, You all get in, I push the button, you all are forced out. Some people will abuse this so don't get into stranger's vehicles if you don't trust them. Problem solved. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6648	Posted - 2015.01.22 16:13:00 - [119] - Quote I could get behind an "eject dumbass" button. VHCL
Sir Snugglz Red Star. 1163	Posted - 2015.01.22 16:53:00 - [120] - Quote is there a thread similar to this one for lav/derpy derps? -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is

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 -_-

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4494	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:59:00 - [151] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 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? Yeah I'm not really sure what you're getting at Breakin. I imagine the price of the Solo vehicles will be cheaper than the normal HAVs by exactly the cost of the 2 small turrets. Actually now that I think about it I do have one complaint about the pre-fit small turrets. I have several fits that use only 1 small turret because some situations are best handled with just 2 instead of 3 people. Will options be made available for situations such as this? Or is it going to be double (small turrets) or nothing? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2711	Posted - 2015.01.22 21:05:00 - [152] - Quote It's be much simpler to force at least the top turret on if you wanted to, but then again, I don't see the point of that. It's just forcing turrets on for no specific reason. If smalls didn't require much to make up for their removal, and especially if HAV's could fit the exact same fits, then this would essentially make zero sense to make. I didn't personally like the idea of them existing in the first place. It seems like he took what we said and did the opposite in a lot of areas, it seems specifically in the areas that we agreed on to do the opposite here (like blasters doing the highest DPS and the lowest range, missiles being the middile ground, and rails being the lowest, but highest range). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3623	Posted - 2015.01.22 22:46:00 - [153] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay It's a mixed blessing, no doubt it encourages teamplay, but that in it's self is a double edged sword. While having other people ride shotgun in your 2 compulsory turrets increases your firepower and AI capabilities . . . Unless the people in your turrets are aligned with your instincts and objectives you loose considerably more from battlefield advantages, such as advantageous positioning, surprise attacks, etc etc. While a solo hav should be weaker in general it should be geared to being more powerful when in an advantageous position such as flanking it should focus on the precise application of force, while a standard hav should focus more on brute force, if that makes sense. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 288	Posted - 2015.01.22 22:59:00 - [154] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Also one thing I would caution you on for the Anti Infantry HAVs. If you want to boost up the raw HP that's fine but excessively high raw HP means more time waiting around behind cover or in the redline, waiting for your regen to rep all of the missing HP which isn't exactly fun. Waves of opportunity yes, but not to a point where I can go make a sandwich while my armor repairs in the redline. I'd lean more towards a higher resistance/regen bonuses to compensate and avoid this issue. I respectfully disagree, high regeneration annoys AV as they feel like they've accomplished nothing when you come back 30 seconds later with full health If logi vehicles are in the pipeline, along with the existing av repair tool, then I would prefer high health, low regeneration (that can be overcome with modules if sacrificing tank)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4496	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:03:00 - [155] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay It's a mixed blessing, no doubt it encourages teamplay, but that in it's self is a double edged sword. While having other people ride shotgun in your 2 compulsory turrets increases your firepower and AI capabilities . . . Unless the people in your turrets are aligned with your instincts and objectives you loose considerably more from battlefield advantages, such as advantageous positioning, surprise attacks, etc etc. While a solo hav should be weaker in general it should be geared to being more powerful when in an advantageous position such as flanking it should focus on the precise application of force, while a standard hav should focus more on brute force, if that makes sense. How do you exactly accomplish that though? Typically speaking you can avoid blueberries from hopping in your HAV if you really don't want them in there. So if you can do that and remain solo in your HAV, it would always be advantageous to run a normal HAV if it is overall stronger. The only way I could see your accomplishing a difference is if each had bonuses that offered a distinct advantage over the other, but that would mean separate skills which seems kind of silly to me...requiring different skills to drive the exact same machine, just one with turrets and one without. Overall I think Solo HAVs are kind of pointless but I can see the appeal for people who don't want to have gunners, so I don't mind their existence. I just think that both types should be identical in every way except the small turrets (an resources applied to them) as well as simply share the same skill which applies the same bonuses to them. UHAV and DHAVs should then branch out from there. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4497	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:17:00 - [156] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Also one thing I would caution you on for the Anti Infantry HAVs. If you want to boost up the raw HP that's fine but excessively high raw HP means more time waiting around behind cover or in the redline, waiting for your regen to rep all of the missing HP which isn't exactly fun. Waves of opportunity yes, but not to a point where I can go make a sandwich while my armor repairs in the redline. I'd lean more towards a higher resistance/regen bonuses to compensate and avoid this issue. I respectfully disagree, high regeneration annoys AV as they feel like they've accomplished nothing when you come back 30 seconds later with full health If logi vehicles are in the pipeline, along with the existing av repair tool, then I would prefer high health, low regeneration (that can be overcome with modules if sacrificing tank) A fair point and something that should be looked at at the very least, but you do understand that excessively low HP regeneration also completely kills the fun for the vehicle pilot as well because they'll be sitting in the redline picking their nose, or they'll just recall the vehicle and call in a new one because it'll be faster than waiting for the regen. It's often easy to make a comparison between Sentinels and HAVs, but keep in mind that even if Logistics vehicles are reintroduced, bear in mind that they always have and always will be far less commonplace than Infantry Logistics. Infantry Logistics are far more multi-purpose than Logistics vehicles, and can be deployed for a number of situations. Logistics Vehicles are far more single purpose and people will typically only call them in to fulfill that specific purpose. That being said a vehicle has a far smaller guarantee that Logistics will actually support them on a consistent basis. Rarely will a random roll up in a LLAV and rep your tank, at least far less likely than it happens for a Sentinel on foot. That being said vehicles need to maintain a higher level self regeneration than your typical heavy infantry would. I will say however that there is a severe problem with how regen modules currently work on vehicles, which is likely a large part of your frustration. Gunnlogi Shield Regen - It's WAY too high given that it's the natural regen rate. This allows the Gunnlogi to have double hardeners and still maintain an incredibly high regen rate. I plan to change this in my next proposal. (Madrugar Shield recharge is also too high given the fact that its supposed to be armor-centric) Passive Armor Reps - I have no issue with passive armor reps, however they rep too fast given that they do it constantly. In my next proposal update we'll see a return of Active Armor Reps which will rep at similar effective rate as the passives do now, but with a duration and cooldown. Passive reps will remain but at a lessened repair rate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 288	Posted - 2015.01.22 23:49:00 - [157] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Pokey stuff Unlike the old days supply depots now repair vehicles as well, if they could only place them in accessible locations (and maybe add shield regen) I'd be happy Hopefully an increase in slots will make both styles viable
Nirwanda Vaughns 1252	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:06:00 - [158] - Quote I always wanted some kind of Infantry Fighting Vehicle. with a pilot and 5 small blasters 2 of either side and 1 on the back similar to the obnes in battlefield. if it's created that only basic small blasters can be fitted and about 3000hps it'd be nice, its what i thought the MAV's would have been Never argue with an idiot. they bring you down to their level and beat you through experience proud C-II bpo owner
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2712	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:50:00 - [159] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Also one thing I would caution you on for the Anti Infantry HAVs. If you want to boost up the raw HP that's fine but excessively high raw HP means more time waiting around behind cover or in the redline, waiting for your regen to rep all of the missing HP which isn't exactly fun. Waves of opportunity yes, but not to a point where I can go make a sandwich while my armor repairs in the redline. I'd lean more towards a higher resistance/regen bonuses to compensate and avoid this issue. I respectfully disagree, high regeneration annoys AV as they feel like they've accomplished nothing when you come back 30 seconds later with full health If LLV's are in the pipeline, along with the existing av repair tool, then I would prefer high health, low regeneration (that can be overcome with modules if sacrificing tank) Fixed, because Logistic Triangle (or, for the moment, Line.) click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2712	Posted - 2015.01.23 00:55:00 - [160] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I always wanted some kind of Infantry Fighting Vehicle. with a pilot and 5 small blasters 2 of either side and 1 on the back similar to the obnes in battlefield. if it's created that only basic small blasters can be fitted and about 3000hps it'd be nice, its what i thought the MAV's would have been IFV's are not APC's. The MAV however as far as we've seen, IS a IFV. Medium turret and a small on top, maybe some more in other places. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Cassa-Nova KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 52	Posted - 2015.01.23 03:36:00 - [161] - Quote For the Amarr hull, if CCP Rattati feels like giving me a poly budget similar to the gunlogi/maddies I can get a 3d model based on this photo from years ago done in a few weeks. I'll throw over the .OBJ file and a simple animation/sound donation with the maddy and we can have a pretty pretty amarr HAV hull with no cost to the Dev team. All i ask is to be immortalized in the game by being in its description in some manner. I mean what's the worst that'll happen? You don't like it and Scrap the idea? Best case you get new content to add to the game, I get a bit of portfolio material. You have everything to gain nothing to lose. I just need that Poly budget. Amarr Faction Suit Colour Schemes
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 612	Posted - 2015.01.23 03:55:00 - [162] - Quote will amarr/min hulls be added to loyalty store?(they currently have none) you spoke of limiting 3 tanks per team, do you mean 3 vehicles period or just 3 tanks? cause i don't want my team screwed cause of a deutsche murder taxi. how much will the new hulls cost? (it's expensive as it is) sp requirements? where does the ds/ads/lav stand with the new av tanks? do they stand a chance or will they be swatted like a fly? locks have already been brought up but i have some points of my own. * solo tankers often are plaqued by blues who will not get out, preventing us from recalling if ; av is too strong, switching to another tank, switching to infantry to help support a push, or simply we are out of ammo (no "reachable depots") and need to call n recall. scouts are putting re's on my tank(rail/missile) so i hop out to kill him. blue switchs to main turret and enjoys his free tank or gets it blew up. blue gives away my position/wastes ammo. only owner can operate main turret^? if you shoot me from the redline i will ensure your death will be a swift one
Alex-ZX Valor Coalition Red Whines. 182	Posted - 2015.01.23 04:51:00 - [163] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alex-ZX wrote: I mean what happens if I put into the field a lot of those super tanks covering their backs each other, I know those are specific situations but, sometimes those are the most op You make it sound like the only ones allowed to use teamwork are infantry, and that pilots covering each other is OP and needs to be nerfed. Never said anything of nerf, is a kind of example. It is like talking about sentinels. When those tanks touch ppl hands whom knows how this is going to be, that's all. Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG Luis' modified VC-107 CR Alex's modified VC-107 SMG *Owner of this beasts*
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 786	Posted - 2015.01.23 05:58:00 - [164] - Quote Bah they just renaming a existing hull. Which is not appealing to me. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
pumping up Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 97	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:55:00 - [165] - Quote Cassa-Nova wrote: For the Amarr hull, if CCP Rattati feels like giving me a poly budget similar to the gunlogi/maddies I can get a 3d model based on this photo from years ago done in a few weeks. I'll throw over the .OBJ file and a simple animation/sound donation with the maddy and we can have a pretty pretty amarr HAV hull with no cost to the Dev team. All i ask is to be immortalized in the game by being in its description in some manner. I mean what's the worst that'll happen? You don't like it and Scrap the idea? Best case you get new content to add to the game, I get a bit of portfolio material. You have everything to gain nothing to lose. I just need that Poly budget. It seems the actual problem is not having a model but rather the memory limit of the ps3 is already strained enough as is. You really wanna load even more models ? :P
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6662	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:45:00 - [166] - Quote There's probably a memory allocation error in the game. There is more poly clutter in destiny. The maps are smaller but more poly clutter. VHCL
pumping up Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 97	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:03:00 - [167] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: There's probably a memory allocation error in the game. There is more poly clutter in destiny. The maps are smaller but more poly clutter. Destiny runs on ps4 though :p Please help me on my quest to get the Recruiter C-II Dropsuit! https://dust514.com/recruit/S5kDan/ <3
Galvatrona Death Merchants Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:12:00 - [168] - Quote All looks fine and good for the tank balancing act. It seems that the complaints from us have been yet ignored, maps with no reachable supply depots I wanna boot the blue berries and call a new one, OMG a "eject button" that also resets the get my tank timers for sq members and blues. Now to address the some douche stealing my tank through changing seats or some ass in a heavy suit kill me after calling a tank in factionals then he rides off after the timer has gone, OMG again "PILOT SUITS". You should "ONLY" be able to drive a dropship or a tank if your in a pilot suit. on the pilot suit action I am getting a little pissed off at seeing it in the market and having nothing there for ever. pilot suits could have 1 high, 1 low, 1 light weapon, 1 equiptment, 10 bandwidth. Locking the doors on the tank for only squad members would seem like a good idea, yes I brought out a tank to help the team but most importantly I am investing in side turrets to taxi/save my squad members. sounding a little selfish here but I don't hand out isk to **** blueberries when the match is done to replace their suits they lost, not too sure if I have ever been paid from a ** blueberry who wastes all the ammo shooting the enemy mcc giving away my location. Now on to my dropship problem, I get downed (no HP) my blows up, why don't I get 4-5 seconds to find a place to bail out. dropships seem to have this benefit, no hp and Its still moving then buddy bails and survives. I still have yet to see any realistic type flying device deploy troops after its destroyed up in the air or not blow up until its hit the ground, I feel my tank should hover for 5 seconds after its reached 0 hp just so I can get out safely behind a wall or something. If I try to ride out my tank to safety and get destroyed I die unless I bail first, why is this not applied to dropships, if you think you can get away stay in but if you can't well you die with your ship. Here is another point of understanding I don't get, a heavy suit can get out of a tank just as fast as my logi or scout can but the heavy can't run or jump anywhere near as fast or as high. the fact that you get spit out of your tank on the side facing the right direction you were firing seems wrong. I have lost matches that I should have won just because buddy has a heavy suit on, if the tank spit you out the back it would be safer for your passengers and make the heavy/scout deployment from tanks balanced as the heavy would have to run around the tank. I have had this discussion over and over. why not just let me wear a scout suit under my heavy suit, just so as I am dieing I can peel the big suit off and shotgun the rest then go back to my heavy suit. O wait I got another good example, out of ammo, see a red supply depot, get out to hack the leter then the supply depot for ammo, a scout spawns and steals my tank because he can run faster than me, I get left in a blueprint logi with all blueprint modules and the toxin sub, before I get back to the supply depot to change I get gunned down, I wonder who got doubly screwed here. we have been asking for door locks and ejection options and got spawn locks for 5 sec for green and 30 sec for blues, but this is waste of our breath for these changes is nothing compared to the time ccp has not added the pilot suits we asked for and the length of time I have viewed the empty pilot list in the market is very disappointing. heres how I am viewing the tank changes, Its a way for ccp to avoid and confuse what we have asked for in the past just to make more money through skill resets, then not use that money to address the changes we have "already" asked for with the money we have put in "already". can anybody say that what was pitched for visual customizations is what we got, no. Or what about the skill point cap plus boosters confusion, you do have to admit that big foot up your own * got more people playing as they could actually see a future in dust if they played all week for their sp. I don't think pilot suits, door locks and actual exploding dropships is hard.
WARxion ForDUST G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 337	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:10:00 - [169] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: All looks fine and good for the tank balancing act. It seems that the complaints from us have been yet ignored, maps with no reachable supply depots I wanna boot the blue berries and call a new one, OMG a "eject button" that also resets the get my tank timers for sq members and blues. Now to address the some douche stealing my tank through changing seats or some ass in a heavy suit kill me after calling a tank in factionals then he rides off after the timer has gone, OMG again "PILOT SUITS". You should "ONLY" be able to drive a dropship or a tank if your in a pilot suit. on the pilot suit action I am getting a little pissed off at seeing it in the market and having nothing there for ever. pilot suits could have 1 high, 1 low, 1 light weapon, 1 equiptment, 10 bandwidth. Locking the doors on the tank for only squad members would seem like a good idea, yes I brought out a tank to help the team but most importantly I am investing in side turrets to taxi/save my squad members. sounding a little selfish here but I don't hand out isk to **** blueberries when the match is done to replace their suits they lost, not too sure if I have ever been paid from a ** blueberry who wastes all the ammo shooting the enemy mcc giving away my location. Now on to my dropship problem, I get downed (no HP) my blows up, why don't I get 4-5 seconds to find a place to bail out. dropships seem to have this benefit, no hp and Its still moving then buddy bails and survives. I still have yet to see any realistic type flying device deploy troops after its destroyed up in the air or not blow up until its hit the ground, I feel my tank should hover for 5 seconds after its reached 0 hp just so I can get out safely behind a wall or something. If I try to ride out my tank to safety and get destroyed I die unless I bail first, why is this not applied to dropships, if you think you can get away stay in but if you can't well you die with your ship. Here is another point of understanding I don't get, a heavy suit can get out of a tank just as fast as my logi or scout can but the heavy can't run or jump anywhere near as fast or as high. the fact that you get spit out of your tank on the side facing the right direction you were firing seems wrong. I have lost matches that I should have won just because buddy has a heavy suit on, if the tank spit you out the back it would be safer for your passengers and make the heavy/scout deployment from tanks balanced as the heavy would have to run around the tank. I have had this discussion over and over. why not just let me wear a scout suit under my heavy suit, just so as I am dieing I can peel the big suit off and shotgun the rest then go back to my heavy suit. O wait I got another good example, out of ammo, see a red supply depot, get out to hack the leter then the supply depot for ammo, a scout spawns and steals my tank because he can run faster than me, I get left in a blueprint logi with all blueprint modules and the toxin sub, before I get back to the supply depot to change I get gunned down, I wonder who got doubly screwed here. we have been asking for door locks and ejection options and got spawn locks for 5 sec for green and 30 sec for blues, but this is waste of our breath for these changes is nothing compared to the time ccp has not added the pilot suits we asked for and the length of time I have viewed the empty pilot list in the market is very disappointing. heres how I am viewing the tank changes, Its a way for ccp to avoid and confuse what we have asked for in the past just to make more money through skill resets, then not use that money to address the changes we have "already" asked for with the money we have put in "already". can anybody say that what was pitched for visual customizations is what we got, no. Or what about the skill point cap plus boosters confusion, you do have to admit that big foot up your own * got more people playing as they could actually see a future in dust if they played all week for their sp. I don't think pilot suits, door locks and actual exploding dropships is hard. We should start a Kickstarter project to replace your Return button... https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2585848#post2585848 Yes, I'm that desperate...
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6669	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:51:00 - [170] - Quote pumping up wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There's probably a memory allocation error in the game. There is more poly clutter in destiny. The maps are smaller but more poly clutter. Destiny runs on ps4 though :p It also runs on the PS3. I own both versions. VHCL

Night 5talker 514 Freek Coalition Freek Alliance 340	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:08:00 - [171] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposal, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet Hi Rattati, Firstly, I applaud the amount of research done with this, both reading through all those forum pages and looking at the previous problems. Secondly, I am really happy to see place holder tanks so that you can begin to allow people to skill into their respective race's tanks. I feel for the NPE that there should be a warning before skilling into those skills just to say bonuses, turrets and look/feel is subject to change so you can manage expectations. I also think starting discussions now on the turrets is a good idea, I.e How will a laser turret work/look/feel and same for artillary for minmitar. Along with those discussions, it may be nice to work out what would the bonuses to the other races vehicles be? Just my thoughts, but I like what I'm seeing so far. Gaming Freek DUST 514 YouTube Channel
Night 5talker 514 Freek Coalition Freek Alliance 340	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:10:00 - [172] - Quote Cassa-Nova wrote: For the Amarr hull, if CCP Rattati feels like giving me a poly budget similar to the gunlogi/maddies I can get a 3d model based on this photo from years ago done in a few weeks. I'll throw over the .OBJ file and a simple animation/sound donation with the maddy and we can have a pretty pretty amarr HAV hull with no cost to the Dev team. All i ask is to be immortalized in the game by being in its description in some manner. I mean what's the worst that'll happen? You don't like it and Scrap the idea? Best case you get new content to add to the game, I get a bit of portfolio material. You have everything to gain nothing to lose. I just need that Poly budget. Rattati, please help this guy out ^^ Gaming Freek DUST 514 YouTube Channel
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 598	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:14:00 - [173] - 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. 1. The vehicle hating CPM member agrees that it should be 1:1 ratio 2. The new 3man HAV will take 3 AV to combat it - Currently you can use a 3man HAV now and 1 AV can kill it 3. Im holding all the infantry and AV players who preached this 1:1 ratio to account if they try and complain that it takes 3 AV to combat the 3man HAV - Your rules you stick to them
Fleen Costell'o Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 504	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:31:00 - [174] - Quote Dear Rattati! Can be made more efficient mines? Now they are ineffective against HAV. -ían add a shovels in gear Matar Logi BUGS514 Find all. I love ksu123 )

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15558	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:15:00 - [175] - Quote Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6671	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:08:00 - [176] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Things and stuff Ok now that I have my ADHD under control again, do you want me to do all of the AV at each tier or do you just want the proto for maximum capability? Do you mind if I recycle the simplified tables I stole from thaddeus? Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." I'm perfectly copacetic with leaving hulls to you all while I putz with "blow **** up" numbers. Once I am done with the extant modern AV, would you like me to convert the theoretical AV weapons I cooked up for my proposal so they are balanced more for the here and now of today? Yes I'm just collating current data at the moment for comparison, not indulging in wild flights of fancy VHCL
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 599	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:09:00 - [177] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. 1. Aro you still working with 3/2 slot progression for ADV/PROTO?
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 6919	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:13:00 - [178] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. Rattati, I love that you share these numbers with us, I do. It's awesome that CCP is being transparent. But I am having a hard time making heads or tails of some of this data. What does the 'Infantry AV' tab even mean? Just call me Ripple. Ripple Riley. @Ripley_Riley
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2715	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:16:00 - [179] - Quote pumping up wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There's probably a memory allocation error in the game. There is more poly clutter in destiny. The maps are smaller but more poly clutter. Destiny runs on ps4 though :p That isn't..... what the **** are you even getting at? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6671	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:17:00 - [180] - Quote Rattati if you introduce the turrets for minmatar and amarr rather than the standard Assault, breach standard, etc. profgression I would like to offer an alternative: Lasers: Pulse laser turret, Beam laser turret Charged burst turret (Actually cooked this up for the arc cannon I was submitting) Cannons: Cannons: Like an M-1 Abrams main gun Autocannons Howitzers: Vehicular mass driver. VHCL

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2715	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:22:00 - [181] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati if you introduce the turrets for minmatar and amarr rather than the standard Assault, breach standard, etc. profgression I would like to offer an alternative: Lasers: Pulse laser turret, Beam laser turret Charged burst turret (Actually cooked this up for the arc cannon I was submitting) Cannons: Cannons: Like an M-1 Abrams main gun Autocannons Howitzers: Vehicular mass driver. So I assume you split artys into two groups? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6671	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:27:00 - [182] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati if you introduce the turrets for minmatar and amarr rather than the standard Assault, breach standard, etc. profgression I would like to offer an alternative: Lasers: Pulse laser turret, Beam laser turret Charged burst turret (Actually cooked this up for the arc cannon I was submitting) Cannons: Cannons: Like an M-1 Abrams main gun Autocannons Howitzers: Vehicular mass driver. So I assume you split artys into two groups? Cannons would be artillery/autocannon as a combined grouping. So instead of generic standard weapon X you get the standard tank cannon. Instead of generic assault you get the autocannon Instead of breach you get a howitzer. Much more interesting than variations on the same thing, and the minmatar actually ALLOW for this well, as do the amarr. VHCL
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 750	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:00:00 - [183] - Quote At risk of sounding pretentious just to point out some things before somebody rants Nerdmode activate, ahem. Loadouts Tab Gallente Gunlogi is the Caldari Gunlogi. Fitting wise, the fuel injector is rarely used on gunlogis in favor of shield booosters, hardeners , extenders or damage modules. Also, the fuel injector takes up only small amount of fitting space, so any balancing acts based off of gunlogi fits with it equiped may seem off. Vehicle Modules tab, forgive me, are these new or old values? T I notcied that you put in adding a small missile turret variant as AI. Do we still get the Large AI. turret? Will the current small turrets be repurposed for AV? Other than that everything looks pretty good. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:05:00 - [184] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Number enthusiasts, you can take a glance at how I am approaching the progression calculation in the tabs HAV Loadouts and more new tabs. Basically I am creating a step by step progression plan, while managing somewhat competitive fits. Take a look. Hi. Some issues: - From MLT Gunnlogi to STD Gunnlogi you add a STD light shield booster but don't add any defensive power. This seems problematic. At least add 25-50% of the hp-effect to defensive power from STD to CPX. - Armor repair modules don't appear to add to defensive power. Suggestion: Add 5 seconds worth of repairs to defense. This is shorter than some fights, but also longer than some (remote explosives come to mind). - Hardener's effect on defensive power should be weighted by their relative activation time. E.g. a shield hardener at max skills right now is active 40% of the time and grants an average shield hp boost of 16% (40% resist * 40% activation time = 16%). - DPS for the first ~7k hp of damage is a better measure of offensive power. This is comparatively easy to calculate and can take heat sinks into account. It is also most relevant for HAV vs HAV fights. - If your statistical toolset is good you can derive 'power' from 'popularity' (while excluding free MLT stuff). This came to me when I realized that std shield boosters will never be fit on anything while their cooldown is still at 70 seconds. Suggestion: Use something like a 55/50/45 progression with active modules. This seems like a small progression, but the core skills deduct another 25%. Alternatively decrease the core skill effect (e.g. 2%/lvl) and use a taller progression (e.g. 55/45/35). - You noted that there're no low slot modules to fit on shield HAVs. Suggestion: Add passive support modules like resistance plates on 'opposite' slots (shield resistance in low, armor resistance in high) - this somewhat imitates the Eve:Online doctrine (hardeners mid, resist low) that fully avoids the "shield tankers don't have low-slot modules" issue. Additionally, consider re-introducing passive mobility modules such as torque modules (passive +X% engine torque) and make them follow the same 'opposite from the active module' rule. I'd like to refer to my last post in this thread for a simple mathematical rule to derive X from the stats of a fuel injector. Super vain post scriptum: I read in the excel sheet that you were looking at the AUR Madrugar. On that topic, please make the Kaalakiota Recon Dropship a STD aurum variant. Preferably unfit and reasonably priced. Its red skin is totally sick and could actually earn you a few dollars if it was used on something useful. [Edit] I also noticed the "add AI small missile turret"-thing. Are you sure about that? Missiles are the best anti-infantry turret right now. ... From the perspective of a DS-pilot ...
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1576	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:18:00 - [185] - Quote All I want is chromosome tanks please. Please!! Passive mods. Revert 1.7 arcade tanks to chromosome. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2716	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:31:00 - [186] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: All I want is chromosome tanks please. Please!! Passive mods. Revert 1.7 arcade tanks to chromosome. Fully would be the same as now but with better hulls tbh, because, you know, rails and missiles were OP then too. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Galvatrona Death Merchants Inc. 1	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:31:00 - [187] - Quote Don't particularly care about your concern for a return button press that's not what this is for. This is to address the tank crap they intend on dropping instead of things we have asked for and things they have said they would be dropping on us like pilot suits. Most of the people here have had dropsuits all along. I have "only" driven tanks from the beginning. I was 50/50 in to suits and tanks, with the skill resets we received a while back I put all my sp into tanks and turrets. With the drop of 1.10 and the higher sp cap I got into a dropsuits once again. For the longest time a tank was my "only" useable fitting. I have added to posts and suggested things, its about time to give up on dust as what we ask for and what we receive are 2 way different things. back tracking to fix things that are broken seems more logical, like broken maps that suicide your tank out of nowhere. I have been in a tank for a lot longer than most and have driven every where on the maps even the places you shouldn't/can/t get them to. I guess it woulden't do any good to ask for pilot suits with the vehicle bonuses on them, may seem too difficult to do what asked than to smash through a budget making something new and confusing to get cash out of players. I am beginning to not see a point in participating in forums with dust to be generally ignored on key points. (return) Correcting peoples paragraphs and spelling just shows us your dedication to OCD and waste of space. the posts are about tanks, not spelling or punctuation. Another reason not to post up in the forums the A.D.D. kids can't stick to topic. (return again, It says enter on my keyboard but seems the same) Again I ask where is my pilot suit and proper options for the door locks on vehicles. dropships should have no door locks but it would be to stupid for me to think that people wanna wait 30 seconds to get a full dropship at the beginning of battle, hmm pilot suit only drivers seat would eliminate the need for door locks on a dropship. And to the people who wanna steal others vehicles at the beginning of factionals they would need to start in a pilot suit also. Addressing the color variations with the new type tanks does this mean they will be blueprint and in the visual customizations tab. from what we were told about visual customizations this would not be a far off guess of whats going on. visual customizations on tanks would be awesome but the thought of visual customizations and what we received already doesn't seem too promising. back track, repair and address the users wants before you set up a new budget to blow a bunch of development dollars on a new addition that just looks like it addressed some problems but really just created a new pile. I think it would be more efficient to use the money I have put into this game to add/fix whats already here than create a new batch of problems, just a thought here if there was money spent on developing pilot suits and it was scrapped is that budget wasted or would we be getting our moneys worth if ccp dust finished what they started on that budget. we asked for player trading and got sell your assets seems like an avoidance of what was asked for.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5591	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:49:00 - [188] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:53:00 - [189] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. This only holds true if mobility (or "time to disengagement") is kept constant. This isn't necessarily the case.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10855	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:56:00 - [190] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. I think this makes sense. The Gallente and Amarr share curved designs as made evident by their ships in Eve Online. The Caldari and Minmatar share right-angle designs. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 600	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:55:00 - [191] - Quote 1. I cant make loadouts based on the 3/2 slot layout since they are all the same cookie cutter fits 2. Need more module variety so i cant make cookie cutter fits 3. Need more slots too for adv/proto hulls to help eliminate cookie cutter fits
XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 46	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:30:00 - [192] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: Don't particularly care about your concern for a return button press that's not what this is for. This is to address the tank crap they intend on dropping instead of things we have asked for and things they have said they would be dropping on us like pilot suits. Most of the people here have had dropsuits all along. I have "only" driven tanks from the beginning. I was 50/50 in to suits and tanks, with the skill resets we received a while back I put all my sp into tanks and turrets. With the drop of 1.10 and the higher sp cap I got into a dropsuits once again. For the longest time a tank was my "only" useable fitting. I have added to posts and suggested things, its about time to give up on dust as what we ask for and what we receive are 2 way different things. back tracking to fix things that are broken seems more logical, like broken maps that suicide your tank out of nowhere. I have been in a tank for a lot longer than most and have driven every where on the maps even the places you shouldn't/can/t get them to. I guess it woulden't do any good to ask for pilot suits with the vehicle bonuses on them, may seem too difficult to do what asked than to smash through a budget making something new and confusing to get cash out of players. I am beginning to not see a point in participating in forums with dust to be generally ignored on key points. (return) Correcting peoples paragraphs and spelling just shows us your dedication to OCD and waste of space. the posts are about tanks, not spelling or punctuation. Another reason not to post up in the forums the A.D.D. kids can't stick to topic. (return again, It says enter on my keyboard but seems the same) Again I ask where is my pilot suit and proper options for the door locks on vehicles. dropships should have no door locks but it would be to stupid for me to think that people wanna wait 30 seconds to get a full dropship at the beginning of battle, hmm pilot suit only drivers seat would eliminate the need for door locks on a dropship. And to the people who wanna steal others vehicles at the beginning of factionals they would need to start in a pilot suit also. Addressing the color variations with the new type tanks does this mean they will be blueprint and in the visual customizations tab. from what we were told about visual customizations this would not be a far off guess of whats going on. visual customizations on tanks would be awesome but the thought of visual customizations and what we received already doesn't seem too promising. back track, repair and address the users wants before you set up a new budget to blow a bunch of development dollars on a new addition that just looks like it addressed some problems but really just created a new pile. I think it would be more efficient to use the money I have put into this game to add/fix whats already here than create a new batch of problems, just a thought here if there was money spent on developing pilot suits and it was scrapped is that budget wasted or would we be getting our moneys worth if ccp dust finished what they started on that budget. we asked for player trading and got sell your assets seems like an avoidance of what was asked for. Hello Wall of Text A proud member of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Don't fix what's not Baroque
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 753	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:39:00 - [193] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. I want to explain to you why sitting there and taking damage over a longer period of time is bad, and that fights that are too short leaves a feeling of a cheap death. TTK balance is not really an impossible concept to grasp but then i read your post again. What do you mean by this statment "a longer fight is almost garunteed to favor vehicles", as in LAVs, Dropships and Tanks? How so? How would a long engagement favor a dropship over a forge gunner? You seem to be unable to grasp that vehicles by their nature are mobile (call me crazy, but i'm sure i can get farther in a car than i can on foot).Why? Sure a vehicle can move away, and once the vehicle does the AV is no longer under threat from the vehicle either. Tanks are hardly nimble (as many a forge gunner knows), LAV have no real offensive power except the wheelchair heavy leaping out . That just leaves the Dropships, which by your own admission swarms are ina good place vs dropships right now. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with all of this hyperbole. Even with my wildest arguements with Atiim, and my AV vs Vehicle discussions with Breaking Stuff, nobody else (except IWS) just comes out and drops the sort of comments you do. When a dedicated AVer comments HAV TTK should be balanced why do you have to jump all over him? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2809	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:46:00 - [194] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: STYLIE77 wrote: relevant thoughts I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side. Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value. If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. Don't change the max number of vehicles just because they don't want to do anything to destroy them. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2719	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:09:00 - [195] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. Xel, stop being dishonest. You know exactly what he meant by that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2719	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:12:00 - [196] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. I want to explain to you why sitting there and taking damage over a longer period of time is bad, and that fights that are too short leaves a feeling of a cheap death. TTK balance is not really an impossible concept to grasp but then i read your post again. What do you mean by this statment "a longer fight is almost garunteed to favor vehicles", as in LAVs, Dropships and Tanks? How so? How would a long engagement favor a dropship over a forge gunner? You seem to be unable to grasp that vehicles by their nature are mobile (call me crazy, but i'm sure i can get farther in a car than i can on foot).Why? Sure a vehicle can move away, and once the vehicle does the AV is no longer under threat from the vehicle either. Tanks are hardly nimble (as many a forge gunner knows), LAV have no real offensive power except the wheelchair heavy leaping out . That just leaves the Dropships, which by your own admission swarms are ina good place vs dropships right now. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with all of this hyperbole. Even with my wildest arguements with Atiim, and my AV vs Vehicle discussions with Breaking Stuff, nobody else (except IWS) just comes out and drops the sort of comments you do. When a dedicated AVer comments HAV TTK should be balanced why do you have to jump all over him? Thing is, Breakin wasn't really even talking about AV then, but rather, vehicle fights. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6676	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:28:00 - [197] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users. allow me to provide context: Too short fights between HAV vs HAV. Ask for clarification before you get bitchy next time VHCL
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2916	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:48:00 - [198] - Quote If CCP introduces a restriction from 5 to 3 HAVs, then I would like Militia HAVs to be removed considering how often those are currently spammed. I don't want to be locked out simply because someone called in a militia rail and is redline sniping with it when I have a real HAV I intend on actually using. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6677	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:52:00 - [199] - Quote Ok nerds: So far I have compiled the DPS and damage numbers for the Forge, Swarms, PLC and AV nades. the classification criteria are as follows: Base stats Stats at level 5 Stats at level 5 vs. Armor Stats at level 5 vs. Shields Level 5 with 3 Damage Mods vs. Armor Level 5 with 3 Damage Mods vs. Shields. the three damage mods is based on 2/4 medium suits capping at three highs. Only the minmatar and caldari sentinels can fit more than two damage mods. Also because more than three damage mods is a waste of a fitting slot in 99% of all fits. TTK stops really changing there. Spreadsheet is here AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6680	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:55:00 - [200] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary. so long as the AV guns are up to the task of fighting the HAVs, this will never be a problem. As it stands one of the AV guns IMHO needs to be toned down SHARPLY unless the HAVs are thoroughly beastmode across the board compared to what they are today. By the way, the AV breakdowns are now part of my sig for easy reference. I'll work out the values for the oddballs either tomorrow morning or tomorrow night while normal people sleep. AV

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6686	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:02:00 - [201] - Quote Can we get the protofits guys to make a page based on Rattati's proposed HAV stats? Might be helpful to be able to make/look at EHP and resistance spreads so we can compare turrets and AV to the hulls AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2724	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:36:00 - [202] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Can we get the protofits guys to make a page based on Rattati's proposed HAV stats? Might be helpful to be able to make/look at EHP and resistance spreads so we can compare turrets and AV to the hulls I would start making fits if they did this. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 922	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:05:00 - [203] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok nerds: So far I have compiled the DPS and damage numbers for the Forge, Swarms, PLC and AV nades. Spreadsheet is here Thanks for that. The math seems sound on first glance (I started in column AB and went down the formulas from there). It's really funky. The SL has the much higher long-term DPS, but has to rely on the target staying within lock-on range long enough. The IAFG doesn't have the DPS but can keep hitting for longer. These numbers exactly line up with my experience. An IAFG at 8.5k damage per clip can take out my Grimsnes before I escape, but a pro SL can't because it can only unload one clip at 6.2k hp damage against armor before I'm out of range. My Myron however can withstand an IAFG clip (6k hp damage against shields) but is more of a hassle to operate due to active mods. That sheet would be very useful for large turrets too, you know? ... Just for your information ... not asking for anything ...
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 812	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:21:00 - [204] - Quote Is the coding for the old guns like Compressed Particle Cannons and Fragmented Blasted gone, or can that be brought back, because there was a wealth of content there "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6690	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:30:00 - [205] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: [Edit] Should AV weapon discussions maybe go in a different thread? I could make some interesting suggestions here, but I don't want to derail the thread. [Edit2] Eh, what damage profiles did you use and where is prof. V added? Looking at swarms I can't follow e.g. from D3 to D27 and then from D27 to D51. This data was entered as constants, so I can't see the formulas you used. 1: I'm doing this cause Rattati asked me to. I have my own recommendations to make. I'll also be converting my numbers for the Heavy and light weapons I was proposing. I have to bring their destructive capacity more in line with what we have for current AV. 2: Prof 5 is added under level 5 versus the appropriate shield or armor since the proficiency is ONLY applied to shield or armor And yes, I'll do the turrets, too. AV
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 194	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:32:00 - [206] - Quote My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr.... Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6690	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:35:00 - [207] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr.... Actually, myself, Thaddeus and Pokey are rather unanimously going to recommend a seven-slot layout. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 Cookie cutter fits need to die in a fire. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4510	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:18:00 - [208] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr.... Actually, myself, Thaddeus and Pokey are rather unanimously going to recommend a seven-slot layout. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 Cookie cutter fits need to die in a fire. Yeah. 7 slots with those layouts works pretty well with the modules I'm working on, and gives enough flexibility to have more than like.....1-2 fits for each type. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3758	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:35:00 - [209] - Quote 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. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2725	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:42:00 - [210] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr.... Actually, myself, Thaddeus and Pokey are rather unanimously going to recommend a seven-slot layout. Amarr 2/5 Caldari 5/2 Gallente 3/4 Minmatar 4/3 Cookie cutter fits need to die in a fire. Hey you ****............. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

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

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)

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 634	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:52:00 - [271] - Quote Luther Mandrix 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! 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) 1. You mean damage resistance plates for a certain type of damage - they exist in EVE 2. We only have 2 damage types it seems - Shield and armor - we know stuff does explosive but in this game that -20% to armor
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6723	Posted - 2015.01.24 22:12:00 - [272] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Same old words Yawn Call me when you come up with something besides the same old accusative posts Sparky, you're like a broken record. It's not even annoying anymore, just boring. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15668	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:20:00 - [273] - Quote spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

emm kay Direct Action Resources 238	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:38:00 - [274] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets ADS + treads slow clap There is a reason you never see me in battle. it's because I see you first.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6724	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:47:00 - [275] - Quote Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. AV
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 5043	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:58:00 - [276] - Quote Wow, Rattati def ate his wheaties today. Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15678	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:01:00 - [277] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 6962	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:03:00 - [278] - Quote Rattati sass factor 10 Wish more game devs would sort out destructively negative player voices like so. Just call me Ripple. Ripple Riley. @Ripley_Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6726	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:45:00 - [279] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. While a cool concept, the mass driver doesn't really hit hard or fast enough to be a credible threat and would impugn on your postulated plasma mortar. So beyond breaking regen it's not viable without a massive buff for solid AV work. It would make an excellent LAV killer. The laser rifle's overheat escalation would create more balance problems. There is a reason when I posited the scrambler lance model as steady, non-escalating DPS. The laser rifle can hit upwards of 5000 DPS at the hot end. Dunno about you but I don't think that's worth the headache of sifting through the screaming. AV
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7972	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:50:00 - [280] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. You know when a Dev tells you what the entire community has been saying since you made your first post on the forums, it's probably time to rethink your feedback methods. (I am brimming with excitement that this finally happened, btw) Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2729	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:12:00 - [281] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15681	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:21:00 - [282] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2729	Posted - 2015.01.25 04:42:00 - [283] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18473	Posted - 2015.01.25 05:39:00 - [284] - Quote CCP Rattati once upon a time ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles just that in those days vehicles had a heafty amount of HP than a whole squads combined anti infantry fire was considered wasting bullets but in theory they could have driven a tank off and had real threat capabilities against much lighter vehicles such as the dropships and the LAV. (but it was rather fun to rodeo a tank and use a 'can opener' aka shotgun on it. AV weapons available at the time where however seemingly capable of doing much more massive amounts of damage against the vehicles. This was all prelaunch mind you and the reasons why this was undone was never made apparent but the idea of potentially bringing that feeling back and adjusting every weapon to be appropriately balanced on effectiveness as its a movable target now could be a thing even with AV still in the mix. As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6726	Posted - 2015.01.25 05:49:00 - [285] - Quote I honestly prefer heavy weapons as AV/AI dual purpose to begin with. Forge guns aren't exactly poor against infantry except in close work AV
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 819	Posted - 2015.01.25 06:28:00 - [286] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. So are AV grenades being removed or something? Because those fit what you're looking for. No need to make sidearms something they're not supposed to be. If you want people to have the option of ganging up on a vehicle to take it down then make flux grenades disable vehicle movement for a couple seconds. Now squads or teams can flux a stupid pilot that gets too close and hold him while others AV grenade him. Problem solved AV nades and flux become useful, but not OP solo. EDIT: or instead of flux grenade disabling vehicle movement, let them slow them down for a few seconds. And let the movement penalty stack so multiple flux grenades slow it down even more
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6726	Posted - 2015.01.25 06:59:00 - [287] - Quote I find the AV things we have now very adequate. We need full racial flavor But honestly the mass driver and flaylock being full power against vehicles won't break them. The laser rifle, however... The heat mechanic will cause problems because of the exescalating level of destruction. Don't get me wrong, it's a neat idea! I'm just iffy on the LR as a good add there. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1330	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:08:00 - [288] - Quote I mean, currently you can kill any shield dropship with three Viziams before anyone overheats. We used to do it a lot around 1.7. The tears man. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4526	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:37:00 - [289] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. This is why I like you. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4526	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:47:00 - [290] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous. I think this goes back to a concept we discussed in our vehicle episode of Biomassed, in that ideally I would love to see more AV saturation on the field so that it is easily accessible to everyone without making serious sacrifices to their combat effectiveness. If AV is more present on the field, vehicles can afford to be extremely powerful because they potentially will have to deal with a lot of AV all the time. Unfortunately as things are, most effective AV takes the place of the primary weapon, and aside from Commandos, this means that any suit running AV is severely gimped against infantry. Because this tradeoff is rather large, AV players (reasonably so) expect Primary AV weapons to perform extremely well since they have to give up so much to run it. This lends itself to the mentality that "One AV should be able to take out a single pilot" which I don't particularly like and it lends itself to many of the balance issues we currently struggle with. However if AV is easily accessible by people without making huge sacrifices, this means that you can say "it takes multiple people to take out a single pilot, but they don't have to make huge sacrifices/swap fits in order to do so". An example of this is Titanfall, where the Titan exosuits are extremely powerful, but at the same time all infantry have an AV weapon all the time. These AV weapons are not particularly powerful, but because they can switch to it on the fly without sacrificing their normal loadout, and the fact that EVERYONE has one, a Titan that gets itself surrounded by infantry will quickly get nuked, but in a 1 vs 1 fight it will win nearly all of the time. I'm not advocating for everyone to have an AV weapon, but I think that if AV options that were less effective, but easier to fit without massive sacrifices, many people would feel they can make more of a difference against vehicles without completely gimping their AP abilities. This also allows the pilots to feel powerful by being able to take on multiple infantry at once, but vulnerable if they get zerged. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1198	Posted - 2015.01.25 08:08:00 - [291] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. Ratatti uses Burn, it's super affective! SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 774	Posted - 2015.01.25 08:23:00 - [292] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. I would argue that players that don't want to run an AV primary already sufficient options AV grenades, remotes, proximity mines and Commando suits. AV 'nades to Forge guns: Players can equip AV grendades, which do the same damage as equivalent tier Forge guns, without sacrificing the rest of he fit to AV work. You can throw all of the AV grendades in the time it takes to charge one forge shot. - ADV EXO-11 packed AV nades: 1303 dmg, 1,563 damage vs armor - ADV 9K330 forge gun: 1,320 dmg, 1452 dmg vs armor - PRO Lai Dai Packed AV grenade: 1,563 dmg, 1876 dmg vs armor - PRO Kalilkioota Forge gun : 1,444 dmg, 1, 588 vs armor 2 players, not a gang not even half a squad, but just two guys tossing 4 ADV nades at aTank can do 5212 damage base or 6252 vs armor. The same 2 players tossing 4 pro grenades can do base or 6252 (oddly symetrical)base or 7504 damge vs armor. Which falls in line direcly with what you want. Tank is called, in, everybody switches to the same slayer suit but with a grenade, and toss hem when the tak gets close. Poppeed in no time/ Remotes are already well known for both AV and AI capapbilities. Commandos: They turn Swarms and Plasma Cannons into sidearms. We have to draw a line somwhere, that is if players do not want to bring out any sort of AV to fight a vehicle, then the responsibilty lies on them. They know dust has vehicles, they know there is AV options available to them. Every player that has speced into grenades has AV grenades as an option. Unlocking ADV commandos cost 750K SP, which is less SP than geting dropsuit armor upgrades to 5. Unless you wan to add in a second grenade slot to all suits? I guess the trick is how to convince more players about having AV options fit in case of an AV engagement rather than over relying on the the few dedicated AV players on a side as a cructh. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15691	Posted - 2015.01.25 09:40:00 - [293] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: we should have 3 AV grenades good point, with the HAV re-intro, that could help. I stil think two or three sidearms should be effective, just not overly effective. Another topic that I like is some damage threshold to slow vehicles down. Or AV flux grenades. All in the context that HAVs may become a tad more powerful in the same instance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 574	Posted - 2015.01.25 09:44:00 - [294] - Quote I agree that only two weapons dedicated for AV (Swarms and Forge) are too few, and you are sacrifice a lot (AI) to run them. While the idea of bumping existing small/sidearms weapons AV capabilities are an interesting one, I still remember the bickering when small arms fire would trigger the vehicle shield recharge delay. If we are bringing racial symmetry to HAVs by using existing models (Caldari and Gallente hulls), can't we do something similar to bring symmetry to the AV weapons? If we combine the model of the Forge Gun and the effect of the Laser Rifle, can't we get a heavy laser? If we combine the model of the Swarm Launcher and the effect of the Mass Driver, can't we have a heavy artillery? It is probably not as easy as it sounds, but it might be worth investigating? Also, please bump AV grenades back to 3
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3788	Posted - 2015.01.25 09:54:00 - [295] - Quote I would prefer flux mines and a buff to current proxy mines, flux are already in a good place for fluxing vehicles, there's no need to eliminate skill and add aim bot flux nades. Regarding the rest, i would wait for vehicles before everything else, i remember i was not number 1 fan of packed lai dai at the time. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
nicholas73 Glitched Connection 323	Posted - 2015.01.25 10:24:00 - [296] - Quote While we're at it could be bring back inertia to vehicles? Like before the vehicle overhaul, HAVs are way too fast for their size. "If the truth is a cruel mistress, then a lie must be a nice girl" - Hikigaya Hachiman (Oregairu)
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 819	Posted - 2015.01.25 10:29:00 - [297] - Quote Av flux grenades would be awesome, and simple.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 635	Posted - 2015.01.25 10:32:00 - [298] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. 1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15698	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:06:00 - [299] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. 1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 635	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:17:00 - [300] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. 1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything 7. I will still be here - I wont go because AV and infantry dont like what i have to say, i wont go because you dont like it that i find big gaping holes in your propsals, i wont go because i dont want to see a playstyle be actively demolished by the people who dont like it, i wont be pushed out because you want to be surrounded by yes men who all tell you that you are doing a wonderful job - If you dont like it i dont really care, your only option is to ban me and if that happens anytime soon then i know i was right all along and it is a closed shop 8. Thats not feedback is it? - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. 1. Until something changes and that change is on the positive side of things the replies will always be the same 4/5. Im still seeing 3/2 on a PRO HAV in your spreadsheet and nothing about modules and skills - Until that changes i will call it as i see it and you will call my comment a willful misunderstanding

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6732	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:22:00 - [301] - Quote Rattati would you like me to do number builds for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar, autocannon and arc cannon adapted to 1.10 AV DPS standards that I had in my chrome build spreadsheet? It's an easy conversion. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3788	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:22:00 - [302] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. I feel a bit call out on this, but i've also explained why i think those fits are terrible. It's more a lack of modules than the fit itself, when you have nothing to put on a slot, it's natural to put the only useful thing there. Role wise my hint was that we should not have to put plates or armor modules in general on a shield vehicle, or at least if we do, we should not expect it to work good. I'm a little confused, i feel like we are moving on separate rails, we look at each other, but there is no point of collision. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6732	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:34:00 - [303] - Quote shaman oga wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. I feel a bit call out on this, but i've also explained why i think those fits are terrible. It's more a lack of modules than the fit itself, when you have nothing to put on a slot, it's natural to put the only useful thing there. Role wise my hint was that we should not have to put plates or armor modules in general on a shield vehicle, or at least if we do, we should not expect it to work good. I'm a little confused, i feel like we are moving on separate rails, we look at each other, but there is no point of collision. You're not being condescending about it, and you're listening. The second part is as important as the first. When you cannot have a civil conversation with anyone, and you decide that you are always right, and everyone else is wrong even when they agree with you, you are not engaging in conversation, or talking to people. You are talking AT them. This, in most cultures I am aware of, is considered to be highly offensive behavior. You're fine, for the most part, and for the most part I'm OK. Not perfect, but ok. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3790	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:53:00 - [304] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: You're not being condescending about it, and you're listening. The second part is as important as the first. When you cannot have a civil conversation with anyone, and you decide that you are always right, and everyone else is wrong even when they agree with you, you are not engaging in conversation, or talking to people. You are talking AT them. This, in most cultures I am aware of, is considered to be highly offensive behavior. You're fine, for the most part, and for the most part I'm OK. Not perfect, but ok. I know i'm repetitive, but that is most because i'm not a english master, when i speak in italian, i do not repeat myself Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6732	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:59:00 - [305] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: You're not being condescending about it, and you're listening. The second part is as important as the first. When you cannot have a civil conversation with anyone, and you decide that you are always right, and everyone else is wrong even when they agree with you, you are not engaging in conversation, or talking to people. You are talking AT them. This, in most cultures I am aware of, is considered to be highly offensive behavior. You're fine, for the most part, and for the most part I'm OK. Not perfect, but ok. I know i'm repetitive, but that is most because i'm not a english master, when i speak in italian, i do not repeat myself I only repeat myself when people keep missing the damn point. Ok back to finishing the flaylock and NK stats. NK use the plasma profile, correct? We need to add the profiles to in-game information for the weapons AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3792	Posted - 2015.01.25 12:28:00 - [306] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: NK use the plasma profile, correct? Idk what SDE says, i always thought they use melee profile without bonus or penalties. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Cavani1EE7 Murphys-Law 890	Posted - 2015.01.25 12:45:00 - [307] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: we should have 3 AV grenades good point, with the HAV re-intro, that could help. I stil think two or three sidearms should be effective, just not overly effective. Another topic that I like is some damage threshold to slow vehicles down. Or AV flux grenades. All in the context that HAVs may become a tad more powerful in the same instance. Yes. 10100111001 Shield tanking is hard mode /period. 10100111001
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6735	Posted - 2015.01.25 13:41:00 - [308] - Quote Alright. fully awake now. Pulling numbers for the flaylock pistols and running the crunches AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6735	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:01:00 - [309] - Quote Oh fun. The rounds per minute aren't listed for the flaylock, so no fire rate. Cannot calculate accurate flaylock DPS. Anyone translating the SDE willing to punch me the numbers for the flaylock Pistol, Breach flaylock, GN-13 Flaylock and the core flaylock? otherwise I can't do jack with it. also I need nova knife data. without attack delays and such (which are not listed in the in-game data) I can't give accurate attack profiles. I can say that flaylocks aren't going to be panic-worthy at 100% to vehicles. If we're expanding current weaponry I'd recommend the following light weapons and sidearms for double duty: flaylock, bolt and ion pistols, Mass Drivers, Shotguns. Because fo the way the laser rifle stacks damage I recommend it not be added to the pile. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6735	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:15:00 - [310] - Quote At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. AV

Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 301	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:37:00 - [311] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. Rattati, I generally run the laser rifle these days and I think giving it an AV role would cause problems the laser rifle works by increasing the damage the longer you hold the trigger, this is balanced against infantry as they are a small/agile target whist firing at the optimum range. Tanks and Dropships are large targets and it would be quite easy to hit them with the entire magazine (or until overheat) it could end up just being a troll weapon to stop shield regen I'm not against adding the MD as AV (someone mentioned the changing the breach variant) but at this point i feel the AV options are already skewed against armour so would hold off until we get more shield options ADS Ramming Revenge!!
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:50:00 - [312] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Rattati once upon a time ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles. [...] As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it? Both these points seem like viable long-term goals. The original intent, I believe, was to allow everything to work that looks like it should work. If you try to kill a car with a plasma shotgun, that should work. If you shoot an MCC with a railgun, that should work. It may be comparatively ineffective, but it should work. However I see no short-term way of introducing this. Finally, back on the topic of HAV progression: I've come to the (personal and subjective) conclusion that the best method of going forward is to do these things: - Higher tier HAVs are introduced with the 3/2 slot layout and additional CPU/PG - Passive versions of active modules are introduced (resistance plates, shield regulators, engine upgrades, weapon mods) to improve fitting variety - Existing broken modules are fixed (light armor plates and extenders, shield boosters) Hopefully then we'll be able to fit all 5 module slots in a useful manner instead of only the three main ones. That would be a huge improvement in my opinion. In the midterm we should be looking at: - Cleaning up large turrets and their individual purpose - Introducing small & large turret variants - Cleaning up AV options to always be capable of some limited AI-functionality (- Increasing module count, if someone comes up with an easy way of predicting the effect that would have)
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 285	Posted - 2015.01.25 14:59:00 - [313] - Quote Rattati: I would be fine with some weapons doing more damage to vehicles if vehicles could do more damage to infantry. Specifically, with current hit detection and dispersion, the large blaster turret will have a more difficult time with alot more bunny hopping once entire teams have proto ed out the av variant of a sidearm ( this takes about a week now ?) If the large blaster was more deadly to infantry and didn't depend on a lucky burst connecting with a headshot from 20m then I would still see a reason to call a blaster tank. Otherwise, chances are every infantry will just start jumping and lobbing flaylocks rounds at every vehicle. If possible, could any changes to weapons come after hull changes to get a feel if the extra hp is even enough ( for those brave enough to sink sp into the trees ) to warrant more weapons to have av variants? The nova knives make sense as a stealth player, but increasing other weapons dps vs vehicles will make them the dominant weapon on the play field. We already played through a build where flaylocks and mass drivers were spammed all match for the win. To comment any further I would have to have an idea of what kind of ehp these tanks would have, if it only amounts to a swarm volley then Iwould say av still has it easy. Just because a tank driving by you doesn't automatically pop, when it can't even hit you, shouldn't mean you need your weapon buffed. not checked for spelling or autocorrect.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1589	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:00:00 - [314] - 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! All shield boosters have to do for me to use them is give me the amount of shield listed whenever I activate it no matter what. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 301	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:02:00 - [315] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok back to finishing the flaylock and NK stats. NK use the plasma profile, correct? We need to add the profiles to in-game information for the weapons going by the proficiency skill bonus they are netural ADS Ramming Revenge!!
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1589	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:06:00 - [316] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: 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 You'd be surprised when I one clip you with missiles why you panic and fire my double hardened 3975 shields and can't even get under 3600. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1589	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:07:00 - [317] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds 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! 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 Where'd you pull 2325? Your ass? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1589	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:19:00 - [318] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. 7 slots would be nice and a l better than what you are suggesting in my opinion. To be honest, Chromosome tanks were fun, I hate these stupid arcade tanks we have now. I hate how militia tanks can pop Proto fitted tanks in seconds, I hate the values for Armor and Shield. They don't feel like tanks. When I think of a tank I think of a vehicle that takes a ton of damage but also has to retreat from battle for a while to get things going. To regen all of it's 7000-9000 ehp using active modules and such. As of now, it tales Madrugars and Gunnlogis 10 seconds behind a wall and they are full HP and that HP goes down in like 5 seconds. In Chromosome, we had tanks that it took about a minute to bring a tank to it's knees but that tank had to retreat to it's redline for 2 minutes or so to get all of it's modules back. Armor had active repairs so Armor tanks had to be careful of when to use them. Armor tankers sat in the redline cycling their Active repairs preparing themselves for wave #2. Shield tanks (they were UP compared to Armor in regen capabilities) sat in redline for minutes letting their passives repair them (Passives were stupidly low (25 shields per sec) and Shield tanks usually had 5000-7000 shield with passive resistances). Overall shield tanks needed some work but moving on. Tanks currently don't feel like tanks, they feel like lightly armored vehicles who have to retreat after one volley of swarms. They regen fast, they have low HP and low number of slots. A standard dropship has more slots. My Grimness fits more Armor than my Madrugar. Back then we had investment, now all you need is 57k isk and spam the request. When going up against 500k isk tanks, there is no worry, spawn as many sicas until you pop him. Back then, a Sagaris (UHAV) could fight off 4 sicas at once. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:21:00 - [319] - Quote If UHAV are faster, and DHAV are slower.... how exactly is a DHAV supposed to hunt UHAV? "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6738	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:24:00 - [320] - Quote Devadander wrote: If UHAV are faster, and DHAV are slower.... how exactly is a DHAV supposed to hunt UHAV? you have it reversed AV

Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:37:00 - [321] - Quote its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Vordred Knight T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 656	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:38:00 - [322] - Quote I remember seeing one of my corp mates back in chromosome he had an armor tank with 30k hp it was unbelievable other people where there to witness it too Don't Click this link
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6738	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:52:00 - [323] - Quote Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire AV
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 575	Posted - 2015.01.25 16:56:00 - [324] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. Rattati, I generally run the laser rifle these days and I think giving it an AV role would cause problems the laser rifle works by increasing the damage the longer you hold the trigger, this is balanced against infantry as they are a small/agile target whist firing at the optimum range. Tanks and Dropships are large targets and it would be quite easy to hit them with the entire magazine (or until overheat) it could end up just being a troll weapon to stop shield regen I'm not against adding the MD as AV (someone mentioned the changing the breach variant) but at this point i feel the AV options are already skewed against armour so would hold off until we get more shield options Well, LR is one of the better shield weapons in the game. As a Caldari, I really fear those pesky things. I think the LR could work as AV if you need to be close to overheating (like 70-80% heat) before reaching damage enough to stop shield regen. This means that you HAVE TO continuously point towards a tank to damage it, broadcasting both your position and intent. You might as well paint a bullseye on your head while your at it... I kind of like it. With regard to the tank slot layout, I really think we should bump to 7 slot configuration before we reintroduce them. It will be a pain to bump them later. The initial calculation (excel) can use the 5 slots, and then rebalance for 7 before introduction.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:09:00 - [325] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I don't think that making AI weapons, especially sidearms into viable AV weapons is a REALLY bad idea. That would make AV weapons more useless, and makes Pilots jobs harder, because more people has AV on hand. Also, it will have people asking why X weapon is both AI and AV, but not Y, and it will get to the point where AV is useless unless buffed to where they would be OP, and then that will make vehicles even harder to use. And I definitely don't want that at all. Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. So are AV grenades being removed or something? Because those fit what you're looking for. No need to make sidearms something they're not supposed to be. If you want people to have the option of ganging up on a vehicle to take it down then make flux grenades disable vehicle movement for a couple seconds. Now squads or teams can flux a stupid pilot that gets too close and hold him while others AV grenade him. Problem solved AV nades and flux become useful, but not OP solo. EDIT: or instead of flux grenade disabling vehicle movement, let them slow them down for a few seconds. And let the movement penalty stack so multiple flux grenades slow it down even more Stack is a hell no. That would just lead to people carrying around fluxes as a squad (they are already really deadly as is) and tossing them at anything and rapidly slowing them down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:12:00 - [326] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Rattati once upon a time ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles. Just that in those days vehicles had a hefty amount of HP. The effortsof a whole squad's combined anti infantry fire was considered wasting bullets but in theory they could have driven a tank off. The same effect on lighter vehicles such as the dropships and the LAV was however very notable. (but it was rather fun to rodeo a tank and use a 'can opener' aka shotgun on it.) AV weapons available at the time where however seemingly capable of doing much more massive amounts of damage against the vehicles and still remained the optimal threat against them. This was all prelaunch mind you and the reasons why this was undone was never made apparent but the idea of potentially bringing that feeling back and adjusting every weapon to be appropriately balanced on effectiveness as its a movable target now could be a thing even with AV still in the mix. As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it? My objection was because of LAV's. I don't want infantry to just shoot my my LLV while I'm supposed to be repping vehicles and scare me off. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2731	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:15:00 - [327] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I honestly prefer heavy weapons as AV/AI dual purpose to begin with. Forge guns aren't exactly poor against infantry except in close work Now that balanced reasonably I could agree with. Heavy weapons makes sense to be the gap between infantry and vehicles. Heavy: All weapons can do some sort of reasonable damage to a vehicle, depending on design more or less Light: only AV specific weapons can do any reasonable damage to vehicles Sidearm: No AV weapons, because a pistol making a vehicle scared off is a silly notion. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:28:00 - [328] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I know that is your intention, I'm saying that giving everyone AV, especially in a state where all AV is able to take out anything with similar skill requirements would make Pilots jobs ridiculous. I think this goes back to a concept we discussed in our vehicle episode of Biomassed, in that ideally I would love to see more AV saturation on the field so that it is easily accessible to everyone without making serious sacrifices to their combat effectiveness. If AV is more present on the field, vehicles can afford to be extremely powerful because they potentially will have to deal with a lot of AV all the time. Unfortunately as things are, most effective AV takes the place of the primary weapon, and aside from Commandos, this means that any suit running AV is severely gimped against infantry. Because this tradeoff is rather large, AV players (reasonably so) expect Primary AV weapons to perform extremely well since they have to give up so much to run it. This lends itself to the mentality that "One AV should be able to take out a single pilot" which I don't particularly like and it lends itself to many of the balance issues we currently struggle with. However if AV is easily accessible by people without making huge sacrifices, this means that you can say "it takes multiple people to take out a single pilot, but they don't have to make huge sacrifices/swap fits in order to do so". An example of this is Titanfall, where the Titan exosuits are extremely powerful, but at the same time all infantry have an AV weapon all the time. These AV weapons are not particularly powerful, but because they can switch to it on the fly without sacrificing their normal loadout, and the fact that EVERYONE has one, a Titan that gets itself surrounded by infantry will quickly get nuked, but in a 1 vs 1 fight it will win nearly all of the time. I'm not advocating for everyone to have an AV weapon, but I think that if AV options that were less effective, but easier to fit without massive sacrifices, many people would feel they can make more of a difference against vehicles without completely gimping their AP abilities. This also allows the pilots to feel powerful by being able to take on multiple infantry at once, but vulnerable if they get zerged. But I have a problem with that, as 1: Infantry wants Pilots not to be able to kill them, well at least without some support or luck with their large turret 2: This would mean that on top of AV, pretty much anyone can just shoot at you and apply same actual damage to you 3: Seeing as vehicles under this could be shot at by infantry of all kinds easily, heavier ones will take more than lighter ones, as that is reasonable. But if lighter ones can take damage easily, and those vehicles were meant to have some sort of survival against infantry, then we have a problem (LLV comes to mind, seeing as it is supposed to be able to rep both vehicles and infantry). 4: Infantry can be much more helpful to the team by being able to affect its outcome directly though the Nullcannons, while there's not a single vehicle that can't, but having protection against a lot of them, and being able to do other things that indirectly effects the outcome makes up for that. This makes infantry, especially the mass blob of infantry just that more superior. Now not only are they inferior in effecting the match, they can even be even more easily killed by them, and that's not balanced. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:31:00 - [329] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: I agree that only two weapons dedicated for AV (Swarms and Forge) are too few, and you are sacrifice a lot (AI) to run them. While the idea of bumping existing small/sidearms weapons AV capabilities are an interesting one, I still remember the bickering when small arms fire would trigger the vehicle shield recharge delay. If we are bringing racial symmetry to HAVs by using existing models (Caldari and Gallente hulls), can't we do something similar to bring symmetry to the AV weapons? If we combine the model of the Forge Gun and the effect of the Laser Rifle, can't we get a heavy laser? If we combine the model of the Swarm Launcher and the effect of the Mass Driver, can't we have a heavy artillery? It is probably not as easy as it sounds, but it might be worth investigating? Also, please bump AV grenades back to 3 That's not a problem, make more AV weapons. Not make everything a AV weapon. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6738	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:35:00 - [330] - Quote I think more widespread AV options would justify ratcheting back on the cannon nerfs AV

Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:40:00 - [331] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 776	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:53:00 - [332] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Not_knowing_when_to_quit.gif Anyway, about the light Lazer rifle as AV. Juno runs the lazer rifle alot, so take him at his word when he thinks lazers might be a bit difficult to balance as AV. A decent lazer rifleman(?) is used to hitting infantry at around 80+ m, hiting a vehicle would be like hitting he broadside of a barn. What about a combination of the scrambler rifle and laser rifle, assault forge gun mechanics? Breach Lazer Rifle: - Requires approx. 2.5 second charge (like scrambler/ assault forge gun) - Fires powerful approx. 5 second AV pulse ( increases in damage up to 5 seconds mark player has to keep full pulse on target for maximum effect) - Lazer damage profile vs shields - can be used vs infantry, but long charge time means infantry have a chance of escape. - fills in missig lazer rifle variants. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6742	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:53:00 - [333] - Quote Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6742	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:56:00 - [334] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Not_knowing_when_to_quit.gif Anyway, about the light Lazer rifle as AV. Juno runs the lazer rifle alot, so take him at his word when he thinks lazers might be a bit difficult to balance as AV. A decent lazer rifleman(?) is used to hitting infantry at around 80+ m, hiting a vehicle would be like hitting he broadside of a barn. What about a combination of the scrambler rifle and laser rifle, assault forge gun mechanics? Breach Lazer Rifle: - Requires approx. 2.5 second charge (like scrambler/ assault forge gun) - Fires powerful approx. 5 second AV pulse ( increases in damage up to 5 seconds mark player has to keep full pulse on target for maximum effect) - Lazer damage profile vs shields - can be used vs infantry, but long charge time means infantry have a chance of escape. - fills in missig lazer rifle variants. I statted this weapon and gave it the arc cannon name from templar one actually AV
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:57:00 - [335] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. People will just fit ehp and AV on the AI tank. Making the AV tank worthless vs the AI tank. Unless CCP cooks up some good role bonus(es) for these new hulls, exploitation will commence. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6745	Posted - 2015.01.25 18:10:00 - [336] - Quote Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Devadander wrote: its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself? the answer is you had it reversed. DHAVs are faster so they can chase down targets and run away from return fire After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision. The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...) Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..." The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase. CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing. The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me. Players are too risk averse and CCP has been too risk averse in developmental style. If we don't pull it through and try to unscrew it without getting squeamish about getting a bit of mud and blood on the boots it'll never get where it needs to be. People will just fit ehp and AV on the AI tank. Making the AV tank worthless vs the AI tank. Unless CCP cooks up some good role bonus(es) for these new hulls, exploitation will commence. all the large turrets are AV Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4540	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:01:00 - [337] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:13:00 - [338] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: all the large turrets are AV Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. When was the last time you rolled a tank? Ion blasters with a dmg mod cant budge a double hardened gunni/maddy. Missles are AV I'll admit that. Rails can be AV if the attacking HAV doesn't know about rotation (and if said rail is on a rooftop..) I'm not even going to comment on blasters lest someone cry for another nerf making them the tank mounted snowball shooter.. AVHAV needs large turret dmg, rof, and dispersion buffs AIHAV needs rotation, dispersion, (FOR ALL TURRETS) and passive recovery buffs Maybe, just maybe, blasters on an AVHAV will prove good to hunt tanks again. I'm hopeful with active coolant mods I can go back to stamping hulls on my hull. I just don't see how less EHP will prove effective against more EHP even with a speed boost. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 777	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [339] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [340] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: ... Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. ... 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink ... I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. 1. Until something changes and that change is on the positive side of things the replies will always be the same 4/5. Im still seeing 3/2 on a PRO HAV in your spreadsheet and nothing about modules and skills - Until that changes i will call it as i see it and you will call my comment a willful misunderstanding Sigh From the OP CCP Rattato 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. ... 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. ... MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4541	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:33:00 - [341] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... I think people are getting hung up on intended design vs how ** currently works. Currently Blasters suck as AV, but that doesn't change the fact that they're SUPPOSED to be AV. In short, Blasters need a buff, but large and small (though likely in different ways) "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7417	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:33:00 - [342] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. Posted in the Barbershop. I am fairly certain we can get numbers for you. @ Godin I think you are overly concerned with the side arms and weapons they are talking about adding. No one complains that NKs being able to do 50% damage has been a problem for tanks, and I certainly thought it would when it was announced. I also don't think anyone is suggesting a single merc should be able to unload his ScP ammo at a tank and take it down. If a Solo HAV pulls up to a defended objective that has no supply depot, it seems reasonable to me that 5 or 6 mercs should be able to scare it off. If the fool decides to just sit there for 20 or 30 seconds and try and take them all down, then he should deserve to be heavily damaged or blown up. In that example, a Solo HAV should see he is outnumbered, and provided he has no squad support to attack the defenders while they aren't paying attention, should be forced to flee. If the HAV had multiple manned turrets and a decent pilot, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fight off the defenders before significant damage is done to the HAV. Dropships and LAVs shouldn't even need to worry given the limited range and utility of the weapons Rattati is talking about adding. Its not like it is being said that the CRs and RRs should do 100% damage, then I could understand your concerns. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 197	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:36:00 - [343] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. I noticed no mention of R.E.'s.. and as far as it being difficult to AI with handheld AV.. the swarm launcher does suck at killing infantry I'll give ya that. In case you were thinking I'm one of the infantry blaster farmers of old, you can just eat that. I popped more tanks than anyone else back in pre 1.7 all the way to beginning. Sorry I'm not part of one of the big groups, but my voice can still be heard. Ask NS or AE how many tanks they would have to field to deal with me and the one random crap tanker they could find to ring against big corps. If your team was tired of losing tanks to me I would kill any troops dumb enough to rush an 80gj barrel yup. This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Honestly idk why I care, the sad truth is well funded corps will just roll 3 squads and keep dropping crap tanks till you are overwhelmed at every corner. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4542	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:51:00 - [344] - Quote Devadander wrote: I noticed no mention of R.E.'s.. and as far as it being difficult to AI with handheld AV.. the swarm launcher does suck at killing infantry I'll give ya that. In case you were thinking I'm one of the infantry blaster farmers of old, you can just eat that. I popped more tanks than anyone else back in pre 1.7 all the way to beginning. Sorry I'm not part of one of the big groups, but my voice can still be heard. Ask NS or AE how many tanks they would have to field to deal with me and the one random crap tanker they could find to ring against big corps. If your team was tired of losing tanks to me I would kill any troops dumb enough to rush an 80gj barrel yup. This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Honestly idk why I care, the sad truth is well funded corps will just roll 3 squads and keep dropping crap tanks till you are overwhelmed at every corner. o_O not really sure why you feel the need to sound so hostile.. And sure remotes can be used for AP and AV, just mentioned Plama Cannons and Forge guns because they're pretty commonly used, I wasn't intentionally leaving out remotes. Just FYI, EVE PvP is hardly click and forget, there is a lot of stuff going on like managing modules, adjusting orbit range, ect. The fact of the matter is that Large Turrets obviously have to do more damage to fulfill the role of fight larger, high HP vehicles. If they were equally good at killing infantry as they are vehicles, you run into serious issues where solo tankers are capable of doing far more damage to infantry consistently than the infantry can do to the vehicle. I know people will often spout "Well this isn't EVE!", but the fact of the matter is that while you can't make direct comparisons between the two games in many cases, there are systems and mechanics that do work between the two, and it is not unreasonable to make comparisons when it makes sense. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:30:00 - [345] - Quote Are you ever going to add a militia large missile turret? Why aren't missile turrets called rockets turrets? Here's some spreadsheet related feedback: HAV tab The Short description for the U & DHAVs say "Side grade to MBT" instead of "Side grade from MBT" which implies that it sidegrading into an MBT. On the skills section by the DHAV skills you have a fitting bonus to railguns and on vehicle modules tab under Tentative Steps you have "Enforcers do NOT get fitting bonus to Rails". On Step 2 Modules you have the typo "ACtive" Can the spool up and tracking mods be for low slots and can new modules be added too, like a low slot shield regulator that reduces shield recharge delay by around 10/20/30% per tier? Also can you get shield booster to work? A lot of times they don't give any HP back. For the Large Turrets tab under the Random thoughts section, I would classify the turrets like this: Best to Worst Alpha Rail Missile Blaster and add a Bust section: Missile Railgun Blaster Lastly, can you say around what time will we get the racially re-purposed hulls? MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16801	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:35:00 - [346] - Quote Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4543	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:55:00 - [347] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... You have to earn it with your fingers. And sometimes thumbs. Honestly though I would love to drop some people into EVE PvP and see how well they do with the "fire and forget" combat. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 164	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:04:00 - [348] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds 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! 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 Where'd you pull 2325? Your butt? based on maintaining approx current levels of eHP on shield tanks with module and slot changes in my proposal Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
The-Errorist 967	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:10:00 - [349] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I'd only be ok with the the breach flaylocks, breach scrambler pistols, bolt pistols, and KN being able to hurt vehicles. Balancing the LR effectiveness as AV would be difficult and I would very much prefer having a heavy LR instead; however, I do support the MD performing better against vehicles. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7418	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:13:00 - [350] - Quote @ Breakin Stuff I got the Flaylock DPS from Protofits, for whatever that is worth: Std: Basic, 364.58 Breach, 295.93 Adv: 382.81 Pro: 401.04 For NKs, I just used the known delays, with the first assumption being the delay between Knife 1 and Knife 2 in a swipe, which I think is resonable to say is 0.2 seconds. For charged strikes, I ignored the usual delay between strikes as I to the best of my knowledge you can charge knives immediately after a strike. I also assumed both knives hit. The numbers do not take into account the 50% reduction, nor any Minmatar Scout bonuses. Std: Uncharged, 282.35 Charged, 375 Adv: Uncharged, 376.47 Charged, 571.43 Pro: Uncharged, 470.59 Charged, 833.33 Hope that helps. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6754	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:26:00 - [351] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ Breakin Stuff I got the Flaylock DPS from Protofits, for whatever that is worth: Std: Basic, 364.58 Breach, 295.93 Adv: 382.81 Pro: 401.04 For NKs, I just used the known delays, with the first assumption being the delay between Knife 1 and Knife 2 in a swipe, which I think is resonable to say is 0.2 seconds. For charged strikes, I ignored the usual delay between strikes as I to the best of my knowledge you can charge knives immediately after a strike. I also assumed both knives hit. The numbers do not take into account the 50% reduction, nor any Minmatar Scout bonuses. Std: Uncharged, 282.35 Charged, 375 Adv: Uncharged, 376.47 Charged, 571.43 Pro: Uncharged, 470.59 Charged, 833.33 Hope that helps. I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:33:00 - [352] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:55:00 - [353] - Quote The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 198	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:57:00 - [354] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... You have to earn it with your fingers. And sometimes thumbs. Honestly though I would love to drop some people into EVE PvP and see how well they do with the "fire and forget" combat. I always sound hostile idk why, just me I guess. Just saying there is a HUGE difference between, left click, ctrl click to lock, F1 for gun group, then orbit - keep at, and trying to sight a nugget actively with sticks while they are doin the MKB dance dance revolution. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:28:00 - [355] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further. Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods. The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs. I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff? Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:40:00 - [356] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: This isn't eve, there is no click and forget metrics. You have to earn it with your thumbs. Lol. Click and Forget...... almost as if imputing a specific series of appropriate commands on your key board is different to imputing a specific set of appropriate commands on your controller..... You have to earn it with your fingers. And sometimes thumbs. Honestly though I would love to drop some people into EVE PvP and see how well they do with the "fire and forget" combat. I always sound hostile idk why, just me I guess. Just saying there is a HUGE difference between, left click, ctrl click to lock, F1 for gun group, then orbit - keep at, and trying to sight a nugget actively with sticks while they are doin the MKB dance dance revolution. Not really. It's just a different skill set with different imputs. More looking at the data on screen than attempting "dance revolution" though I have to admit dodging half a dozen or so Rifters and running them off a plex was really enjoyable and pretty tense. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:00:00 - [357] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further. Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods. The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs. I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff? Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now. Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 11998	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:06:00 - [358] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Hey Rattati full breakdowns of the AV capacity of the weapons is more or less done. I only have the nova knives and flaylock but after looking at the mass driver I'm going to go out on a limb and call bot weapons' AV capacity minimal. Good for a finisher though. I should be able to finish both of them in a few hours after I calculate the level 5 PG/CPU and splash for the mass driver. Spreadsheet link in signature. Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well. I 100% support giving MD, flaylock, and other weapons getting better AV capabilities. I also would suggest taking a look at swarm launchers vs plasma cannons: both are AV launchers, yet one requires much less skill to operate (lockon, tracking), yet is much more effective than the skill-intensive one. Support 'Keshava' for the new Gallente HAV name in honor of Cat Merc's cat which recently passed away.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16804	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:06:00 - [359] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further. Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods. The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs. I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff? Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now. Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. I'm also going to assume those are unmodified damage values for the missiles. If you add in the 20% damage profile for them (though I've heard they use the Projectile Profile) thats an additional 1600 damage.... ish.... which does put you into 10,000 damage in the space of very few seconds. If its not please let me know. That still fundamentally renders the armour tank useless. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1592	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:58:00 - [360] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds 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! 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 Where'd you pull 2325? Your butt? based on maintaining approx current levels of eHP on shield tanks with module and slot changes in my proposal Approved. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 779	Posted - 2015.01.26 01:19:00 - [361] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. Just to clarify for you the stats between Missiles vs Rails: Missiles are explosive, -20/+20 (i kow it says projectile in protofits, but rattati changed them to explosive dmg profile) Rails are hybrid, -10/+10 - Pro Missiles XT-201 539.5 damage per missile x 12 shots per clip = 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor - Proto Rail 1885 damage per shot x 9 shots = 16,965 damage base 15,268 vs shield 18,661.5 vs armor But I know Rails over heat in 5 shots so in five shots = 9,425 damage base 8506.8 vs shields 10,367 vs armor You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor. Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank. But you are not happy with this , so you want rail tanks to do in 5 shots +10% 10,367 damage base, 9425 damage vs shield, 11,404 damage vs armor without damage mods. because missile tanks may do per clip +10% 7121 damage base 5697 vs shields 8545 damage vs armor and you think this is balance. Because of you're mythical triple damage modded "redline missile tank" with 150m optimal, damage dropoff, missile travle time, inaacuracy, and the need to land every single round to get damage even comparable to a rail tank which has 300m range, no damage drop off, pinpoint accuaracy, no travel time, and can put out enough damage to kill any vehicle without overheating. " This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him." Yep, and i'm looking right at you. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.26 01:27:00 - [362] - Quote I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating. I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire. Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around. The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.26 01:45:00 - [363] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. Just to clarify for you the stats between Missiles vs Rails: Missiles are explosive, -20/+20 (i kow it says projectile in protofits, but rattati changed them to explosive dmg profile) Rails are hybrid, -10/+10 - Pro Missiles XT-201 539.5 damage per missile x 12 shots per clip = 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor - Proto Rail 1885 damage per shot x 9 shots = 16,965 damage base 15,268 vs shield 18,661.5 vs armor But I know Rails over heat in 5 shots so in five shots = 9,425 damage base 8506.8 vs shields 10,367 vs armor You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor. Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank. But you are not happy with this , so you want rail tanks to do in 5 shots +10% 10,367 damage base, 9425 damage vs shield, 11,404 damage vs armor without damage mods. because missile tanks may do per clip +10% 7121 damage base 5697 vs shields 8545 damage vs armor and you think this is balance. Because of you're mythical triple damage modded "redline missile tank" with 150m optimal, damage dropoff, missile travle time, inaacuracy, and the need to land every single round to get damage even comparable to a rail tank which has 300m range, no damage drop off, pinpoint accuaracy, no travel time, and can put out enough damage to kill any vehicle without overheating. " This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him." Yep, and i'm looking right at you. Just in case you edit your post and try to say you never said rails get 5 shots before overheat.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 165	Posted - 2015.01.26 01:53:00 - [364] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. Just to clarify for you the stats between Missiles vs Rails: Missiles are explosive, -20/+20 (i kow it says projectile in protofits, but rattati changed them to explosive dmg profile) Rails are hybrid, -10/+10 - Pro Missiles XT-201 539.5 damage per missile x 12 shots per clip = 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor - Proto Rail 1885 damage per shot x 9 shots = 16,965 damage base 15,268 vs shield 18,661.5 vs armor But I know Rails over heat in 5 shots so in five shots = 9,425 damage base 8506.8 vs shields 10,367 vs armor You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor. Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank. But you are not happy with this , so you want rail tanks to do in 5 shots +10% 10,367 damage base, 9425 damage vs shield, 11,404 damage vs armor without damage mods. because missile tanks may do per clip +10% 7121 damage base 5697 vs shields 8545 damage vs armor and you think this is balance. Because of you're mythical triple damage modded "redline missile tank" with 150m optimal, damage dropoff, missile travle time, inaacuracy, and the need to land every single round to get damage even comparable to a rail tank which has 300m range, no damage drop off, pinpoint accuaracy, no travel time, and can put out enough damage to kill any vehicle without overheating. " This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him." Yep, and i'm looking right at you. Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 780	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:04:00 - [365] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating. I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire. In the time it takes a rail turret to shoot 9 shots the missile tank can empty it's clip twice. Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around. The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. You aren't really answering why 5 Rail rounds that do 2,951 more base damage than a full clip of Missiles, 3,327 more shield damage than missiles, and 2,597 more armor damage than missiles needs a 10% damage buff. You also haven't been paying attention, i have been asking for armor tank hardeners to be buffed as a defense against getting instapopped by missiles. You should try to show why rails need to put out even more damage to "keep up" with other turrets it already surpasses. Rails don't need anymore love. You wanted to compare it to the damage missiles do, here you go. Now that you know for a fact that rails do far more damage than missiles do, are you ready to accept that Rails are in a great place right now and don't need a buff? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 286	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:08:00 - [366] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating. I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire. In the time it takes a rail turret to shoot 9 shots the missile tank can empty it's clip twice. Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around. The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. You aren't really answering why 5 Rail rounds that do 2,951 more base damage than a full clip of Missiles, 3,327 more shield damage than missiles, and 2,597 more armor damage than missiles needs a 10% damage buff. You also haven't been paying attention, i have been asking for armor tank hardeners to be buffed as a defense against getting instapopped by missiles. You should try to show why rails need to put out even more damage to "keep up" with other turrets it already surpasses. Rails don't need anymore love. You wanted to compare it to the damage missiles do, here you go. Now that you know for a fact that rails do far more damage than missiles do, are you ready to accept that Rails are in a great place right now and don't need a buff? I don't think you are following the above rebuttals to your error filled posts. Please read and realize the Missile turrets put out more damage faster as I feel I am even wasting my time with this reply. The Large rail turret needs the same bonus as the Large blaster turret and the Large Missile turret.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:16:00 - [367] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. Posted in the Barbershop. I am fairly certain we can get numbers for you. @ Godin I think you are overly concerned with the side arms and weapons they are talking about adding. No one complains that NKs being able to do 50% damage has been a problem for tanks, and I certainly thought it would when it was announced. I also don't think anyone is suggesting a single merc should be able to unload his ScP ammo at a tank and take it down. If a Solo HAV pulls up to a defended objective that has no supply depot, it seems reasonable to me that 5 or 6 mercs should be able to scare it off. If the fool decides to just sit there for 20 or 30 seconds and try and take them all down, then he should deserve to be heavily damaged or blown up. In that example, a Solo HAV should see he is outnumbered, and provided he has no squad support to attack the defenders while they aren't paying attention, should be forced to flee. If the HAV had multiple manned turrets and a decent pilot, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fight off the defenders before significant damage is done to the HAV. Dropships and LAVs shouldn't even need to worry given the limited range and utility of the weapons Rattati is talking about adding. Its not like it is being said that the CRs and RRs should do 100% damage, then I could understand your concerns. I wan't worrying about HAV's as much as I was worrying about lighter vehicles, as I assumed that the lighter the vehicle was the more damage it was able to do, and that bothered me, seeing as some of those (LLV) needs to be able to tank against it. Also, with a suggestion of making lighter weapon classes able to do AV, There will be people asking for more. And more. And that I don't want. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 166	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:35:00 - [368] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating. I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire. In the time it takes a rail turret to shoot 9 shots the missile tank can empty it's clip twice. Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around. The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. You aren't really answering why 5 Rail rounds that do 2,951 more base damage than a full clip of Missiles, 3,327 more shield damage than missiles, and 2,597 more armor damage than missiles needs a 10% damage buff. You also haven't been paying attention, i have been asking for armor tank hardeners to be buffed as a defense against getting instapopped by missiles. You should try to show why rails need to put out even more damage to "keep up" with other turrets it already surpasses. Rails don't need anymore love. You wanted to compare it to the damage missiles do, here you go. Now that you know for a fact that rails do far more damage than missiles do, are you ready to accept that Rails are in a great place right now and don't need a buff? The margin is much less pronounced than that...but the basic reason is that Missiles are a Burst DPS weapon, the weapon is designed around using missiles in terms of a full magazine for their salvo...in other words: The two weapons work differently, and that's Ok. Rails do not surpass the other turrets in terms of infantry killing potential, nor in Burst Damage Potential. If you assume that all the turrets are going to be balanced as part of this initiative, then it stands to reason that in order to maintain the balance between them on a specialized hull (Enforcers), they all need to be provided with some sort of bonus. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:36:00 - [369] - Quote That was a waste of time making that long ass post, seeing as nobody is even attempting to look at it -_- click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 780	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:39:00 - [370] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 166	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:55:00 - [371] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. If the client based show info panes are out-of-date, that's something that needs to be hotfixed ASAP... but as I said, the damage numbers don't entirely negate your arguments, particularly about the handling (and application) of each of the weapons. But bear in mind that the "Missile" Turrets are designed to be an alpha (by way of quick burst) weapon, which should rightly have a lowered sustained and/or applied DPS than a more sustained DPS Weapon. and as stated, they are very similar to the arguments against the Calmando getting a bonus to Sniper Rifle Damage...and avoiding a "Purpose built" Redline tank is something that needs to be considered when building the DHAVs... I have never stated that your concerns weren't valid, just that your data wasn't entirely accurate (Just based on what the client showed), and that the difference between the turrets isn't as pronounced. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16811	Posted - 2015.01.26 03:37:00 - [372] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. If the client based show info panes are out-of-date, that's something that needs to be hotfixed ASAP... but as I said, the damage numbers don't entirely negate your arguments, particularly about the handling (and application) of each of the weapons. But bear in mind that the "Missile" Turrets are designed to be an alpha (by way of quick burst) weapon, which should rightly have a lowered sustained and/or applied DPS than a more sustained DPS Weapon. and as stated, they are very similar to the arguments against the Calmando getting a bonus to Sniper Rifle Damage...and avoiding a "Purpose built" Redline tank is something that needs to be considered when building the DHAVs... I have never stated that your concerns weren't valid, just that your data wasn't entirely accurate (Just based on what the client showed), and that the difference between the turrets isn't as pronounced. If the issue is the redline why not simply institute mechanics that prevent firing and damage application in the redline and for units like tanks a weapon systems delay to prevent them simply popping in and out. HAV need range........it's a core piece of functionality of any tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2732	Posted - 2015.01.26 05:24:00 - [373] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. If the client based show info panes are out-of-date, that's something that needs to be hotfixed ASAP... but as I said, the damage numbers don't entirely negate your arguments, particularly about the handling (and application) of each of the weapons. But bear in mind that the "Missile" Turrets are designed to be an alpha (by way of quick burst) weapon, which should rightly have a lowered sustained and/or applied DPS than a more sustained DPS Weapon. and as stated, they are very similar to the arguments against the Calmando getting a bonus to Sniper Rifle Damage...and avoiding a "Purpose built" Redline tank is something that needs to be considered when building the DHAVs... I have never stated that your concerns weren't valid, just that your data wasn't entirely accurate (Just based on what the client showed), and that the difference between the turrets isn't as pronounced. If the issue is the redline why not simply institute mechanics that prevent firing and damage application in the redline and for units like tanks a weapon systems delay to prevent them simply popping in and out. HAV need range........it's a core piece of functionality of any tank. In the modern era. #Blastersfolife click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 06:45:00 - [374] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Thanks to you guys who found this. I appreciate the help. I can finish now. Would you all like me to hit turrets next? If rattati doesn't already have those up we're going to need them. Since Rattati seems to be nowhere near finished tweaking the hulls up I'll save the theorycrafting for later. Practical application first. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:22:00 - [375] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati would you like me to do number builds for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar, autocannon and arc cannon adapted to 1.10 AV DPS standards that I had in my chrome build spreadsheet? It's an easy conversion. Go ahead, but be warned that is a phase 2 or even 3 addition to HAV's. Hulls, modules and existing Weapons need to come first and be balanced. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:30:00 - [376] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Thanks to you guys who found this. I appreciate the help. I can finish now. Would you all like me to hit turrets next? If rattati doesn't already have those up we're going to need them. Since Rattati seems to be nowhere near finished tweaking the hulls up I'll save the theorycrafting for later. Practical application first. I need input on "completely balancing Turrets". I will add a new thread: Large Turrets Hulls are actively being designed as well as skills for them. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:36:00 - [377] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Rattati would you like me to do number builds for the scrambler lance, plasma mortar, autocannon and arc cannon adapted to 1.10 AV DPS standards that I had in my chrome build spreadsheet? It's an easy conversion. Go ahead, but be warned that is a phase 2 or even 3 addition to HAV's. Hulls, modules and existing Weapons need to come first and be balanced. I assumed there'd be no serious push to add them till the hulls are done, and the AV we already have adjusted to compensate. What I'll be doing for them is balancing them along racial lines in accordance with 1.10 balance in mind. I figure once I have the baseline stats dialed in I can easily tweak them once we get around to deciding where the PLC, swarms and Forge need to be. And I figure that comes after the turrets get settled. My plan is to do with turrets what I am doing with the current AV to show where they are at now. Once you complete the hulls I'll give input on the turrets. Once that's settled I'll push the handhelds unless you have a different priority set. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:44:00 - [378] - Quote Also I have a baseline setup for turrets in mind Rattati. Will post the spreadsheet for them when I convert the numbers to your tables. I also would like to help build the missing racial turrets. What phase is the introduction of minmatar ans amarr vehicle priority? AV
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:57:00 - [379] - Quote Doc when there is lack of tankers this is what happen..sad story but true story The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 637	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:25:00 - [380] - Quote 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets 2. Doc is right about opening a subject to everyone because as we have seen non pilots are trying to talk about something they do not know 3. AV/infantry now want all light weapons to do damage to vehicles - Really in todays terms that is like asking for an AK-47 to damage and destroy a Challenger tank - No to mention that if all weapons do damage then the DS and especially the LAV are then even weaker than before 3a. This is really double standards - My large missile which fires 6ft missiles doesnt even have enough splash let alone damage to kill a scout and they want laser rifles to damage a vehicle 3b. More double standards - My large blaster could kill infantry once upon a time, now it cant even hit a bunny hopping sentinal let alone a vehicle at 50m 4. Flux grenades should be flux grenades and not have a 2nd ability because all shield vehicles would be worse off espc if they lose 1500shield and cant move 5. Webifiers - Make it into a tool of some sorts so you have to hold it into place

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 367	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:29:00 - [381] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets 2. Doc is right about opening a subject to everyone because as we have seen non pilots are trying to talk about something they do not know 3. AV/infantry now want all light weapons to do damage to vehicles - Really in todays terms that is like asking for an AK-47 to damage and destroy a Challenger tank - No to mention that if all weapons do damage then the DS and especially the LAV are then even weaker than before 3a. This is really double standards - My large missile which fires 6ft missiles doesnt even have enough splash let alone damage to kill a scout and they want laser rifles to damage a vehicle 3b. More double standards - My large blaster could kill infantry once upon a time, now it cant even hit a bunny hopping sentinal let alone a vehicle at 50m 4. Flux grenades should be flux grenades and not have a 2nd ability because all shield vehicles would be worse off espc if they lose 1500shield and cant move 5. Webifiers - Make it into a tool of some sorts so you have to hold it into place Point 3 is not bad, if every weapon deal damage to LAV, it means less murder taxi The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 637	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:44:00 - [382] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets 2. Doc is right about opening a subject to everyone because as we have seen non pilots are trying to talk about something they do not know 3. AV/infantry now want all light weapons to do damage to vehicles - Really in todays terms that is like asking for an AK-47 to damage and destroy a Challenger tank - No to mention that if all weapons do damage then the DS and especially the LAV are then even weaker than before 3a. This is really double standards - My large missile which fires 6ft missiles doesnt even have enough splash let alone damage to kill a scout and they want laser rifles to damage a vehicle 3b. More double standards - My large blaster could kill infantry once upon a time, now it cant even hit a bunny hopping sentinal let alone a vehicle at 50m 4. Flux grenades should be flux grenades and not have a 2nd ability because all shield vehicles would be worse off espc if they lose 1500shield and cant move 5. Webifiers - Make it into a tool of some sorts so you have to hold it into place Point 3 is not bad, if every weapon deal damage to LAV, it means less murder taxi 3. For me its bad if i cant do the same with a large turret - Blaster is terrible now, Missile require direct hit even tho its a 6ft missile and Railgun is direct hit 4. LAV - Most are unfitted so i wouldnt mind, i would mind tho if i spent 80k on a LAV fit only for an AR to take it down, its an LAV not a ford focus
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2825	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:35:00 - [383] - Quote I'm going to answer both of your posts, apologies for the wall. CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. There's far more people doing far worse. I have the experience to back up what I say about vehicles. Also, how about Soraya's behavior towards pilots? That is far, far worse than anything I've ever said on here. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. So because we're voicing our concern, you're not going to use the spreadsheets we made? And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. We do read, and we voice our concerns about it. Pilots have suffered many, many nerfs and we're worried about the day vehicles are finally made useless - you want the enforcers easily destroyed by AV, right? So what about another tank? Will it take another tank longer to destroy an enforcer than AV? If so, then that's not balance at all. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". I look at everything: PG, CPU, what turrets, HP values, slots, and theorycrafted eHP and damage. If the HP is too low, and damage is too low, and there aren't enough slots, then it's a terrible fit. As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. ^^ You can with shield, not armor. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. I said we don't have PRO hulls right now, which is entirely true. Dunno why you commented about that. A Duvolle on my G-I assault doesn't turn it into a Gk0. 1. Negative - You would be if you had seen your playstyle nerfed into the ground after each update and build with no possible positive outcome or even a glimmer of hope This is exactly right. 2. Repetitve - Yea i have to be because people dont listen like when they say the swarm launcher is fine when its consistantly broken Still invisible swarms, still able to lock on when they're behind cover, and/or when I'm behind cover. I've actually watched them weave through obstacles to hit me. They also go around 3 corners to hit me. This is all from a lot of experience. 3. Arrogant - Well you dont get be considered one of the best PC tankers if you dont believe in yourself and your abilities in a HAV With 3 said, who would you rather believe: people that rarely or just don't use vehicles, or pilots that have been pilots in PC? I did 5-10 battles every day for a month straight when I joined RS, and that's not including reups. 4. Those fits are terrible - Aswell as being correct it would have also helped your PG/CPU problems if you put back in some core skills and also some missing modules which also help with your PG/CPU problem but instead you are working with one hand tied behind your back and not using all availible options This* 5. PRO tanks - Currently again your spreadsheet is still working with the 3/2 slot layout - Even old HAVs were 7 slots and Marauders were 8 so until the spreadsheet is updated with increase slots for ADV/PRO tanks they never will be, it will be just tiercide with the same cookie cutter fits but more of an SP sink This too - tanks cannot be better if they don't have more options. 6. Honestly - Chrome was best and we are going further away from it, im seeing AV and infantry put forward bad ideas and actively leading the way in ruining my playstyle, the best of the best in vehicle users and pilots are no longer here because they dont trust CCP and that there are better games with more balance and unfortunately are not here to offer anything You weren't here for the days of far more pilots defending themselves and their preferred* playstyle. We did the math to show the damage that AV would do, and were told to shut up.* I very much appreciate the spreadsheet. The tone of this reply is more or less, however, much of the same, case in point 4 and 5 indicate willful misunderstanding. If you ever get banned it will be for breaking the forum rules, but you don't need to be banned to be ignored. My hope is that you can find a constructive way to post and help vehicle users. We do, which is essentially demanding the PG, CPU, shield and armor skills restored, more slots than are proposed; lots of people have told Breakin many times that your vision for the ultra heavy is a massive amount of armor, but no matter how many times we pointed that out, he had his own vision of what they should be and was actively ignoring it. I'm a pilot. I will not compromise on being a pilot. I want the SP I invest into vehicles to be worth it, and I don't really care about the ISK.I just want everything to be worth it. I spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of operating vehicles, and have become very, very proficient at using a tank - so much so that I can take out missile and rail tanks with a blaster. I can also take out more than one bad shot at a time, I did that last night at their redline. I refuse to be treated like a second class citizen just because my voice belongs to a minority group of players.[/i] I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 369	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:36:00 - [384] - Quote Who use a LAV for something different from murder taxi or Jlav now? The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:58:00 - [385] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Who use a LAV for something different from murder taxi or Jlav now? 1. The old LLAV if it wasnt for murder taxi ability did have the ability to rep other vehicles/infantry and were good at it, it was an option
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2827	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:06:00 - [386] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Who use a LAV for something different from murder taxi or Jlav now? People used the logi LAVs for remote reps. We obviously don't have those anymore. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:18:00 - [387] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:31:00 - [388] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots 1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot 1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can 1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6765	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:21:00 - [389] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots 1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot 1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can 1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics How about you not try and berate people for the horrendous crime of not perfectly agreeing with you. People have opinions. They usually don't seem to mimic yours. Get over it. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:36:00 - [390] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots 1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot 1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can 1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics I could direct you to my post where I discussed calmly where I got my stats from. Where I compared 4 rounds to a full Missile clip. Where I also used the rail stats True Adamance showed me. Where i also explain my views on DHAV. (hint post #370 pg 19) Though I'd like you to quote me on saying rails can fire all shots faster than a missile turret can, seeing as you pulled that one from where the sun don't shine. But, letting you vent your emotions, its partly a entertaining spectacle, but mostly the main reason why the devs, and pretty much anyone who isn't speaker struggle to take anything you say seriously. Its hurting more than helping. Hell, even by responding to you i am partly responsible for derailing the thread. We can talk up the entertainment value of your deflating ego somewhere else, but lets leave this thread with constructive commentary, shall we? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:37:00 - [391] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots 1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot 1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can 1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics How about you not try and berate people for the horrendous crime of not perfectly agreeing with you. People have opinions. They usually don't seem to mimic yours. Get over it. 1. People have opinions - Fact 2. Can peoples opinions be incorrect? Yes 3. It would help if they could get the basics correct like how much damage a railgun shot does or how many shots it takes to overheat, you know the very basics than any HAV pilot would know about and then maybe they could add some helpful information to the subject at hand instead of getting it wildly wrong on many points 4. Also i berated it because it got the 'core facts' that any HAV pilot would know wrong - Core facts that are written in the game - Not written by me, not an opinion, not a theory or something that i wrote or agree with but numbers that are in the game which were put there by CCP and they couldnt even get that right
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6766	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:43:00 - [392] - Quote I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS. Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board. And further, showing dehumanization tactics such as referring to someone as "it" is a symptom of sociopathy, rather different from what carebears claim. I suggest very politely that you moderate your tone. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:44:00 - [393] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots 1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot 1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can 1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics I could direct you to my post where I discussed calmly where I got my stats from. Where I compared 4 rounds to a full Missile clip. Where I also used the rail stats True Adamance showed me. Where i also explain my views on DHAV. (hint post #370 pg 19) Though I'd like you to quote me on saying rails can fire all shots faster than a missile turret can, seeing as you pulled that one from where the sun don't shine. But, letting you vent your emotions, its partly a entertaining spectacle, but mostly the main reason why the devs, and pretty much anyone who isn't speaker struggle to take anything you say seriously. Its hurting more than helping. Hell, even by responding to you i am partly responsible for derailing the thread. We can talk up the entertainment value of your deflating ego somewhere else, but lets leave this thread with constructive commentary, shall we? 1. Post 361 - I quote 'You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor. Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank.' 2. Problem - You cannot fire 5 shots with a railgun 2a. Railgun will overheat on the 4th shot and stall 2b. DPS - Damage per second - The missile turret is an alpha turret which fires all missiles in my experience as a HAV pilot in 3seconds or less depending if it does full auto and not glitch up where as to fire 5 shots with a railgun i have to wait for the that 4/5 shot if i do not want to overheat so you will never out DPS a alpha missile turret 3. Maths - It doesnt take into account the railguns overheat which you get wrong at 5 so all your maths and also DPS stats are completely wrong 4. Next
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:49:00 - [394] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS. Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board. 1. Personal attack? No its pointing out that something is wrong to the point where i do not believe them to be a pilot due to the fact that they got key points on turrets completely wrong 2. Where did i insult them? 3. Thats rich ive already reported you several times for personal attacks

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15780	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:51:00 - [395] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6766	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:55:00 - [396] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS. Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board. 1. Personal attack? No its pointing out that something is wrong to the point where i do not believe them to be a pilot due to the fact that they got key points on turrets completely wrong 2. Where did i insult them? 3. Thats rich ive already reported you several times for personal attacks There is a difference between attacking tou thesis/position and attackingng YOU. I can assault your logic all I want. I can say your methods of communicating with people are childish. Quit trying to dominate everyone via post. We are having none of it. You are one voice among many. Not "the one." You want respect for your ideas? Earn that respect. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 640	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:11:00 - [397] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS. Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board. 1. Personal attack? No its pointing out that something is wrong to the point where i do not believe them to be a pilot due to the fact that they got key points on turrets completely wrong 2. Where did i insult them? 3. Thats rich ive already reported you several times for personal attacks There is a difference between attacking your thesis/position and attackingng YOU. I can assault your logic all I want. I can say your methods of communicating with people are childish. I cannot start making callouts about how clearly you are (insert epithet here) by implication or outright saying it. You are flagrantly doing the latter. Quit trying to dominate everyone via post. We are having none of it. You are one voice among many. Not "the one." You want respect for your ideas? Earn that respect. 1. You are right on one thing - 'You are the voice among many' - Unfortuantly for me and the vehicle playstyle which all this rests upon the 'many' are AV and infantry players which far outnumber pilots in this game which frankly is the sole reason why i will not be quiet. I will not stand by and support all light weapons doing damage to vehicles or having a 'pro' vehicle which does not improve on the hull while infantry have it all yet feel that they have the right to restrict another playstyle simply because they do not like vehicles.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6766	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:20:00 - [398] - Quote That's nice lazer. Have fun storming the castle. AV
Logi Bro Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 3409	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:30:00 - [399] - Quote Quote: 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret. 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. My reading comprehension may just be incredibly low, but what I take from this is that a regular HAV at the PRO tier will have 2 ADV turrets worth of CPU/PG more than the SHAV at the PRO tier. You can't remove the turrets but you can change them for different tiers. If the previous statement is true, doesn't it kind of invalidate the usefulness of the SHAV? The regular HAV could switch his two ADV turrets for STD turrets, then he would have (ADV turret CPU/PG - STD turret CPU/PG) more CPU and PG than the SHAV for modules and/or large turret fitting space. In this case, the SHAV is inferior for team-work and solo-work, if only by a small margin. So is this working as intended or am I reading it incorrectly? SP Sinks? Fixed.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:25:00 - [400] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4556	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:56:00 - [401] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm a pilot. I will not compromise on being a pilot. I want the SP I invest into vehicles to be worth it, and I don't really care about the ISK.I just want everything to be worth it. I spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of operating vehicles, and have become very, very proficient at using a tank - so much so that I can take out missile and rail tanks with a blaster. I can also take out more than one bad shot at a time, I did that last night at their redline. I refuse to be treated like a second class citizen just because my voice belongs to a minority group of players.[/i] Your personal ability does not validate any argument you may make. Anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal Do you want to know why you're treated like a second class citizen? It's not because you're a minority in the player base a whole, it's because you're a minority amongst pilots. Everyone wants their SP to matter, both pilots and AV users, but you seem to be more focused on what YOUR SP means, and not what the opposition's SP means. You don't want to compromise, you don't want balance, what you want is whatever is going to benefit you the most, and not what makes the game actually enjoyable for everyone. Much akin to what we see in real world politics, people like you who refuse to have a conversation, refuse to find the middle ground, and refuse to listen to others, are often laughed at and ignored because they bring absolutely nothing useful to the table. Not a single person here has gained anything of value from anything you have said, and you have contributed nothing to the conversation as a whole. Until you manage to do that, no one will take you seriously or respect a single thing you happen to say. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5673	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:01:00 - [402] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. I guess the one thing that worries me is even with how big a problem tiers present for Dropsuits in the form of power creep, we're now going to have them for vehicles? This could go VERY badly. I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you've been doing a pretty good job so far, but something about this just screams "approach with extreme caution". I mean, how long is it going to be before PRO AV users are here en masse posting threadnaught after threadnaught about how PRO vehicles can just shrug off their PRO AV? I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5673	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:06:00 - [403] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later. Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach. 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. 2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow) 3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity. 3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret. 3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto 4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations. Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. 7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments 8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented) Phase 2) Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar. Phase 3) More Modules and weapons I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names. See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future? On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6769	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:07:00 - [404] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. I guess the one thing that worries me is even with how big a problem tiers present for Dropsuits in the form of power creep, we're now going to have them for vehicles? This could go VERY badly. I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you've been doing a pretty good job so far, but something about this just screams "approach with extreme caution". I mean, how long is it going to be before PRO AV users are here en masse posting threadnaught after threadnaught about how PRO vehicles can just shrug off their PRO AV? Why the hell do you think I'm here? Because I like the free waffles? I figure if me and a few others provide Rattati with prompt, and complete as we can make it data, we can set up things to AVOID this eventuality on either side. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6769	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:08:00 - [405] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future? On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well. If this proof of concept works, I predict a cascading effect upon the whole of vehicles and eventually dropsuits. AV
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 168	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:14:00 - [406] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least. An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting. Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills. I guess the one thing that worries me is even with how big a problem tiers present for Dropsuits in the form of power creep, we're now going to have them for vehicles? This could go VERY badly. I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you've been doing a pretty good job so far, but something about this just screams "approach with extreme caution". I mean, how long is it going to be before PRO AV users are here en masse posting threadnaught after threadnaught about how PRO vehicles can just shrug off their PRO AV? Why the hell do you think I'm here? Because I like the free waffles? I figure if me and a few others provide Rattati with prompt, and complete as we can make it data, we can set up things to AVOID this eventuality on either side. Wait, Why did you get free waffles? Grr AV Infantry always getting things they want XD Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.26 18:49:00 - [407] - Quote I see 2 main arguments against capacitors here. A. Capacitors are worse than what we have now and B. capacitors are indeed better, BUT itGÇÖs too much work/unrealistic to add right now so we should wait. In response to A. I would argue that capacitors are critical for several reasons. 1. Capacitors are actually easier to manage than multiple modules with long cooldowns that simulate capacitors. By having to keep track of multiple long cooldowns and not having access to those while on cooldown, vehicle gameplay is very rigid. Basically the existing system is like having multiple independent capacitors, instead of a single capacitor to manage. With one capacitor, you can use your modules on demand (as long as your cap holds out) instead of having an all-or-nothing system. 2. Because the existing system essentially imitates multiple, independent capacitors, there are several problems. For one thing, adding an active module effectively gives you a deeper cap pool. For example a triple rep ship in EVE is extremely rare, because it will suck the cap dry very quickly. In Dust, you can't have active reps because each rep has itGÇÖs own GÇ£cap pool.GÇ¥ In order to make this reasonable, the amount repaired has been radically altered from equivalent modules in EVE. 3. The results of all of this is that combat feels very shallow. You have a big, expensive toy that can get melted pretty quickly when active modules are down, but is fairly godly when theyGÇÖre running. ItGÇÖs a bad design that makes vehicles feel, paradoxically, both overpowered and underpowered at the same time. The end result is an unsatisfying experience, for both vehicle users and AV. Instead of vehicle fights being interesting conflicts that could last a while, theyGÇÖre either killed quickly or they escape. 4. The real problem here is that this can never be solved with the given system. Without the ability to cripple vehicles, fights will always be quick and unsatisfying. Make vehicle survivability high enough for interesting and prolonged fights, and they become insanely overpowered, since they can almost always escape. Keep them short and fights are boring; vehicles are cheap and expendable. You loose the risk/reward thrill that makes this game so compelling. 5. Capacitors would add a ton of depth to fitting and allow a broad array of gameplay styles. Some have mentioned they think managing modules would be difficult. Well they can use passive fits, so they can focus on maneuvering/firing. Others may prefer more control of their experience and want more active modules. This system would provide enough flexibility to allow all players the opportunity to have fun. In response to B. I would say that there will NEVER BE A BETTER TIME TO ADD CAPACITORS. Right now we have no vehicles from Amarr and Minmatar, we have no Pilot suits, and most of the Advanced vehicles are missing. We have a small set of vehicles to play with and get the balancing right. As we begin to fill in these gaps and design balance around the existing capacitorless mechanics, it will make adding capacitors exponentially more complicated and difficult the further this process progresses. Capacitors should be the bedrock upon which the future of vehicle combat in DUST (and ultimately Legion) is built. Yes the dev team has limited resources, but I think this should be the primary development focus right now. For starters, CCP could re-purpose the existing stamina code for use with capacitors. Later they can refine it, and improve the mechanics. Also they can outright rip off the numbers from EVE in terms of finding initial values for capacitors, regen, and modules that affect cap. To start IGÇÖd like to see capacitor batteries, capacitor flux coils, capacitor power relays, capacitor rechargers, neuts and webs. Additionally IGÇÖd like to see more slots so we can make more interesting fits. If we could add this stuff to the existing vehicles, we would set ourselves up for expanding the system over time by finishing the racial variants/turrets, adding the advanced vehicles, and pilot suits. Currently the dev team is planning on creating a simplistic crafting system. This baffles me. If resources are so constrained that they canGÇÖt work on the most critical parts of gameplay, why are they wasting so many resources duplicating something that is done much better (and will always be better) in EVE? If we donGÇÖt add capacitors now, and do another vehicle rebalance, I fear this will make capacitors impossible to add later. It will become harder and harder as time progresses. The result is that weGÇÖll doom all future combat in DUST and Legion to being inherently shallow and uninteresting. I think itGÇÖs the most critical priority for future development right now. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4562	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:20:00 - [408] - Quote I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now" The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place. Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:32:00 - [409] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now" The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place. Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do. I really don't think capacitors would take 1-2 years to develop. They could start with cut/pasting the stamina code and making a few tweaks. You already have modules that can affect the size of the stamina pool, and it's regen rate, so the code exists for that functionality. You have a mechanism for regeneration, and for taking chunks of stamina away (jumping) so the stamina code, could at it's most basic level cover the bases for a capacitor system. The UI might take some work to redo, but we could simply use the stamina gauge with a different color as a stand-in until they can port the code from EVE's capacitor UI. If this stuff is written in nice, modular object-oriented code, then much of this should be able to be moved around without breaking other stuff, probably as much work as adding a crafting system. So you're right, if we had to wait 1-2 years to get it, it wouldn't be worth it, but I think even a very small team could hack this together in 2-3 months, especially if they base the values around those in EVE, which have already been balanced over a decade of play. I respectfully disagree that the current rebalance effort has a better cost/benefit ratio, especially when it would all have to be redone once capacitors are introduced later. It's the difference between building something that can evolve over time into something fantastic and spending a ton of effort on a side-effort that will later be completely abandoned and replaced. Even if the first is a little harder, it's worth it, because it's the foundation that will be build upon for decades, versus something that's got an expiration date, and will inherently suck. You're completely right of course that capacitors won't balance everything else (like HP values), but with capacitors in place, you can now design vehicles to have much more survivability, and balance around that. The easiest approach would be to cut/paste values from EVE's ships. Find appropriate analogs and use those to establish the values. These would need to be tweaked of course, as the games are different, but now you're moving forward towards a goal instead of tangental to where we need to be. Turret damage, EHP, regen rates, etc. all SHOULD BE DIFFERENT in a capacitor system. Vehicles could be MUCH stronger than without a capacitor system, because it'll be possible to cripple them. Vehicle fights would be designed to last 30-90 seconds instead of what we would get with the current designs. For argument's sake, let's assume the current rebalance moves forward without capacitors. When would be a better time to introduce them? IMO it will only ever get harder and harder later. At some point, it will be so cumbersome that CCP completely gives up on the idea. That would be horrible for the future of DUST/Legion. My timeline goes like this: 1. Introduce capacitors to existing system, increase slots, and bring back the old modules before 1.7 2. Hotfix balance tweaks 3. Introduce missing racial vehicles, turrets, heavy weapons 4. Hotfix balance tweaks 5. Add pilot suits 6. Hotfix balance tweaks 7. Add additional Ewar (tracking disruptors, target painters, ECM) 8. Hotfix balance tweaks 9. Add advanced vehicle variants. 10. Hotfix balance tweaks It seems like people want to progress: 1. Tweak numbers on existing system 2. Hotfix tweaks 3. Add advanced vehicles 4. Hotfix tweaks 5. add pilot suits? 6. Hotfix tweaks 7. *Trash all balancing data and start from scratch again with capacitors* 8. try to add back everything from before, completely rebalanced around capacitors It just seems like a crazy approach with a lot of wasted efforts. When you've got limited development resources, it's insane to constantly redesign the same stuff over-and-over. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2737	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:49:00 - [410] - Quote I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:52:00 - [411] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules. But it's EASIER to manage 1 pool than keep track of many multiple cooldowns. You can make passive fits with high regen and you can have a fit where you turn on your hardener and you'll be cap stable. That's LESS work than the current system. Best PvE idea ever!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16817	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:58:00 - [412] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules. But it's EASIER to manage 1 pool than keep track of many multiple cooldowns. You can make passive fits with high regen and you can have a fit where you turn on your hardener and you'll be cap stable. That's LESS work than the current system. It's good and all but I think players would have fits once Neuts and Nosferatu's be made available. God Amarr and Blood Raider tanks would be nasty. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:06:00 - [413] - Quote What exactly do you mean "Cut and paste the stamina code with minor tweaks"? A decay and growth function is about as basic as it gets, and that's all the stamina is. What you're asking for ties in with modules both in modification and activation, not to mention that if you want it to properly work like even then you're not even dealing with a linear function like stamina works off of. I'm not exactly and expert programmer, but I think you deeply underestimate the effort require to put this together. Is 1-2 years realistic? No, it was a hyperbole, but what do you think constitutes as a "small design team" that can "hack it together"? Are you aware of the size of the Dust development team? I'd like to see your source of information that you used to make this estimation. Like honestly though, have you been following the vehicle discussion? Are you aware of the severe problems between vehicles themselves? The fitting issues with the Madrugar? The problem with the function of blasters? The lack of proper skill bonuses and messed up skill progression? All of these issues are completely independent of anything to do with capacitors and desperately need to be addressed asap. It's like telling someone who just lost their legs "Oh well we're not going to give you a wheelchair, so just lay crippled in this bed for 6 months while we make prosthetic legs." I mean do you honestly think that the addition of capacitors would just "trash all balancing data" and make us "start from scratch again"? You don't think a well balanced, duration/cooldown system would be rendered completely useless overnight if capacitors were added? I'm not a game developer but I've been pretty balls deep in a dozen community design projects, and in every case, new systems take existing data and make it fit the new system. All Duration/Cooldown really represents is "If I run for 30 seconds and take 90 to cool down, that means I consume 3 seconds of capacitor recharge time for every second of activation. The conversion is of course not that exact, but the principles can be readily converted from Duration/Cooldown into a Capacitor system without significant changes to the base values. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 7434	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:32:00 - [414] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: At this point, without the vital stats for the flaylock and NK to fill out your table I'm stuck. I can start on turrets, then I'll start theorycrafting fun stuff for my own spergy mental exercises, but as far as handheld AV? WYSIWYG. Flaylock and mass driver can be made 100%, they're just not a standalone AV option. the DPS is too low, even if decent for ganking infantry. Posted in the Barbershop. I am fairly certain we can get numbers for you. @ Godin I think you are overly concerned with the side arms and weapons they are talking about adding. No one complains that NKs being able to do 50% damage has been a problem for tanks, and I certainly thought it would when it was announced. I also don't think anyone is suggesting a single merc should be able to unload his ScP ammo at a tank and take it down. If a Solo HAV pulls up to a defended objective that has no supply depot, it seems reasonable to me that 5 or 6 mercs should be able to scare it off. If the fool decides to just sit there for 20 or 30 seconds and try and take them all down, then he should deserve to be heavily damaged or blown up. In that example, a Solo HAV should see he is outnumbered, and provided he has no squad support to attack the defenders while they aren't paying attention, should be forced to flee. If the HAV had multiple manned turrets and a decent pilot, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fight off the defenders before significant damage is done to the HAV. Dropships and LAVs shouldn't even need to worry given the limited range and utility of the weapons Rattati is talking about adding. Its not like it is being said that the CRs and RRs should do 100% damage, then I could understand your concerns. I wan't worrying about HAV's as much as I was worrying about lighter vehicles, as I assumed that the lighter the vehicle was the more damage it was able to do, and that bothered me, seeing as some of those (LLV) needs to be able to tank against it. Also, with a suggestion of making lighter weapon classes able to do AV, There will be people asking for more. And more. And that I don't want. I have no problem with adjusting the LLV stats when it comes out to maybe have a resistance to certain types of damage, much like a heavy does. And I also wouldn't be in favor of non AV specific light weapons being able to do anything more than a negligible amount of damage. Thunderbolt. verb and noun. "James thunderbolted in his pants." "I lit a bag of thunderbolt on fire on CCP's doorway"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:35:00 - [415] - Quote Also Vell0cet I'm not trying to be overly hostile, I just think you're being unrealistic, but no hard feelings. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:43:00 - [416] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: What exactly do you mean "Cut and paste the stamina code with minor tweaks"? A decay and growth function is about as basic as it gets, and that's all the stamina is. What you're asking for ties in with modules both in modification and activation, not to mention that if you want it to properly work like even then you're not even dealing with a linear function like stamina works off of. I'm not exactly and expert programmer, but I think you deeply underestimate the effort require to put this together. Is 1-2 years realistic? No, it was a hyperbole, but what do you think constitutes as a "small design team" that can "hack it together"? Are you aware of the size of the Dust development team? I'd like to see your source of information that you used to make this estimation. Like honestly though, have you been following the vehicle discussion? Are you aware of the severe problems between vehicles themselves? The fitting issues with the Madrugar? The problem with the function of blasters? The lack of proper skill bonuses and messed up skill progression? All of these issues are completely independent of anything to do with capacitors and desperately need to be addressed asap. It's like telling someone who just lost their legs "Oh well we're not going to give you a wheelchair, so just lay crippled in this bed for 6 months while we make prosthetic legs." I mean do you honestly think that the addition of capacitors would just "trash all balancing data" and make us "start from scratch again"? You don't think a well balanced, duration/cooldown system would be rendered completely useless overnight if capacitors were added? I'm not a game developer but I've been pretty balls deep in a dozen community design projects, and in every case, new systems take existing data and make it fit the new system. All Duration/Cooldown really represents is "If I run for 30 seconds and take 90 to cool down, that means I consume 3 seconds of capacitor recharge time for every second of activation. The conversion is of course not that exact, but the principles can be readily converted from Duration/Cooldown into a Capacitor system without significant changes to the base values. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:03:00 - [417] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Thanks for your response. The existing stamina system has been designed to integrate with modules, to accept modifiers from modules, and can accommodate large drops in the values based on actions in-game (when you jump). It fills all of the existing needs for a capacitor system. They could use a simple linear regeneration function to start, and tweak the function later, or call up the guys in Iceland and ask for the function they're using for EVE. In the code, the class interface would almost certainly look very similar to a capacitor system. This is simply based on my own experience as a hobbyist programmer. I really don't think it's as major of an undertaking as you believe it to be. Of course there could be performance challenges, and bugs that would need to be resolved, that's likely where the bulk of the development time would be spent. Things always take longer than they appear, so you're right that it could be more involved than I believe it to be. As far as trashing the data, it comes down to whether engagements are designed to be very short (as they are now) or much longer. That's a major deal. I was somewhat hyperbolic with the trash everything comment, and you're right about the skill tree being a mess, but damage, hp, hp regen, and even speeds would all be dramatically different if designed for a short fight or a long fight. You really would have to almost start from scratch again. Code....doesn't work like that. Yes stamina accepts modifiers from skills and modules, that much is easy, but you still have to code in how activation costs of modules, weapon useage, ect. Im not saying you can't use existing code, but theres a lot more to it than what you're describing, and as far as I know there are exactly 0 dedicated programmers working on Dust. And development of that nature is borrowed from the Legion team. Also linear regeneration is kinda bad because there would be no middle ground in cap stable/non stable. Linear Rechage would mean that Cap Stable = 100% capacitor all the time which can be problematic if you ever want to have some proper EWAR...but that's not really important at this point. And again I don't see how the length of battles for Duration/Cooldown would differ from a Capacitor system....not should they differ. A module that has to cool down for 90 seconds and runs for 30 is simply a 3:1 Cap Recharge/Activation Cost ratio. HP and rate of recovery wouldn't change, nor would the effective activation cost of the module. The only difference is that available activation time and total cap capacity are pooled instead of per module. But even then if there were issues, you can maintain the same level of module performance and balance them entirely around cap cost and not disrupting previous balance effort. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:21:00 - [418] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Thanks for your response. The existing stamina system has been designed to integrate with modules, to accept modifiers from modules, and can accommodate large drops in the values based on actions in-game (when you jump). It fills all of the existing needs for a capacitor system. They could use a simple linear regeneration function to start, and tweak the function later, or call up the guys in Iceland and ask for the function they're using for EVE. In the code, the class interface would almost certainly look very similar to a capacitor system. This is simply based on my own experience as a hobbyist programmer. I really don't think it's as major of an undertaking as you believe it to be. Of course there could be performance challenges, and bugs that would need to be resolved, that's likely where the bulk of the development time would be spent. Things always take longer than they appear, so you're right that it could be more involved than I believe it to be. As far as trashing the data, it comes down to whether engagements are designed to be very short (as they are now) or much longer. That's a major deal. I was somewhat hyperbolic with the trash everything comment, and you're right about the skill tree being a mess, but damage, hp, hp regen, and even speeds would all be dramatically different if designed for a short fight or a long fight. You really would have to almost start from scratch again. Code....doesn't work like that. Yes stamina accepts modifiers from skills and modules, that much is easy, but you still have to code in how activation costs of modules, weapon useage, ect. Im not saying you can't use existing code, but theres a lot more to it than what you're describing, and as far as I know there are exactly 0 dedicated programmers working on Dust. And development of that nature is borrowed from the Legion team. Also linear regeneration is kinda bad because there would be no middle ground in cap stable/non stable. Linear Rechage would mean that Cap Stable = 100% capacitor all the time which can be problematic if you ever want to have some proper EWAR...but that's not really important at this point. And again I don't see how the length of battles for Duration/Cooldown would differ from a Capacitor system....not should they differ. A module that has to cool down for 90 seconds and runs for 30 is simply a 3:1 Cap Recharge/Activation Cost ratio. HP and rate of recovery wouldn't change, nor would the effective activation cost of the module. The only difference is that available activation time and total cap capacity are pooled instead of per module. But even then if there were issues, you can maintain the same level of module performance and balance them entirely around cap cost and not disrupting previous balance effort. Well if a fight should last 4x as long, then either DPS needs to be reduced by 400%, HP increased by 400%, or a combination of many different and complex variables need to be tweaked and ironed out (which is the obvious correct solution). That's what I mean by balancing. In a capacitor system, vehicles would be fundamentally different, they would be very powerful: something like 4x harder to kill, but they would be vulnerable to being "tackled" and beat down. That's much different than just messing with timers and cooldowns, that's designing a completely different style and pacing of vehicle-based combat. Best PvE idea ever!
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 186	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:24:00 - [419] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KNSdD8PYgY ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:27:00 - [420] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Well if a fight should last 4x as long, then either DPS needs to be reduced by 400%, HP increased by 400%, or a combination of many different and complex variables need to be tweaked and ironed out (which is the obvious correct solution). That's what I mean by balancing. In a capacitor system, vehicles would be fundamentally different, they would be very powerful: something like 4x harder to kill, but they would be vulnerable to being "tackled" and beat down. That's much different than just messing with timers and cooldowns, that's designing a completely different style and pacing of vehicle-based combat. Why can't you have tackling with a Cooldown based system first? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15803	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:28:00 - [421] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 198	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:35:00 - [422] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) I've got a question Ratt, will UHAV and DHAV have required smalls? Honestly I don't like the idea very much (it destroys people like me who just want 1 turret on my tank for the one gunner I have). Instead of having to variants of tanks, one with and one without, why not just add vehicle locks? Seems a lot simpler to me. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:37:00 - [423] - Quote UHAV will require smalls because....it has bonuses for smalls...that's kind of the point. DHAV is large turret only. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:39:00 - [424] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now" The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place. Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do. I really don't think capacitors would take 1-2 years to develop. They could start with cut/pasting the stamina code and making a few tweaks. You already have modules that can affect the size of the stamina pool, and it's regen rate, so the code exists for that functionality. You have a mechanism for regeneration, and for taking chunks of stamina away (jumping) so the stamina code, could at it's most basic level cover the bases for a capacitor system. The UI might take some work to redo, but we could simply use the stamina gauge with a different color as a stand-in until they can port the code from EVE's capacitor UI. If this stuff is written in nice, modular object-oriented code, then much of this should be able to be moved around without breaking other stuff, probably as much work as adding a crafting system. So you're right, if we had to wait 1-2 years to get it, it wouldn't be worth it, but I think even a very small team could hack this together in 2-3 months, especially if they base the values around those in EVE, which have already been balanced over a decade of play. I respectfully disagree that the current rebalance effort has a better cost/benefit ratio, especially when it would all have to be redone once capacitors are introduced later. It's the difference between building something that can evolve over time into something fantastic and spending a ton of effort on a side-effort that will later be completely abandoned and replaced. Even if the first is a little harder, it's worth it, because it's the foundation that will be build upon for decades, versus something that's got an expiration date, and will inherently suck. You're completely right of course that capacitors won't balance everything else (like HP values), but with capacitors in place, you can now design vehicles to have much more survivability, and balance around that. The easiest approach would be to cut/paste values from EVE's ships. Find appropriate analogs and use those to establish the values. These would need to be tweaked of course, as the games are different, but now you're moving forward towards a goal instead of tangental to where we need to be. Turret damage, EHP, regen rates, etc. all SHOULD BE DIFFERENT in a capacitor system. Vehicles could be MUCH stronger than without a capacitor system, because it'll be possible to cripple them. Vehicle fights would be designed to last 30-90 seconds instead of what we would get with the current designs. For argument's sake, let's assume the current rebalance moves forward without capacitors. When would be a better time to introduce them? IMO it will only ever get harder and harder later. At some point, it will be so cumbersome that CCP completely gives up on the idea. That would be horrible for the future of DUST/Legion. My timeline goes like this: 1. Introduce capacitors to existing system, add webs and neuts, increase slots, and bring back the old modules before 1.7. Design around high vehicle survivability. 2. Hotfix balance tweaks 3. Introduce missing racial vehicles, turrets, heavy weapons 4. Hotfix balance tweaks 5. Add pilot suits 6. Hotfix balance tweaks 7. Add additional Ewar (tracking disruptors, target painters, ECM) 8. Hotfix balance tweaks 9. Add advanced vehicle variants. 10. Hotfix balance tweaks It seems like people want to progress: 1. Tweak numbers on existing system with low vehicle survivability and short engagement windows. 2. Hotfix tweaks 3. Add advanced vehicles 4. Hotfix tweaks 5. add pilot suits? 6. Hotfix tweaks 7. *Trash all balancing data and start from scratch again with capacitors* 8. try to add back everything from before, completely rebalanced around capacitors and high vehicle survivability and long engagement windows. It just seems like a crazy approach with a lot of wasted efforts. When you've got limited development resources, it's insane to constantly redesign the same stuff over-and-over. Bluntly, we are not making capacitors, now or in the short to medium term. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:45:00 - [425] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) I've got a question Ratt, will UHAV and DHAV have required smalls? Honestly I don't like the idea very much (it destroys people like me who just want 1 turret on my tank for the one gunner I have). Instead of having to variants of tanks, one with and one without, why not just add vehicle locks? Seems a lot simpler to me. One of the reasons, is to not give away free fitting space for unused turrets. This has been a big issue for balancing, how to create a fair fitting design which allows the use of blasters, but not too much, and see it all used on proto solo gear. We have a similar logistics problem with a lot of fitting space, but it can be abused by not using any equipment. Locking does not fix that, also what Pokey said "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15804	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:54:00 - [426] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Forlorn Destrier Incorruptibles 3218	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:57:00 - [427] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Cough. Eve does now have WASD controls. It is a beta opt in feature. I am the *Forgotten Warhorse, a Lord of Lightning* *Havok* is my *Destiny* I am *Incorruptible*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4569	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:59:00 - [428] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Just a random thought/request while you're here. Have you considered making modules on vehicle operate on a similar principle to how cloaking devices do? Activation consumes energy and then recharges when the module is off. While I think the Duration/Cooldown system works well enough for Dust, what I very much dislike is how rigid it is. Using 50% of the duration should cost 50% of the cooldown, not 100% as it currently does. Obviously some limitations such as reactivation cooldowns would need to be impliment to prevent abuse, but in general I'd like to see a softer duration/cooldown system at some point. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7979	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:06:00 - [429] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Lol, what Forlorn said. Eve -does- have WASD movement but it's not... the best thing in the world because you still have to consider inertia/agility which affects how fast you can turn. I agree that Dust 514 doesn't need more complexity, but it does need more depth. Stuff that players can find out through play that are opened up through emergent gameplay. More Rules/Less Content = Less Depth. While not necessarily saying that it was a bad decision, the design of a DHAV not being able to fit a Railgun is an example of 'More Rules' that limits emergent gameplay. Who knows, maybe a player could have made a glass cannon Rail DHAV that operates in a well-balanced but completely crazy niche environment (like jumping a cliff while firing at an ADS due to faster forward speed mixed with a fuel injector). Emergent gameplay will always be the driving force that causes great stories, as well. Stuff like that which happens in Battlefield 4 where players throw C4 from the back of an ATV onto a Helicopter and blow it up. Have to consider what you can do to make opportunities for emergent gameplay through depth without being more complex as a result. Adding in Capacitors -MAY- give depth but at the same time it will -CERTAINLY- increase complexity. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:10:00 - [430] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Just a random thought/request while you're here. Have you considered making modules on vehicle operate on a similar principle to how cloaking devices do? Activation consumes energy and then recharges when the module is off. While I think the Duration/Cooldown system works well enough for Dust, what I very much dislike is how rigid it is. Using 50% of the duration should cost 50% of the cooldown, not 100% as it currently does. Obviously some limitations such as reactivation cooldowns would need to be impliment to prevent abuse, but in general I'd like to see a softer duration/cooldown system at some point. good point "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:13:00 - [431] - Quote Forlorn Destrier wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Cough. Eve does now have WASD controls. It is a beta opt in feature. I am aware of that, and it does not affect my point of the combat design being made overcomplex, to make it challenging and "fun" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15810	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:15:00 - [432] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) You can also go for an Anti Tank Gunship with full Rails on a UHAV, or large Blaster 2 rails, basically as laspredator from w40k. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2890	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:21:00 - [433] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. pretty good ;) You can also go for an Anti Tank Gunship with full Rails on a UHAV, or large Blaster 2 rails, basically as laspredator from w40k. Please, please, PLEASE remove the (at least large) rail bonus from the Cal DHAV. That plus it's many highs and low hp only encourage redline camping fits. I did some theoretical number crunching and it gets nearly 3.3k damage per shot, almost enough to OHKO a Python. Please, let it be a CQB missile Gank tank like the Gal is with blasters. Not to mention have two weapon bonuses is unfair to the Gal. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 171	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:26:00 - [434] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Please, please, PLEASE remove the (at least large) rail bonus from the Cal DHAV. That plus it's many highs and low hp only encourage redline camping fits. I did some theoretical number crunching and it gets nearly 3.5k damage per shot, almost enough to OHKO a Python. Please, let it be a CQB missile Gank tank like the Gal is with blasters. Not to mention have two weapon bonuses is unfair to the Gal. CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. I may not agree with it, but I can understand and accept it Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2890	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:28:00 - [435] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Please, please, PLEASE remove the (at least large) rail bonus from the Cal DHAV. That plus it's many highs and low hp only encourage redline camping fits. I did some theoretical number crunching and it gets nearly 3.5k damage per shot, almost enough to OHKO a Python. Please, let it be a CQB missile Gank tank like the Gal is with blasters. Not to mention have two weapon bonuses is unfair to the Gal. CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. I may not agree with it, but I can understand and accept it Whoops. Yeah, I just read that. Carry on. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2890	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:32:00 - [436] - Quote On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 825	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:35:00 - [437] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Eve has WASD controls. Was released for beta testing a couple patches ago. Short of capacitors, can you allow partial cool downs for modules if we deactivate them early?

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15816	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:36:00 - [438] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Forlorn Destrier Incorruptibles 3220	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:58:00 - [439] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Forlorn Destrier wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. Cough. Eve does now have WASD controls. It is a beta opt in feature. I am aware of that, and it does not affect my point of the combat design being made overcomplex, to make it challenging and "fun" Oh I know. I just enjoyed getting to correct a minor point - I'm so rarely right that I rather enjoy it :) I am the *Forgotten Warhorse, a Lord of Lightning* *Havok* is my *Destiny* I am *Incorruptible*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15817	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:59:00 - [440] - Quote Hi, can all of you running spreadsheets, please rename them as "Breaking Stuff's something", Spkr4thedead's something so I can more easily cross reference what you say with your data, I am overflowing with data, which is still a good thing. Much appreciated! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4576	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:09:00 - [441] - Quote Oh dear, you want me to call it "Pokey's Thing?" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2761	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:33:00 - [442] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Best PvE idea ever!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2891	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:33:00 - [443] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh dear, you want me to call it "Pokey's Thing?" At last it will be succinct. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15822	Posted - 2015.01.27 03:20:00 - [444] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6789	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:45:00 - [445] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hi, can all of you running spreadsheets, please rename them as "Breaking Stuff's something", Spkr4thedead's something so I can more easily cross reference what you say with your data, I am overflowing with data, which is still a good thing. Much appreciated! Will do when I get home from work. AV
BraiNing Harloon MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 13	Posted - 2015.01.27 06:59:00 - [446] - Quote As much as this new contents looks interesting... I would like to know if there is any chance of introduction of MLAVs say a 4 seat ground vehicle with two small turrets that can protect the passengers from being sniped out.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 825	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:06:00 - [447] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. its not difficult to me in my mind. Eve calls it capacitor, but dust has it too, its just unnamed. Capacitor in eve has "cooldown", just like dust. the simplest way i can think of doing "capacitor' in dust is to give a pool of energy for vehicles that constantly recharges at some rate. activating modules eats up energy at some rate. as along as module activation cost is lower than energy recharge, you can run all modules forever. but going ove the energy recharge rate would drain your energy and if you run out then all your modules shut off and you have to wait and recharge energy to use them. the most basic example i can give in dust where this currently already exist(ed) is with vehicle blaster turrets combined with heat sinks. the heat sink let you use the blaster longer before it overheats. when it overheated you have to wait for a cooldown. if you managed to get the cooldown rate high enough you could shoot the blasters forever though. this same mechanic can be used for vehicle active modules. does that make any sense?
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7988	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:55:00 - [448] - Quote One thing is for certain: Dual hardener shield HAVs need to die in a fire. Waaaaaay OP. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 577	Posted - 2015.01.27 08:36:00 - [449] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Hi, can all of you running spreadsheets, please rename them as "Breaking Stuff's something", Spkr4thedead's something so I can more easily cross reference what you say with your data, I am overflowing with data, which is still a good thing. Much appreciated! Is it really? https://twitter.com/ccp_frame/status/559976756023951360
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6790	Posted - 2015.01.27 08:48:00 - [450] - Quote Can I get someone to post the refire delays for all AV weapons? The undocumented one that thaddeus located. Such as: PLC: 0.5 SEC Forge gun: 1.0 sec HE was unable to locate one for swarms. Can I please get this for all AV capable weapons? Without this information I cannot give accurate DPS counts. Currently the assault forge gun is listed at a 500 DPS. If there is a 1 second hard delay between shot leaving barrel and next shot/ reload that changes the DPS sharply at all levels. AV

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6790	Posted - 2015.01.27 08:58:00 - [451] - Quote Can I get someone to post the refire delays for all AV weapons? The undocumented one that thaddeus located. Such as: PLC: 0.5 SEC Forge gun: 1.0 sec HE was unable to locate one for swarms. Can I please get this for all AV capable weapons? Without this information I cannot give accurate DPS counts. Currently the assault forge gun is listed at a 500 DPS. If there is a 1 second hard delay between shot leaving barrel and next shot/ reload that changes the DPS sharply at all levels. This drops the base DPS of the IAFG by 91 DPS from 500 to 409.09 And because it's undocumented we cannot account for it. If we want accurate counts we need stuff like this. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 10:57:00 - [452] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: One thing is for certain: Dual hardener shield HAVs need to die in a fire. Waaaaaay OP. 1. No 2. Not OP since they take forever to cooldown 3. Why do you want to tell pilots how to fit something?
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:05:00 - [453] - Quote 1. Doesnt feel New Eden if vehicles do not have Capacitors 1a. As for adding another layer of complexity my standard PC Madrugar fit had 6 active modules all requiring different uses and to be turned on and off as and when needed depeding on the situation and that alone seperated the best from the average pubbie 1b. Why cant you roughly copy and paste numbers from EVE for modules activation times and cap usage along with cap recharge rates etc - Pick a 7slot ship and borrow from it and see how it goes
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:16:00 - [454] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. 1. Disagree - Its either the same for all or not at all - Vehicles have had this 'tiercide' which has only got worse since 1.7 with a 5slot layout - My proto amarr logi doesnt stay at 4 slots at proto so frankly i dont expect my proto hull to still be at 5slots which basically means the fit im using at basic will be upgraded to a proto hull but nothing changes, no variety, no new fits just the same boring cookie cutter fit that everyone uses which means there is no point in skilling for proto hulls because you are not getting better 2. What happens if it doesnt stay 16v16? Does that mean you will have to rework vehicles again and all the numbers because you didnt want vehicles to be too powerful in a 32player game - Right now large and small turrets cannot suppress infantry let alone kill them and vehicles cannot hack points and with a 3man HAV thats 3 less infantry so 13 are left on the field and in the end as it always is the team with most infantry always wins, the team with most vehicles loses

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15837	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:53:00 - [455] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. 1. Disagree - Its either the same for all or not at all - Vehicles have had this 'tiercide' which has only got worse since 1.7 with a 5slot layout - My proto amarr logi doesnt stay at 4 slots at proto so frankly i dont expect my proto hull to still be at 5slots which basically means the fit im using at basic will be upgraded to a proto hull but nothing changes, no variety, no new fits just the same boring cookie cutter fit that everyone uses which means there is no point in skilling for proto hulls because you are not getting better 2. What happens if it doesnt stay 16v16? Does that mean you will have to rework vehicles again and all the numbers because you didnt want vehicles to be too powerful in a 32player game - Right now large and small turrets cannot suppress infantry let alone kill them and vehicles cannot hack points and with a 3man HAV thats 3 less infantry so 13 are left on the field and in the end as it always is the team with most infantry always wins, the team with most vehicles loses 1. Frankly, it's not 2. We will just rebalance "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5679	Posted - 2015.01.27 12:29:00 - [456] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future? On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well. If this proof of concept works, I predict a cascading effect upon the whole of vehicles and eventually dropsuits. I really hope that's the case. I've started using a Python fit with 2 Complex Light Shield Boosters and 3 XT-1 turrets. With all my guns manned, that thing is a ***** to kill, and I can finally survive against Swarms. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 12:42:00 - [457] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future? On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well. If this proof of concept works, I predict a cascading effect upon the whole of vehicles and eventually dropsuits. I really hope that's the case. I've started using a Python fit with 2 Complex Light Shield Boosters and 3 XT-1 turrets. With all my guns manned, that thing is a ***** to kill, and I can finally survive against Swarms. How's it hold up vs. An IAFG? I've pretty much noticed that shield hardeners vs. Extenders on a forge gun there's no real difference. But I can see it making a difference vs. Swarms. Also never seen anyone dual booster in a serious fashion. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 12:59:00 - [458] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. I'm of the opinion that trying to apply the same logic to both results in the mess we are in today. But as far as changing the tiericide I honestly think full throttle tiericide would be best. Instead of having three versions each of the same suit, why not three different suits? Example: A-1 Scout, A/2 Saboteur, Ak.0 Pilot suit. G-1 Linebreaker, G/2 Hunter, Gk.0 Sentinel Each an unlock off the appropriate frame with a x3-x4 multiplier instead of an x10 for a single suit? AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15844	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:00:00 - [459] - Quote question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:01:00 - [460] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? ... honestly I was going to say bad idea. Thinking about it, however, I can't see why it would break the vehicles. AV

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:04:00 - [461] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? 2. Slim armor rep may stop armor tanking in a shield vehicle

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15844	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:06:00 - [462] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:11:00 - [463] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: On a somewhat related topic: Rattati, do you see changing other vehicle and suit progression to follow tanks? That is, all have the same slots across tiers only changing CPU/PG? It is a form of tiericide, but I am not sold on its necessity, why bother if you aren't getting better. I enjoy unlocking and fitting proto and seeing how well I have done. The issue isn't proto gear, it's fair fights. And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant. 1. Disagree - Its either the same for all or not at all - Vehicles have had this 'tiercide' which has only got worse since 1.7 with a 5slot layout - My proto amarr logi doesnt stay at 4 slots at proto so frankly i dont expect my proto hull to still be at 5slots which basically means the fit im using at basic will be upgraded to a proto hull but nothing changes, no variety, no new fits just the same boring cookie cutter fit that everyone uses which means there is no point in skilling for proto hulls because you are not getting better 2. What happens if it doesnt stay 16v16? Does that mean you will have to rework vehicles again and all the numbers because you didnt want vehicles to be too powerful in a 32player game - Right now large and small turrets cannot suppress infantry let alone kill them and vehicles cannot hack points and with a 3man HAV thats 3 less infantry so 13 are left on the field and in the end as it always is the team with most infantry always wins, the team with most vehicles loses 1. Frankly, it's not 2. We will just rebalance 1. So then the only difference between basic/adv/pro is going to be PG/CPU and that is it? - For me this is key if vehicles do not improve in slots not even by 1 per tier then i really cant see myself bothering with vehicles since there is no incentive for the SP required let alone currently with a basic hull and all pro modules it still takes 1 pro AV to kill it
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:13:00 - [464] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. 1. You said shield booster which is high slot not shield mod for low slot 2. In EVE there is flux coils which basically are regulators in DUST and also we had power diagnostic modules which helped with shield also - Regulators would be useful if in comparision to whacking an armor plate in the lows
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 783	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:13:00 - [465] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. For HAV's with more fitting options, my first instinct is sure why not. Dropships, it may a bit crippling, especially for Pythons. Seeing how much work is going into tanks, there is not alot of room for dropship changes . Moving it to a low would remove shield booster as an optional fitting on a python, or the incubus for that matter. It would leave the python with just one fit, Hardener, afterburner, extender in the highs and pg upgrade in the low. To make up for this perhaps we can leave the light shield boosters in the high and the heavy shield booster in the lows. Its not very symetrical, but it leaves the dropship pilots something until we get dropships PG and CPU sorted. If you ask me "what if dropships had the PG/ CPU fitting costs to fit a booster in the lows?", then yes, i'd be all for it. Also , passive vehicle reps? i like. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5679	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:19:00 - [466] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future? On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well. If this proof of concept works, I predict a cascading effect upon the whole of vehicles and eventually dropsuits. I really hope that's the case. I've started using a Python fit with 2 Complex Light Shield Boosters and 3 XT-1 turrets. With all my guns manned, that thing is a ***** to kill, and I can finally survive against Swarms. How's it hold up vs. An IAFG? I've pretty much noticed that shield hardeners vs. Extenders on a forge gun there's no real difference. But I can see it making a difference vs. Swarms. Also never seen anyone dual booster in a serious fashion. Dual Booster allows me to loiter and duel with Forge Gunners easily, even Assault Forges. The fun part is it's actually a tossup as to which of us will win said duel. Swarms, your only hope is to get out of the area before 6 volleys are in the air and tracking you. If you hit your afterburner, and then hit a Booster as soon as your shield drops below a third, you'll boost off the damage of the Swarms pursuing you while you get out of range, and at max Core skills it only has a 30 second cooldown, so you get back in the fight much faster. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 646	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:42:00 - [467] - Quote 1. Due to the new patch all new experiment weapons now get more damage, more ammo, more in the clip so they will hammer vehicles harder than now - That alone changes it all again - That extra slot per tier is looking like a must have right now if im going against that
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4583	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:26:00 - [468] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. I'm going to say....yes/no. I think Shield Boosters, as in a module which when activated quickly regenerates shields, should remain in the high. There are several EVE modules (some of which we've had in Dust before) which increase natural shield regen and go in the low slot. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Power Diagnostic System, providing a small boost to Shield HP, Natural Shield Recharge, and PG capacity. It's an awesome module and I used it frequently in the past, so definitely bring those back if possible. The reason I'm against shield boosters in the low is that Shield Vehicles would be able to fit HP/Resists in the highs and then their main regen in the lows, whereas armor would have to fit all 3 in the low, and reppers really should not be high slot items, I feel this deviates too much from EVE mechanics and could be confusing to players. Additionally I'd like to see Shield Regulators in the lows as well. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6796	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:36:00 - [469] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Dual Booster allows me to loiter and duel with Forge Gunners easily, even Assault Forges. The fun part is it's actually a tossup as to which of us will win said duel. Spread the good word my good man. I want more dropships to get froggy and attempt to kill me rather than panicking and fleeing. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15850	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:48:00 - [470] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. I'm going to say....yes/no. I think Shield Boosters, as in a module which when activated quickly regenerates shields, should remain in the high. There are several EVE modules (some of which we've had in Dust before) which increase natural shield regen and go in the low slot. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Power Diagnostic System, providing a small boost to Shield HP, Natural Shield Recharge, and PG capacity. It's an awesome module and I used it frequently in the past, so definitely bring those back if possible. The reason I'm against shield boosters in the low is that Shield Vehicles would be able to fit HP/Resists in the highs and then their main regen in the lows, whereas armor would have to fit all 3 in the low, and reppers really should not be high slot items, I feel this deviates too much from EVE mechanics and could be confusing to players. Additionally I'd like to see Shield Regulators in the lows and possibly Armor Pumps in the highs (Increase to the rate of armor repairers but don't actually repair by themselves). Regs it is. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 826	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:11:00 - [471] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. it was called power diagnostic unit. it gave a modest bonus to shield hp, shield recharge, and PG. it was for pilots that wanted a full passive shield tank setup. that was back when tank shields had no delay though, so id also add shield delay reduction to it as well or replace the PG bonus for the shield delay reduction.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 826	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:15:00 - [472] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. I'm going to say....yes/no. I think Shield Boosters, as in a module which when activated quickly regenerates shields, should remain in the high. There are several EVE modules (some of which we've had in Dust before) which increase natural shield regen and go in the low slot. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Power Diagnostic System, providing a small boost to Shield HP, Natural Shield Recharge, and PG capacity. It's an awesome module and I used it frequently in the past, so definitely bring those back if possible. The reason I'm against shield boosters in the low is that Shield Vehicles would be able to fit HP/Resists in the highs and then their main regen in the lows, whereas armor would have to fit all 3 in the low, and reppers really should not be high slot items, I feel this deviates too much from EVE mechanics and could be confusing to players. Additionally I'd like to see Shield Regulators in the lows and possibly Armor Pumps in the highs (Increase to the rate of armor repairers but don't actually repair by themselves). Regs it is. before you go with regs, can you tell us about vehicle shield mechanics? do they still have delay? damage thresholds? does the shield boost still jump start shield regen? shield regs could be redundant unless they removed the shield delay as a booster would accomplish the same thing but also boost shield hp
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6797	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:17:00 - [473] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Things Any chance I can get the refire delays for all of the AV weapons? This attribute isn't listed anywhere except in the code and I'm not a coder. I know the forge is 1 second hard delay between shot fired and doing anything else now, which buggers up my numbers BADLY. I need to know how many of these there are so I can fix the numbers. The existence of this attribute because it's unlisted means I have to redo all of my tables. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 651	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:19:00 - [474] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. it was called power diagnostic unit. it gave a modest bonus to shield hp, shield recharge, and PG. it was for pilots that wanted a full passive shield tank setup. that was back when tank shields had no delay though, so id also add shield delay reduction to it as well or replace the PG bonus for the shield delay reduction. 1. It was useful 2. It looks like regulators which means the delay is still in which is fine for dropsuits but vehicles should have a constant passive regen
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:24:00 - [475] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. 1. Nope - Never been low slots ever but what is the reasoning for this? That was not the question. There is no shield based mod available, like regulators for dropsuits. it was called power diagnostic unit. it gave a modest bonus to shield hp, shield recharge, and PG. it was for pilots that wanted a full passive shield tank setup. that was back when tank shields had no delay though, so id also add shield delay reduction to it as well or replace the PG bonus for the shield delay reduction. 1. It was useful 2. It looks like regulators which means the delay is still in which is fine for dropsuits but vehicles should have a constant passive regen If you did constant passive regen, regen rate would have to be exceptionally low since it would mean the vehicle would be naturally negating X DPS naturally, all the time. As I've stated before, unmodified shield regen in EVE is VERY slow for this very reason. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 653	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:26:00 - [476] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: If you did constant passive regen, regen rate would have to be exceptionally low since it would mean the vehicle would be naturally negating X DPS naturally, all the time. As I've stated before, unmodified shield regen in EVE is VERY slow for this very reason. 1. Already done it on my sheet
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:29:00 - [477] - Quote Im not going to dig for the link, what did you set the regen at? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 664	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:34:00 - [478] - Quote 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m7G9wnM6gcnNM6oP6mw5oYgHQZF6XYelYh0PTgk72iM/pubhtml
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:39:00 - [479] - Quote Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 668	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:07:00 - [480] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:31:00 - [481] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 670	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:35:00 - [482] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:38:00 - [483] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 671	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:48:00 - [484] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. 1. Stops light weapons from causing permanent damage 2. It was also in chrome/uprising and no one complained about it then also
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:03:00 - [485] - Quote Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed. Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable. However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate. You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 974	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:35:00 - [486] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. For HAV's with more fitting options, my first instinct is sure why not. Dropships, it may a bit crippling, especially for Pythons. Seeing how much work is going into tanks, there is not alot of room for dropship changes . Moving it to a low would remove shield booster as an optional fitting on a python, or the incubus for that matter. It would leave the python with just one fit, Hardener, afterburner, extender in the highs and pg upgrade in the low. To make up for this perhaps we can leave the light shield boosters in the high and the heavy shield booster in the lows. Its not very symetrical, but it leaves the dropship pilots something until we get dropships PG and CPU sorted. If you ask me "what if dropships had the PG/ CPU fitting costs to fit a booster in the lows?", then yes, i'd be all for it. Also , passive vehicle reps? i like. I would really like to have heavy shield boosters to be low slots and the light ones to remain on the highs until a solution as made for Dropships and LAVs. I would also like passive armor repair for vehicles, I even made a thread/spreadsheet about passive vehicle regen, for shield and armor, a while back. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 675	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:52:00 - [487] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. And I know you pretty much worship Chromo as your personal messiah, but that doesn't mean constant shield regen was better. It was often very confusing for new players who would see dropsuits perform extremely differently than vehicles, such that shield vehicles performed more like armor infantry. It's inconsistent, confusing, and poorly designed. Now obviously vehicles have active modules and dropsuits do not, so we'll leave that out of it since those concepts are non comparable. However, it is a more consistent design to have shield vehicles and infantry both operate on natural, but delayed regen system with modules to reduce recharge and boost rate. Just as it is more consistent to have both armor vehicles and infantry fit modules which passively repairs armor constantly at a very slow rate. You're basically saying "I want to break existing convention to make shields perform like armor". If you want constant regen at a slow rate, why do you not just use armor then and keep the conventions between vehicle and infantry the same? 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:32:00 - [488] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage. II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good. III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason. IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 678	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:38:00 - [489] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You say non issue but im reading posts in which you want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles 2. Chromo was damn good 3. The difference between vehicle and dropsuits is already huge anyways but they should be different because they are different 4. So then if infantry and vehicles are supposed to be similar then why is rattati not giving more slots to adv/proto vehicles just like infantry has? really you cannot say that vehicles and infantry should be the same when in key areas they are not the same like in the skill tree for example where infantry have useful core basic skills and vehicles do not I. I never said I want laser rifles to cause damage to vehicles. I said Ideally more AV would on the field at any given moment so that vehicles can afford to be stronger. I'm actually not a huge fan of AP weapons doing considerable AV damage. II. Just because Cromo had good stuff it in, does not mean all of it was good. III. Again "because lore", I guess that's you're only reason. IV. Also there is discussion about moving infantry to having all tiers have the same slot layout with just increasing resources per level, so yeah, they very well might end up on the same type of system. Also Ratatti has already clearly talked about reworking the skill tree, and you're right, it should move to having better core skills, and it likely will. Again I will ask, if you want a tanking style that reps constantly, why not just use armor? Or is that "because roleplaying"? ;) 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6802	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:50:00 - [490] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement Butte 1: Being petulant again, no one likes whining. Butte 2: Yep we want to spoil your fun by not allowing you to be invulnerable. There are plenty of games where you can use an invulnerability code at any time. go play one. Butte 3: Your facts and what everyone else recognize as anecdote or circular logic share some striking similarities. Butte 4: This isn't EVE Online. Butte 4a: MMOS spaceship game does not balance like an FPS. I ran that statement past a five year old. They said it made no sense. I concur. Butte 4b: You run a gallente assault suit? Filthy infantry you have no business posting in a vehicle thread. AV

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 682	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:55:00 - [491] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement Butte 1: Being petulant again, no one likes whining. Butte 2: Yep we want to spoil your fun by not allowing you to be invulnerable. There are plenty of games where you can use an invulnerability code at any time. go play one. Butte 3: Your facts and what everyone else recognize as anecdote or circular logic share some striking similarities. Butte 4: This isn't EVE Online. Butte 4a: MMOS spaceship game does not balance like an FPS. I ran that statement past a five year old. They said it made no sense. I concur. Butte 4b: You run a gallente assault suit? Filthy infantry you have no business posting in a vehicle thread. 1. You have done it for long enough and you keep getting buffs for it so it must work 2. You mean i want useful vehicles 3. You are saying a vehicle can hack an objective? Please provide video evidence 4. No this is New Eden which is both EVE and DUST514 4a. Missing the point as usual 4b. Neither do you but you are still here [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:59:00 - [492] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation. ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was. iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting. iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually. So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different. So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 682	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:17:00 - [493] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this 2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad 3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective 4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you 4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing 4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement i. Then don't accuse me of saying things and trying to skew the conversation. ii. Sure, lots of good stuff. Again, not 100% was. iii. The way tanking styles work have nothing to do with hacking objectives. You're deflecting. iv. It's impossible to make a direct comparison to EVE because EVE doesn't run off of a cooldown/duration system, so the relationship between shields and armor in EVE don't work in Dust. Does armor regenerate passively? No, but you can make a Cap Stable fit in EVE which armor can and will regenerate constantly. This is achieved in Dust with passive armor reps. Active modules are obviously a non-stable alternative which provide a larger benefit but with a duration which needs to be pulsed manually. So in reality, it doesn't differ all that much from EVE once you get the proper modules in. Shield regens without modules, armor does not. Both are capable of stable and unstable fits via passive and active modules. The only difference is that shields in Dust have a much higher natural shield regen rate in exchange for a recharge delay, namely because the pace of combat is far different. So hey, just for you buddy, we'll add in a Flux Shield Regulator that'll drop your little recharge delay down to zero, and give you a comfy 5-10HP/s recharge, because that's about how good it would be in EVE. Sounds good? 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4587	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:24:00 - [494] - Quote Oh lawd. You know I try to take the time to hear you out, but 50% of the time you agree with me but don't even realize it, and the 50% of the time you're not even paying attention to the point of what I'm saying. If your intention was to waste my time so I get nothing productive done, I suppose you've succeeded. But I'm done with trying to speak with you, I actually have work to do because people actually care about what I have to say. Have a nice day sir. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6808	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:34:00 - [495] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors there's a bucket over there. please go cry into it when you realize that your efforts are futile. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6808	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:43:00 - [496] - Quote Ok I actually have to call it on the spreadsheet. Rattati, I have to say that even with the charge feature, Nova knives aren't going to be considered a serious AV weapon in any reality. with a base of 111 DPS at the prototype level using rapid strikes versus vehicles this is a troll weapon, and nonviable in any serious fashion as an HAV destroying tool. It's not even borderline as a finisher unless an HAV has less than 500 HP remaining. In my studied opinion after looking at the numbers and watching several nova knifer videos showing HAV destruction the only way you're getting an HAV kill with NKs is under one of two circumstances. 1: The HAV driver is an idiot on a scale heretofore unseen. 2: The HAv driver lets you do it because you're making a Youtube video to showcase your new can-openers. I have finished all of the "serious" AV options that we have available today. My assessment on the Mass Driver and Flaylock is that even at 100% efficacy they will underperform compared to swarms, Forge guns and even the PLC in an anti-HAV capacity. I can't say this dismays me. But we can make the Mass Driver a dual purpose AI/Backup AV weapon without torching the balance we have, same with the flaylock. Making similar considerations for the Bolt Pistol and Ion Pistol Charged Shot might not also be out of the bounds of reason. I highly recommend not using the Laser Rifle or the four battle Rifles for AV. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2739	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:48:00 - [497] - Quote Oh dear ****, are you srs right now? Quit yer bitchin and at least TRY to understand what he's saying Lazer. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:58:00 - [498] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok I actually have to call it on the spreadsheet. It's as complete as I can make it without wasting all of our time. Rattati, I have to say that even with the charge feature, Nova knives aren't going to be considered a serious AV weapon in any reality. with a base of 111 DPS at the prototype level using rapid strikes versus vehicles this is a troll weapon, and nonviable in any serious fashion as an HAV destroying tool. It's not even borderline as a finisher unless an HAV has less than 500 HP remaining. In my studied opinion after looking at the numbers and watching several nova knifer videos showing HAV destruction the only way you're getting an HAV kill with NKs is under one of two circumstances. 1: The HAV driver is an idiot on a scale heretofore unseen. 2: The HAv driver lets you do it because you're making a Youtube video to showcase your new can-openers. I have finished all of the "serious" AV options that we have available today. My assessment on the Mass Driver and Flaylock is that even at 100% efficacy they will underperform compared to swarms, Forge guns and even the PLC in an anti-HAV capacity. I can't say this dismays me. But we can make the Mass Driver a dual purpose AI/Backup AV weapon without torching the balance we have, same with the flaylock. Making similar considerations for the Bolt Pistol and Ion Pistol Charged Shot might not also be out of the bounds of reason. I highly recommend not using the Laser Rifle or the four battle Rifles for AV. Hmmmm I'm really not a huge fan AP weapons becoming serious AV weapons. However there is probably some logic in that the Plasma Cannon is an AV weapon that can be use for AP, it's just difficult to do. The reverse can be true for some AP weapons that are difficult to use as AV. The biggest problem with this sort of design is that it makes developing the vehicles even more difficult, as its impossible to predict how prevalent such weapons will be on the battlefield. Proceed with extreme caution, I'd rather there be more 'clean' ways to do this though. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 976	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:42:00 - [499] - Quote I have a thread and spreadsheet on how I feel vehicle regen should be, please look at them. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2740	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:19:00 - [500] - Quote Umm, I was just thinking about the DPS of blasters, and that's overkill. Not sure what kind of eHP you can get out of HAv's in your current proposal, but assuming the are around 10k, they would easily break HAV's, and that's just not needed. We want the TTK to go up, not down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.28 04:08:00 - [501] - Quote Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 05:45:00 - [502] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Shield regulators ( % reduced recharge delay? ) in low slots sound great. Would be nice if it had another added benefit like %shield bonus and %recharge rate bonus, even if small amounts as the low slot are tempting to slap armor plates in, plasma canons and fluxes hurt. Power Diagnostic Units ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 689	Posted - 2015.01.28 08:57:00 - [503] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. You still want it, you already said that you back it 2. Near enough, better than 10% now 3. Im right, i cant hack a point 4. Yes it does because capacitors there's a bucket over there. please go cry into it when you realize that your efforts are futile. 1. Infantry win, vehicles lose just as had predicted - off to doomhiem i go [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 188	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:19:00 - [504] - Quote 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ >.<
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:33:00 - [505] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ 1. so far as I can tell, yes. I don't honestly know if the interrupt is a glitch 2. YMMV. some people swear by 'em 3: the depression limit is intended, at that point pick a direction and gun the motor. Seriously. driving away fast is the solution to point blank scouts. 4: Harder to get now, though I'll admit, not impossible. Upshot is high ground AV tends to be easily countered by snipers. 5: I wouldn't count oh HAVs requiring more. In fact any assumptions at this point are premature. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 - [506] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alright the regen values are pretty reasonable maybe a little high for the Sageris but I'm not going to spend time on that, though I'm not entirely sold on why we have to make it different from how infantry works. 1. Well a vehicle is far more powerful than a meatbag and that alone can justify it Not.....really? I don't see why functionally it's a better idea to break existing mechanics other than "I want to, because lore" 1. Its a vehicle which requires an engine to move it and a shield generator for the shield and also has 10times the PG and 5times more CPU so considering how its alot more powerful than a 5ft suit why should it struggle to have a small constant shield passive recharge? Again the only reason you're offering is "because lore". Give me a reason to why breaking existing convention would make the gameplay better. Why can you only provide a non-answer? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:37:00 - [507] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Recharge threshold makes the light weapon thing non-issue. MLT flaylock reduces my shield and stops the regen. I'll have recording capability in a few weeks, so I can put all the lies to bed with video evidence. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:39:00 - [508] - Quote Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2844	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:50:00 - [509] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. Literal cookie cutter fits. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 787	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:21:00 - [510] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: 1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable. 2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot. 3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma. 4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing. 5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/ 1) Its best to use shield boosters to recover from aplha strikes. It works well when if you can space it between incoming rail rounds (requires good timing) or missile tank reloads, but very poorly vs blasters. Vs a blaster tank you need to have find a break in between blaster fire. 2) Somewhat agree here, i prefer 2 extender + hardener gunlogi, but I use the booster on my madrugar. Its well worth a high slot in this case. 3) Fittings blasters on a gunlogi has some disadvantages, vs infantry but the high shield regen + resists to explosive AV means you have time to reposition. Otherwise, if fighting a blaster gunlogi, exploit that weakness. Low ground is your friend. 4) Agreed. Without a freindly neighborhood ADS pilot, or Viper heavy combo its best to steer clear till you have the WP to nuke it. 5) Same here. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:28:00 - [511] - Quote so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15961	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:28:00 - [512] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. Literal cookie cutter fits. These last three pages are the final straw. I will ask comunity managers to delete all nonuseful feedback and ban those who don't abide by my terms. This is a formal dev feedback thread, feel free to complain in your own threads, those who don't get banned that is. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15963	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:37:00 - [513] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet Those who are interested can take a look at the WIP progress for capacity, for UHAVs, DHAVs and HAVs in the Final Proposal Caldari Hulls. It also has most of the skills/specializations/modules that are needed in phase 1. Duplicating this sheet for Gallente tomorrow. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2026	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:51:00 - [514] - Quote Rattati, just a thought but is it technically possible to add 'vehicle equipment' slots to all vehicles then move non-weapon non-tank modules like MCRU's, scanners & propulsion modules into these vehicular equipment slots? Iteration on this would allow for new equipment types (bubble shields, remote reps, etc) and for pilot suits to modify the effects of these 'equipment' slots. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:27:00 - [515] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Rattati, just a thought but is it technically possible to add 'vehicle equipment' slots to all vehicles then move non-weapon non-tank modules like MCRU's, scanners & propulsion modules into these vehicular equipment slots? Iteration on this would allow for new equipment types (bubble shields, remote reps, etc) and for pilot suits to modify the effects of these 'equipment' slots. Totally a sweet idea, but probably not for this pass. I love vehicle utility and want it done right, and this idea has merit, but perhaps we should hold off until the base is done? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 200	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:36:00 - [516] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet Those who are interested can take a look at the WIP progress for capacity, for UHAVs, DHAVs and HAVs in the Final Proposal Caldari Hulls. It also has most of the skills/specializations/modules that are needed in phase 1. Duplicating this sheet for Gallente tomorrow. Looking really good Ratt, although the 1 low slot for Cal UHAV is kinda weird. Can't even fathom how awesome a Proto Marauder will be :). Will a proto UHAV or DHAV get more slots? Or is it 4/1 across all tiers? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2027	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:38:00 - [517] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Rattati, just a thought but is it technically possible to add 'vehicle equipment' slots to all vehicles then move non-weapon non-tank modules like MCRU's, scanners & propulsion modules into these vehicular equipment slots? Iteration on this would allow for new equipment types (bubble shields, remote reps, etc) and for pilot suits to modify the effects of these 'equipment' slots. Totally a sweet idea, but probably not for this pass. I love vehicle utility and want it done right, and this idea has merit, but perhaps we should hold off until the base is done? Agreed, not for this pass. Good for later iteration though. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:49:00 - [518] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so far we're looking at a 4/1 layout for caldari UHAVs and DHAVs Looks like the Main Battle Tanks are sitting at 5/2 so far. check it out. It's all in the spreadsheet Those who are interested can take a look at the WIP progress for capacity, for UHAVs, DHAVs and HAVs in the Final Proposal Caldari Hulls. It also has most of the skills/specializations/modules that are needed in phase 1. Duplicating this sheet for Gallente tomorrow. Starting to look good, I approve. The 5/2 to 4/1 progression is more in line with Dropships -> Assault Dropship progression, and you know I love consistency in design. Now with your intention to do faux racial variants, should we expect something along the lines of...? Caldari 5/2 -> 4/1 Amarr 2/5 -> 1/4 Gallente 3/4 -> 2/3 Minmatar 4/3 -> 3/2 I think this sort of framework looks really nice. good flexibility in the MBTs, a more restrictive for the specialist HAVs but with bonuses to push them into a specific style of play. +1 Now...I don't mean to get too far ahead of the game but we should at least talk about what sort of bonuses we can expect and the skill progression because bonuses are obviously an important part of the balance process. Are you looking for some suggestions on bonuses? Or have you pretty much decided on what you want? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 200	Posted - 2015.01.28 16:07:00 - [519] - Quote My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield HP and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to small turret fitting bonus and damage. Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction. Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor HP and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets. Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets. What do you guys think of those? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4600	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:23:00 - [520] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield HP and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to small turret fitting bonus and damage. Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction. Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor HP and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets. Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets. What do you guys think of those? I think it is a very good idea to make the generic racial HAV skill give a bonus specifically to the tanking style of that race, and make that bonus apply to all HAVs of that race (Even the DHAVs and UHAVs) Amarr: +% Reduction to Speed Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari: +% Bonus to Shield Recharge Rate Gallente: +% Bonus to Armor Repair Rate Minmatar: +% Reduction to Shield Recharge Delay I seem to remember an exploit where HP Boosting skills actually allowed a driver to hop in and out of a vehicle to artificially regenerate HP. For example a +25% Bonus to shield HAV, when the drive got in the vehicle the base 4000 would increase to 5000. However if say he was reduced to 2500/5000 HP, he would hop out, the max HP would decrease to 4000 so the HAV would have 2500/4000, he would hop back in and it would increase the HP of the vehicle by 25%, pushing it to 3125/5000. This is why the +% HP skills were change to +% Damage Resistance back in the day. Now I don't know the status of this exploit, but it is something to keep in mind when adding any sort of +% HP skill bonuses, as you may want to consider damage resistance instead (which I find to be a better bonus than HP anyways due to its added effects on regeneration). Fitting reduction for small turrets is kind of pointless since the turrets are prefit and the resources scaled appropriately to accommodate them. Though I have to ask, if we're able to swap the turrets out, would players not be able to just swap to a lower tiered turret in order to free up resources to bolster defenses further? I guess in that regard you could give a flat Role Bonus of a significant drop in the cost of small turrets. This would mean that even downgrading them would free up minimal resources, thus lessening the effect. However I don't think that should be the scaling general role bonus for the UHAV but rather a flat bonus that doesn't increase per level, as it would be crucial in properly balancing PG/CPU in the design phase. UHAV Role Bonus: % Reduction to PG/CPU of Small Turrets (flat bonus) +% Bonus to Small Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Small Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Caldari: +% Bonus to Small Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance Gallente: +% Reduction to Small Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Minmatar: +% Bonus to Small Turret Splash Radius +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance DHAV Role Bonus: +% Bonus to Large Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Large Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus Powertrain Enhancer (Active High, Increase Vehicle Turn Speed) Caldari: +% Bonus to Large Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Nanofiber Modules (Passive Low, Increased Speed/Acceleration at cost of armor HP) Gallente: +% Reduction to Large Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Fuel Injector Modules (Active High) Minmatar: +% Bonus to Large Turret Tracking Speed +% Bonus to Overdrive Modules (Passive Low, Increase Torque/Acceleration) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 827	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:27:00 - [521] - Quote why isnt there a shield recharger module? i want that option of having full passive fit. im annoyed that armor can get better passive reps than shields.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4600	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:31:00 - [522] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: why isnt there a shield recharger module? i want that option of having full passive fit. im annoyed that armor can get better passive reps than shields. Um if you're talking about current values, you might want to check the math on that buddy. Currently the Gunnlogi's natural unmodified shield recharge is faster than a max skill complex armor rep. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 154	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:41:00 - [523] - Quote So, what's the new passive regen in the spreadsheet? Choo Choo
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 202	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:02:00 - [524] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: My thoughts on bonuses for the tanks released in phase 1 (Minmatar and Amarr vehicle bonuses can be dicussed later, when they are closer to being released) HAV operation 1 unlocks Caldari and Gallente HAV operation. 1% bonus to something per level so it's not useless past 1. Caldari HAV operation unlocks Std MBT at 1, ADV at 3, PRO at 5 (obvious) Not sure if DHAV and UHAV should be unlocked separately or at the same level. If same level, both are unlocked at 3. If different, DHAV is unlocked at 3, UHAV at 5. 2% bonus to shield recharge per level. Caldari UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to shield HP and resistance per level, plus Marader bonus of 5% to small turret fitting bonus and damage. Caldari DHAV operation unlocks STD Enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Missile damage and reload per level, plus Enforcer bonus of 5% to Large Turret fitting reduction. Gallente HAV operation goes the same as Caldari, 2% bonus to armor repair per level. Gallente UHAV operation unlocks STD Marauder at 1. 2% bonus to armor HP and Resistance per level, plus Marader bonus to small turrets. Gallente DHAV operation unlocks STD enforcer at 1. 5% bonus to Large Blaster Damage and Dispersion(or Reload) per level, plus Enforcer bonus to Large Turrets. What do you guys think of those? I think it is a very good idea to make the generic racial HAV skill give a bonus specifically to the tanking style of that race, and make that bonus apply to all HAVs of that race (Even the DHAVs and UHAVs) Amarr: +% Reduction to Speed Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari: +% Bonus to Shield Recharge Rate Gallente: +% Bonus to Armor Repair Rate Minmatar: +% Reduction to Shield Recharge Delay I seem to remember an exploit where HP Boosting skills actually allowed a driver to hop in and out of a vehicle to artificially regenerate HP. For example a +25% Bonus to shield HAV, when the drive got in the vehicle the base 4000 would increase to 5000. However if say he was reduced to 2500/5000 HP, he would hop out, the max HP would decrease to 4000 so the HAV would have 2500/4000, he would hop back in and it would increase the HP of the vehicle by 25%, pushing it to 3125/5000. This is why the +% HP skills were change to +% Damage Resistance back in the day. Now I don't know the status of this exploit, but it is something to keep in mind when adding any sort of +% HP skill bonuses, as you may want to consider damage resistance instead (which I find to be a better bonus than HP anyways due to its added effects on regeneration). Fitting reduction for small turrets is kind of pointless since the turrets are prefit and the resources scaled appropriately to accommodate them. Though I have to ask, if we're able to swap the turrets out, would players not be able to just swap to a lower tiered turret in order to free up resources to bolster defenses further? I guess in that regard you could give a flat Role Bonus of a significant drop in the cost of small turrets. This would mean that even downgrading them would free up minimal resources, thus lessening the effect. However I don't think that should be the scaling general role bonus for the UHAV but rather a flat bonus that doesn't increase per level, as it would be crucial in properly balancing PG/CPU in the design phase. UHAV Role Bonus: % Reduction to PG/CPU of Small Turrets (flat bonus) +% Bonus to Small Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Small Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Caldari: +% Bonus to Small Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance Gallente: +% Reduction to Small Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Armor Damage Resistance Minmatar: +% Bonus to Small Turret Splash Radius +% Bonus to Shield Damage Resistance DHAV Role Bonus: +% Bonus to Large Turret Damage Amarr: +% Reduction to Large Turret Heat Buildup +% Bonus Powertrain Enhancer (Active High, Increase Vehicle Turn Speed) Caldari: +% Bonus to Large Turret Reload Speed (Or Missile Velocity) +% Bonus to Nanofiber Modules (Passive Low, Increased Speed/Acceleration at cost of armor HP) Gallente: +% Reduction to Large Turret Dispersion +% Bonus to Fuel Injector Modules (Active High) Minmatar: +% Bonus to Large Turret Tracking Speed +% Bonus to Overdrive Modules (Passive Low, Increase Torque/Acceleration) Alright, so just change the HP Bonus to a resist Bonus? 4% would be good then. I'm trying to keep the DHAV Damage bonus higher than the UHAV defense bonus to keep the UHAV in check. What do you think about the DHAV getting a fitting bonus towards Large Turrets/damage mods for the role bonus, then bonuses to each races respective turret on their tanks? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4603	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:15:00 - [525] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Alright, so just change the HP Bonus to a resist Bonus? 4% would be good then. I'm trying to keep the DHAV Damage bonus higher than the UHAV defense bonus to keep the UHAV in check. What do you think about the DHAV getting a fitting bonus towards Large Turrets/damage mods for the role bonus, then bonuses to each races respective turret on their tanks? 4-5% per level is pretty reasonable given their reduce slot count. It lets them decently tank even when the hardeners are on cooldown. As for the damage bonus you don't want to get too crazy with it and totally bone MBTs, but their additional slots will help a little to counteract that. I wont delve into numbers too much with that, as its highly dependent on where the eHP and turret values land. Again the Large Turret Fitting reduction....well kinda goes along with the bit I spoke about with the smalls. Since the vehicle comes pre-fit with a turret and the PG/CPU is already modified specifically to handle that turret, offering the fitting reduction as a bonus is kind of pointless since the hull is already tailored to fit the cost of the gun. A flat role bonus to reduction may help to negate the "downgrade" issue I mentioned with the smalls but that will probably be less of a problem with the DHAVs. As for Damage Mods that's kind of a tough one, as Armor Hulls would likely benefit from the bonus more than Shield since they don't have to sacrifice any main-rack slots to use them. Also I'm going under the assumption that we're not getting racial turrets anytime soon, so Im trying to keep bonuses very generic for the sake of Amarr and Minmatar which don't have proper racial turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 431	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:54:00 - [526] - Quote What do you think of giving DHAVs a lower scan profile than MBTs, and UHAVS a slightly higher scan profile? (Or in case I got that wrong: DHAVs being harder to spot, UHAVS being easier) The idea being that DHAVs are more hunters, and as such would want the lower scan profile to be more easily able to dictate when the grounds of an engagement, and UHAVs being more detectable in exchange for the fire power / armor. Since Rattati has stated that DHAVs would not be rail-capable, we would not need to worry about Hidden snipers, and it would allow DHAVs to be a bit more "stealthy" (in terms of Tank vs Tank battles) which would give them an edge on trying to do ambush like tactics. As for UHAVs it matters little about their scan profile, since they are AI, and will never really be able to "sneak" up on Infantry units. Also, taking this idea further: Perhaps a module that reduces Scan Profile by a % to potentially allow "Scout Tank" gameplay?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4604	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:14:00 - [527] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: What do you think of giving DHAVs a lower scan profile than MBTs, and UHAVS a slightly higher scan profile? (Or in case I got that wrong: DHAVs being harder to spot, UHAVS being easier) The idea being that DHAVs are more hunters, and as such would want the lower scan profile to be more easily able to dictate when the grounds of an engagement, and UHAVs being more detectable in exchange for the fire power / armor. Since Rattati has stated that DHAVs would not be rail-capable, we would not need to worry about Hidden snipers, and it would allow DHAVs to be a bit more "stealthy" (in terms of Tank vs Tank battles) which would give them an edge on trying to do ambush like tactics. As for UHAVs it matters little about their scan profile, since they are AI, and will never really be able to "sneak" up on Infantry units. Also, taking this idea further: Perhaps a module that reduces Scan Profile by a % to potentially allow "Scout Tank" gameplay? That seems reasonable. Nothing as powerful as say an active scanner, but if you want to make them a little more stealthy that's fine in my book. It's not like it can cloak or anything, and they're not exactly quiet. If you're looking for like a hardcore scanning platform, I think that would be better suited for say an LAV or something of that nature. Also I must have missed it, where did Ratatti say the bit about DHAVs being non-rail capable? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 431	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:32:00 - [528] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: STUFF More STUFF There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. Here is the quote in question. I'm not too interested in any tanks being scanning platforms, just making it so that the DHAV and UHAV are slightly harder/easier (for a tank) to see.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4606	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:43:00 - [529] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: STUFF More STUFF There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. Here is the quote in question. I'm not too interested in any tanks being scanning platforms, just making it so that the DHAV and UHAV are slightly harder/easier (for a tank) to see. That's an interesting choice he's made there. Not sure how I feel about it. I think its reasonable that the DHAV be harder to be seen and the UHAV be easier to see. It also may be worth exploring options to allow the UHAV to better scan infantry, as their primary role is specifically to hunt infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 205	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:26:00 - [530] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Alright, so just change the HP Bonus to a resist Bonus? 4% would be good then. I'm trying to keep the DHAV Damage bonus higher than the UHAV defense bonus to keep the UHAV in check. What do you think about the DHAV getting a fitting bonus towards Large Turrets/damage mods for the role bonus, then bonuses to each races respective turret on their tanks? 4-5% per level is pretty reasonable given their reduce slot count. It lets them decently tank even when the hardeners are on cooldown. As for the damage bonus you don't want to get too crazy with it and totally bone MBTs, but their additional slots will help a little to counteract that. I wont delve into numbers too much with that, as its highly dependent on where the eHP and turret values land. Again the Large Turret Fitting reduction....well kinda goes along with the bit I spoke about with the smalls. Since the vehicle comes pre-fit with a turret and the PG/CPU is already modified specifically to handle that turret, offering the fitting reduction as a bonus is kind of pointless since the hull is already tailored to fit the cost of the gun. A flat role bonus to reduction may help to negate the "downgrade" issue I mentioned with the smalls but that will probably be less of a problem with the DHAVs. As for Damage Mods that's kind of a tough one, as Armor Hulls would likely benefit from the bonus more than Shield since they don't have to sacrifice any main-rack slots to use them. Also I'm going under the assumption that we're not getting racial turrets anytime soon, so Im trying to keep bonuses very generic for the sake of Amarr and Minmatar which don't have proper racial turrets. The damage mod problem for shield tanks could be lessened with passive damage mods in the lows, with 5%/7%/10% for the progression. I was thinking that there should be passive utility mods in the lows, active in the highs like we had before. For example, passive and active damage mods, speed mods, heat sinks, scanning mods even. Would give shield tanks a lot more fitting options for their low slots, which helps Them not have to use armor stuff. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4611	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:35:00 - [531] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: The damage mod problem for shield tanks could be lessened with passive damage mods in the lows, with 5%/7%/10% for the progression. I was thinking that there should be passive utility mods in the lows, active in the highs like we had before. For example, passive and active damage mods, speed mods, heat sinks, scanning mods even. Would give shield tanks a lot more fitting options for their low slots, which helps Them not have to use armor stuff. Hmmm well that's sorta true, except the active damage mod would theoretically gain more of a benefit due to a larger base value. As for the Active/Passive High/Low duality, totally on board with that and it adds in some much needed options for low slots. I think we can also use PG limitations to really hinder shield vehicles from fitting plates. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 432	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:43:00 - [532] - Quote Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots? For example: Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks) Blaster should be high Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI) Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability. These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 206	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:50:00 - [533] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: The damage mod problem for shield tanks could be lessened with passive damage mods in the lows, with 5%/7%/10% for the progression. I was thinking that there should be passive utility mods in the lows, active in the highs like we had before. For example, passive and active damage mods, speed mods, heat sinks, scanning mods even. Would give shield tanks a lot more fitting options for their low slots, which helps Them not have to use armor stuff. Hmmm well that's sorta true, except the active damage mod would theoretically gain more of a benefit due to a larger base value. As for the Active/Passive High/Low duality, totally on board with that and it adds in some much needed options for low slots. I think we can also use PG limitations to really hinder shield vehicles from fitting plates. I actually would prefer having a smaller boost all the time. I don't like active reliant fits, which is why I REALLY want my passive shield resist mods to come back. Back then, I could slap on two supplemental amplifiers and get constant 30% damage reduction. Then I had 1 large extender and a booster, the only active mod on the fit. Had about 4500 shields, constant 30% damage reduction, and I could regen my shields if I needed to. Onto the second part, the PG would have to be extremely high for plates, otherwise the Proto Shield vehicles will still be able to use them, which we don't want. Same goes for CPU on shield mods, so armor can't use them effectively. I'm pretty sure that dual tanked Surya's were the most OP tanks we had, and we don't need that again. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 206	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:52:00 - [534] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots? For example: Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks) Blaster should be high Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI) Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability. These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc Heavily disagree. Changes way to much. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4612	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:57:00 - [535] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I actually would prefer having a smaller boost all the time. I don't like active reliant fits, which is why I REALLY want my passive shield resist mods to come back. Back then, I could slap on two supplemental amplifiers and get constant 30% damage reduction. Then I had 1 large extender and a booster, the only active mod on the fit. Had about 4500 shields, constant 30% damage reduction, and I could regen my shields if I needed to. Onto the second part, the PG would have to be extremely high for plates, otherwise the Proto Shield vehicles will still be able to use them, which we don't want. Same goes for CPU on shield mods, so armor can't use them effectively. I'm pretty sure that dual tanked Surya's were the most OP tanks we had, and we don't need that again. And that's totally fine and a matter of personal preference. I personally like being able to flip multiple hardeners on at the same time and be unkillable for a handful of seconds before scurrying off to hide and let my modules cool off. However I also enjoy a good, slow burn passive fit. One of my favorite ships in EVE is the Drake...sturdy little mofo and that passive tank is nice and easy to use. And here's the deal, I don't have an issue with a Caldari HAV putting plates on. What I do have an issue with is them fitting full proto shields AND plates. If you want to hybrid tank...that's fine, but your shield fitting needs to suffer to pull it off. Same with armor, if you want to stick shields on an armor vehicle, that's fine, but you better be giving up armor to make it happen. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2744	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:00:00 - [536] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Keep the lights on drivers, Rattati's doing something cool with the Main Battle Tanks. keep watching. Literal cookie cutter fits. These last three pages are the final straw. I will ask community managers to delete all nonuseful feedback and ban those who don't abide by my terms. This is a formal dev feedback thread, feel free to complain in your own threads, those who don't get banned that is. About time, and I'm about to check out the sheet. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2744	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:08:00 - [537] - Quote "Assuming ADV and PRO UHAVS not launched in first iteration" This is still a thing? Hope not, otherwise, umm, can you like lock anything higher for being used (assuming you balanced on STD=STD STD< PRO basis) until of course higher for vehicles comes out? Also, can you start working on Officer turrets? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 432	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:15:00 - [538] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots? For example: Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks) Blaster should be high Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI) Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability. These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc Heavily disagree. Changes way to much. Fair enough, I can agree on the point with the small turrets. (Just trying to spit ball ideas) However, I would argue a bit more on the main damage mods. Why do you feel that changing the slot layout for different types is too extreme? As I understand it, Rattati is already leaning toward splitting of damage mods to be different mods per weapon. With that in mind, I feel it would not be too extreme to split these mods off to be in different slots. I agree with Pokey on that adding passive on top of active mods would be too much when combined, especially on DHAVs. I am of the opinion that TTK is currently fine as is (for the most part) between tanks. Adding additional damage would only drive that down.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16864	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:26:00 - [539] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Perhaps instead have different Large Turrets have different weapon mod slots? For example: Rail should be a low slot (lore reason: Using more power, Game Reason: Paired with Shield Tanks) Blaster should be high Missile should be ... high / low? (Depending on Missile Type? AV vs AI) Another idea would be to have separate weapon mods for the small turrets, with these providing larger benefits per mod (Let's say... 2 x as effective?) This way tanks, especially UHAVs, have a way of increasing the AI capability. These mods for small turrets need not be straight damage, they could be heat, ammo, accuracy, etc Heavily disagree. Changes way to much. Fair enough, I can agree on the point with the small turrets. (Just trying to spit ball ideas) However, I would argue a bit more on the main damage mods. Why do you feel that changing the slot layout for different types is too extreme? As I understand it, Rattati is already leaning toward splitting of damage mods to be different mods per weapon. With that in mind, I feel it would not be too extreme to split these mods off to be in different slots. I agree with Pokey on that adding passive on top of active mods would be too much when combined, especially on DHAVs. I am of the opinion that TTK is currently fine as is (for the most part) between tanks. Adding additional damage would only drive that down. I find it disheartening if he is considering this. Typically all damage modules (the ones that increase DPS in EVE) are low slots with certain kinds of modifications being split between Medium and Low slots. Active Systems are usually put in the Medium Slots Group however no examples of damage increasing modules to my knowledge exist in the Medium Slots. Passive Systems are usually put in the Low Slots Group. The only other two means off the top of my head that might directly increase the damage of your guns would be Drugs and Rig Slots, however neither of those exist in Dust. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4617	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:43:00 - [540] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I find it disheartening if he is considering this. Typically all damage modules (the ones that increase DPS in EVE) are low slots with certain kinds of modifications being split between Medium and Low slots. Active Systems are usually put in the Medium Slots Group however no examples of damage increasing modules to my knowledge exist in the Medium Slots. Passive Systems are usually put in the Low Slots Group. The only other two means off the top of my head that might directly increase the damage of your guns would be Drugs and Rig Slots, however neither of those exist in Dust. I also can't find any examples of Medium Slot modules that increase damage. All damage mods in EVE are both Low Slots and Passives. The only Medium I could find was a Tracking Computer which is active and increases range/tracking which effectively increases DPS since more shots hit the target. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16864	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:45:00 - [541] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: I find it disheartening if he is considering this. Typically all damage modules (the ones that increase DPS in EVE) are low slots with certain kinds of modifications being split between Medium and Low slots. Active Systems are usually put in the Medium Slots Group however no examples of damage increasing modules to my knowledge exist in the Medium Slots. Passive Systems are usually put in the Low Slots Group. The only other two means off the top of my head that might directly increase the damage of your guns would be Drugs and Rig Slots, however neither of those exist in Dust. I also can't find any examples of Medium Slot modules that increase damage. All damage mods in EVE are both Low Slots and Passives. The only Medium I could find was a Tracking Computer which is active and increases range/tracking which effectively increases DPS since more shots hit the target. But it's not a "hard DPS" increase/module since you can still be outside the range or moving too fast to hit.....however you make a valid point. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4617	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:47:00 - [542] - Quote Indeed. It's effective DPS. I suppose Target Painters would also fall into a similar category. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 817	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:53:00 - [543] - Quote With more active modules being thrown in the mix I think we're going to have to start addressing the elephant in the room with respect to vehicles, their limited slot number, and the relative power of active damage mods in comparison. Does anyone here honestly believe that they'll be equipping active spool up or heat sink modules over an active damage mod assuming they both took high slots? And if they took low slots does anyone here honestly believe they'd remove either a PG/CPU upgrade that allowed you to buff up your tank/weapon power or a plate/hardener so that you could turn faster for a limited time or shoot longer? My current Gunnlogi fit, with maxed armor/shield fitting proficiency, is an Enhanced Heavy Shield Extender, Enhanced X Damage Mod, Shield Hardener, Enhanced Heavy Armor Plate, Armor Hardener. If you give me more slots I'm going to fit more tank, not something that allows me to turn my turret faster. So long as 1. Vehicle TTK stays as low as it is to the point where either I'm a smoking crater or my opponent is a smoking crater before heat becomes a factor. 2. These rather obscure modules are competing with either an additional plate, damage mod, or hardener ... I'm really failing to see a situation where I'd bother fitting them.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 209	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:54:00 - [544] - Quote We're getting increased sots, as has been said Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 817	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:56:00 - [545] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: We're getting increased sots, as has been said Which is why I wrote : Quote: "If you give me more slots I'm going to fit more tank, not something that allows me to turn my turret faster."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4620	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:57:00 - [546] - Quote Spool up modules? Probably never. Tracking Enhancers? On a CQC Minmatar HAV? Probably. Heat Sinks? Absofckinglutley Heat Sinks on a rail means you're getting off an extra shot or two before you need to stop firing, that can be critical, even more so in some situations, over a damage modules. "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:05:00 - [547] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: With more active modules being thrown in the mix I think we're going to have to start addressing the elephant in the room with respect to vehicles, their limited slot number, and the relative power of active damage mods in comparison. Does anyone here honestly believe that they'll be equipping active spool up or heat sink modules over an active damage mod assuming they both took high slots? And if they took low slots does anyone here honestly believe they'd remove either a PG/CPU upgrade that allowed you to buff up your tank/weapon power or a plate/hardener so that you could turn faster for a limited time or shoot longer? My current Gunnlogi fit, with maxed armor/shield fitting proficiency, is an Enhanced Heavy Shield Extender, Enhanced X Damage Mod, Shield Hardener, Enhanced Heavy Armor Plate, Armor Hardener. If you give me more slots I'm going to fit more tank, not something that allows me to turn my turret faster. So long as 1. Vehicle TTK stays as low as it is to the point where either I'm a smoking crater or my opponent is a smoking crater before heat becomes a factor. 2. These rather obscure modules are competing with either an additional plate, damage mod, or hardener ... I'm really failing to see a situation where I'd bother fitting them. I honestly would pick the damage module over active functionality modules unless those modules directly had some affect on my damage out put. E.G- God forbid a Laser Turret functions like the infantry version duration of the beam will allow for more total damage than a damage module. Under any other circumstance I would think that increasing damage per shot value on these rapid fire turrets would be more beneficial to you in a general sense. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 817	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:08:00 - [548] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spool up modules? Probably never. Tracking Enhancers? On a CQC Minmatar HAV? Probably. Heat Sinks? Absof*ckinglutley Heat Sinks on a rail means you're getting off an extra shot or two before you need to stop firing, that can be critical, even more so in some situations, over a damage modules. Yeah, I can see this. I used to fit heat sinks on my rail pre-1.7 apocalypse. But this was during a time in which damage mods were passive low slot modules. I could fit both without changing much to my overall fit. The fitting capacity of the Gunnlogi in its current state though means that I don't need to fit a PG or CPU mod in order to pretty much fit EVERYTHING I want and if this trend is carried on to the next patch then I don't see a scenario in which I'd be willing to sacrifice an additional 1000+ shields or 1500+ armor or an additional hardener in order to get off a couple extra rail shots in limited engagements.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16050	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:27:00 - [549] - Quote I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3895	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:30:00 - [550] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. Add ALSO less powerfull passive damage mod? Just spitballing Swaglords 1.0 [smiley face] Minmatar omni-merc

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 209	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:44:00 - [551] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. We use to have passive damage mods that went in the low slots, which would be great if they were added back in. These were passive, and had a smaller boost than the active ones. These would allow the Caldari DHAV to be able to have some extra damage without sacrificing to much compared to the Gallente that will be able to have both tank and damage mods without sacrifices Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property 817	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:47:00 - [552] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails.
The-Errorist 978	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:50:00 - [553] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: why isnt there a shield recharger module? i want that option of having full passive fit. im annoyed that armor can get better passive reps than shields. Um if you're talking about current values, you might want to check the math on that buddy. Currently the Gunnlogi's natural unmodified shield recharge is faster than a max skill complex armor rep. I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 156	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:01:00 - [554] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: why isnt there a shield recharger module? i want that option of having full passive fit. im annoyed that armor can get better passive reps than shields. Um if you're talking about current values, you might want to check the math on that buddy. Currently the Gunnlogi's natural unmodified shield recharge is faster than a max skill complex armor rep. I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. The armor tank shield reps should be 40, not 66 hp/s... Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:02:00 - [555] - Quote I'll have to take a look at your numbers when I have more time, but in a general sense I'd like to have both passive and active regen modules for both Shield and Armor. The progression would be as such: Natural Armor Regen (None) Natural Shield Regen Passive Armor Repairer (Constant Duration - Slow Rate) Passive Shield Recharger (Constant Duration - Slow Rate) Active Armor Repairer (Long Duration - Average Rate) Active Shield Booster (Short DUration - High Rate) Active Ancillary Shield Booster (Very Short Duration - Very High Rate) (Our Current Boosters) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16056	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:11:00 - [556] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:20:00 - [557] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 209	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:23:00 - [558] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 209	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:24:00 - [559] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? If you try to fire missiles full auto, they have dispersion. Hence why most missile tankers semi auto it. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16057	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:26:00 - [560] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16057	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:27:00 - [561] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use. OK "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16870	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:30:00 - [562] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 209	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:31:00 - [563] - Quote You know.... I don't think Rattati likes me.... :( Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16060	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:51:00 - [564] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: You know.... I don't think Rattati likes me.... :( Why on earth would you think that "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16060	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:54:00 - [565] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. With a disp mod, you might be able to take down a tank at medium with full auto, that's what I am thinking. Like an assassination, line the shot up just right... "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16870	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:01:00 - [566] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. They are only a little trickier to use because they have a travel time and a fair amount of the time tanks are on the move....dispersion is somewhat manageable by firing in bursts. With a disp mod, you might be able to take down a tank at medium with full auto, that's what I am thinking. Like an assassination, line the shot up just right... It would certainly allow for better application of damage in a short amount of time which I assume is your intended vision for missiles, especially at range..... Dispersion definitely would help nab stationary tanks but I don't know about applications beyond that...... Still I won't deny that it would help most tankers engage at longer ranges. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 5157	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:14:00 - [567] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: You know.... I don't think Rattati likes me.... :( Why on earth would you think that Well we all know you hate the Amarr :( (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6835	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:19:00 - [568] - Quote Hey Rattati. I have an answer To your question After tossing it about in my head. 10,000 - 10,500 EHP At proto. I think we can adjust to that. Especially given the guideline you gave me. If you want to use that number I can EASILY crunch that and set up turret and AV examples that can tackle it. While keeping to the guidelines on TTK you were positing to me. No, tank nerds, you won't be getting instagibbed by solo AV. but you can still get gibbed if Rattati goes by the guideline. I'll let him explain it. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4623	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:20:00 - [569] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? I was under the assumption that medium to long range full auto with missiles had difficulty due to dispersion. I may be mistaken, and then struggle with useful mods that "fight" built in weaknesses of each large turret, instead of just straight up dmg mods. Its more that the missiles take so long to get to the target at long range that a moving target has already moved away from where you are aiming. Paired with the fact that all of your DPS is contained in only 12 shots, missing a couple shots drops the DPS significantly. In general the community feels one of two things needs to happen. Either the missiles fly faster so they reach the target faster and allow players to hit things at a longer range, or the missiles have some light tracking and turn towards the target (though not to the extent that swams would, as this would be passive tracking) I believe Breakin also had a proposal to spread the dps out over many many missiles so that missing a couple shots was less detrimental. but all in all its not dispersion that causes issues with missiles, more so that they can be difficult to am and hit a moving target from afar and are typically only used up close because missing a couple rounds is very detrimental. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 979	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:37:00 - [570] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: ... I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. The armor tank shield reps should be 40, not 66 hp/s... That's like saying shield recharge for Am/gal assaults should be around 10 HP/s (instead of 20 HP/s), 36% less than Caldari's instead of the normal roughly 60%. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 156	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:45:00 - [571] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: ... I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. The armor tank shield reps should be 40, not 66 hp/s... That's like saying shield recharge for Am/gal assaults should be around 10 HP/s (instead of 20 HP/s), 36% of Caldari's recharge rate, instead of the normal roughly 60%. 110 hp/s is like a armor rep, along with armor repping shields at 66 hp/s... Choo Choo
The-Errorist 979	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:22:00 - [572] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: ... I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. 110 hp/s is like a armor rep, along with armor repping shields at 66 hp/s... I don't know what your point is and what you mean by armor repping shields, so I'll try my best to reply to what you said. Yes 110 HP/s shield recharge rate is like a complex heavy armor rep and 66 HP/s shield recharge rate is in-between an advanced and complex light rep. I also said I want vehicles to have base armor repair and with that, vehicles with an armor rep can rep faster than base shield recharge. Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? Right now, the faster you fire the large missile turret, the more dispersion it gains. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:57:00 - [573] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Right now, the faster you fire the large missile turret, the more dispersion it gains. I suppose I've never experienced this effect personally then. Typically because I rarely use Missiles at long range because of the limitations I listed, so perhaps I wasn't seeing the dispersion effect. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16099	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:51:00 - [574] - Quote Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 172	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:07:00 - [575] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? I'm just having trouble reading the base stats on that page, would you consider reformatting it to look like your original page? (are those base stats? or do those incorporate the fitted items on the caldari page?) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16113	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:29:00 - [576] - Quote Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

XxBlazikenxX Y.A.M.A.H 82	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:32:00 - [577] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. I support this. A proud member of Y.A.M.A.H Recruitment Don't fix what's not Baroque
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 172	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:40:00 - [578] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. Other than the issue with MLT hull generation from this idea (or maybe the issue is with the STD hull generation), it seems like a solid way to go... so would the hulls still be available unfit? or loadouts only? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16118	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:41:00 - [579] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. Other than the issue with MLT hull generation from this idea (or maybe the issue is with the STD hull generation), it seems like a solid way to go... so would the hulls still be available unfit? or loadouts only? Hulls are completely empty, except that UHAVS and HAVS have required small turrets, DHAVs and SHAVs do not "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 172	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:42:00 - [580] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Ok here goes: Simple really, I establish a balanced/fair faction fit using max 2x of a single module. Calculate what a full loadout of STD, ADV and PRO, requires using full level 5 skills. Base the max fitting capacity on that number. There you have the progression. Now, players will want to do other things, like 3x plates, and they will not necessarily have space to do so because it is not supported. So they will need to reduce some other mods/weapons down to ADV or even STD to do so. These Loadouts will then be put on the Marketplace for players to buy and skill into. Other than the issue with MLT hull generation from this idea (or maybe the issue is with the STD hull generation), it seems like a solid way to go... so would the hulls still be available unfit? or loadouts only? Hulls are completely empty, except that UHAVS and HAVS have required small turrets, DHAVs and SHAVs do not Shiny Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:25:00 - [581] - Quote I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:47:00 - [582] - Quote From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 4 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:57:00 - [583] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 5 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Gunnlogi currently reps at a higher rate than a Complex Armor Repairer with max skills. This means that a Gunnlogi can spend 0 modules to have a better rep rate than a Madrugar which spends 1. I have no issue with the Gunnlogi repping faster than the Madrugar, but it should need to spend at least 1 module in order to achieve it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16136	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:59:00 - [584] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:00:00 - [585] - Quote Brought over from the Turret Thread because it was getting off topic. Harpyja wrote: Well I didn't quite say that UHAVs needed be nerfed... I think all that needs to change is the DHAV's defenses. I just see no reason why it should have a weaker defense than the UHAV. It already lacks two small turrets and a bonus to fighting infantry. I'd imagine a role bonus of 4% damage per level will put the DHAV nicely into its role, while keeping its defense on par with the UHAV. Because if the DHAV's defenses are the same as the UHAV, then the MBT would be completely pointless. It would would be slower than the DHAV It would have less defense than the DHAV It would do less damage than the DHAV On top of that people want Large Blasters to be AP, so a DHAV with an Anti-Personnel Blaster would have the same defense as a DHAV, be faster, and do more damage with not only a bonus to the large blaster, but doing it solo as well. I get what you're worried about, but you would simply be reversing the problem and making the DHAV clearly superior. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:04:00 - [586] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. Random Scribbles but food for thought, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 156	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:26:00 - [587] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... Choo Choo
The-Errorist 980	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:33:00 - [588] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? Besides the feedback I gave on armor repair and shield recharge rates, I have these: It's not fair how Gallente tanks have more of their main tank to use than the Caldari, make it balanced like it is for Cal & Gal dropsuits. Caldari tanks have 36% (1,500) of their total HP (4,150) as armor and only 64% (2,650) as shields; I would like it to be the reverse ratio compared to Gallente tanks: ~23% (958) armor and ~77% (3192) shields. I still would like tanks to have 6 total slots instead of the current 5; 4/2 for Cal, 2/4 for Gal/AM, and 3/3 for Min. Lastly, the total HP, speed, PG/CPU, and other hull stats look fine. duster 35000 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... He meant shield recharge rates not the delay. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2751	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:40:00 - [589] - Quote Harpyja, I don't think you get why those things are problems: Enforcers (DHAV) are supposed to be fast, weakly armored, high damaging turret platforms made for hit and runs, basically to be able to alpha then GTFO. Marauders (UHAV) are supposed to be slow moving defensive vehicle built for supporting the infantry while being a bigscary brick. In a balanced field, a Enforcer will have issues reaching a target due to having to avoid AV due to weaker defenses, but once it gets to its target, due to high attack, it can **** damage then run. High powered, short time modules are these things friends. Marauders, on the other hand will have AV weaken them, to either deter them or have them weak enough to kill without issue. But if a Enforcer pulls up in perfect condition, it will have issues. Using the logic you put down, not only would Enforcers be faster and stronger AV wise, they also can tank just as much, and that's broken. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6835	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:48:00 - [590] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... because a gunnlogihas a full recovery from zero HP time of approximately 20 seconds. Without active mods or a FULLY realized passive regen setup It should take a similar amount of ttime to recover as it takes a dropsuit to run to a distant supply depot to resupply. I'm agreeing with rattati that 4 shot HAV kills should require a weakspot hit but with a super high regen we get to maintain the status quo that HAVs only need to hide for a few seconds before running back to contulinue behaving badly. AV

WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 196	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:55:00 - [591] - Quote If ultra HAVs are going to be 1 large AI turrent combined with small AI turrents(blaster/fragmented missiles).....then please make sure that the UHAVs have very slow top speeds and very slow base acceleration. I would suggest roughly 45% of a gallente tanks current base top speed and roughly 70% of the current gallente tanks acceleration rate. This would really help offset the UHAVs high anti infantry power and defense. Because it would allow infantry to have a decent chance at retreating to cover and assist infantry in ambushing the UHAVs in great infantry numbers. It would also have the added benefit of allowing infantry (that are not AV specialists) to move more easily "around or stealthily through" groups of UHAVs. Groups of HAVs are currently a big threat at the moment in ambush pubs matches because they can easily accelerate and catch up to speed specialized infantry and have other HAVs flank them at the cover the infantry are retreating to at the same time. Currently infantry have a extremely hard time evading HAVs outside of "outposts" and outside of medium and small "sockets" that are placed on maps. If those HAVs had much slower top speeds and acceleration and were more durable like UHAVs, infantry would be able to have a larger chance at surviving a little longer so they could participate in infantry battles instead if they chose, by being able to evade those tanks a bit more easily. If UHAVs end up OP or end up balanced but are at the same time becoming far too troublesome for infantry then I would suggest lowering there top speeds and there acceleration speeds before changing there defense stats. (if you change there speeds later make sure they have more friction on the ground so they can at least still scale large hills like other tanks) I hope you could figure out some way of preventing stationary UHAVs from sliding off hills that are at 60 degree angles and allow those tanks to scale those hills directly.
The-Errorist 980	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:58:00 - [592] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... because a gunnlogi has a full recovery from zero HP time of approximately 20 seconds. Without active mods or a FULLY realized passive regen setup It should take a similar amount of time to recover as it takes a dropsuit to run to a distant supply depot to resupply. I'm agreeing with rattati that less than 4 shot HAV kills should require a weakspot hit but with a super high regen we get to maintain the status quo that HAVs only need to hide for a few seconds before running back to continue behaving badly. What do u think of the numbers I gave for shield recharge rates and having innate armor repair? MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6835	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:04:00 - [593] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... because a gunnlogi has a full recovery from zero HP time of approximately 20 seconds. Without active mods or a FULLY realized passive regen setup It should take a similar amount of time to recover as it takes a dropsuit to run to a distant supply depot to resupply. I'm agreeing with rattati that less than 4 shot HAV kills should require a weakspot hit but with a super high regen we get to maintain the status quo that HAVs only need to hide for a few seconds before running back to continue behaving badly. What do u think of the numbers I gave for shield recharge rates and having innate armor repair? I also have an old thread about it. I can't actually look till I get home. AV
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 197	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:10:00 - [594] - Quote I cant figure out what MBTs are, could someone clarify please.
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 197	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:16:00 - [595] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: From what I can tell the hull numbers look interesting, lower starting ehp may take some time to adjust too but the increased slot should create more diversity. Shield recharge rate is just fine as 5 low slots and increased pg/cpu will give the opportunity for the Gallente hulls to fit some hefty reps if desired. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Gunnlogi currently reps at a higher rate than a Complex Armor Repairer with max skills. This means that a Gunnlogi can spend 0 modules to have a better rep rate than a Madrugar which spends 1. I have no issue with the Gunnlogi repping faster than the Madrugar, but it should need to spend at least 1 module in order to achieve it. That sounds reasonable.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 172	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:16:00 - [596] - Quote WeapondigitX V7 wrote: I cant figure out what MBTs are, could someone clarify please. Main Battle Tanks... In the context of DUST, the current HAVs (more or less...pre-fit with small turrets) SHAVs are MBTs without small guns Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2297	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:02:00 - [597] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Harpyja, I don't think you get why those things are problems: Enforcers (DHAV) are supposed to be fast, weakly armored, high damaging turret platforms made for hit and runs, basically to be able to alpha then GTFO. Marauders (UHAV) are supposed to be slow moving defensive vehicle built for supporting the infantry while being a bigscary brick. In a balanced field, a Enforcer will have issues reaching a target due to having to avoid AV due to weaker defenses, but once it gets to its target, due to high attack, it can **** damage then run. High powered, short time modules are these things friends. Marauders, on the other hand will have AV weaken them, to either deter them or have them weak enough to kill without issue. But if a Enforcer pulls up in perfect condition, it will have issues. Using the logic you put down, not only would Enforcers be faster and stronger AV wise, they also can tank just as much, and that's broken. So essentially DHAVs are going to become the current missile HAVs, except that they will be able to insta-pop every HAV out there as opposed to just armor. Not from what I can tell on the spreadsheet as they will only get a max 10% damage bonus. Except that 2 railgun shots and they're dead, or one full clip of swarms... I still see no reason why I should use a DHAV over a UHAV. I could always still fit a large missile or railgun to my UHAV and it will be almost as AV capable as a DHAV. But combined with two small railguns I should be able to level the playing field damage wise. But then the UHAV will also have better AI capabilities and higher defense. I don't care if the UHAV will be slower and the DHAV faster. I'll only need to hit it with one full missile clip or two railgun shots. Also considering (and hoping that it's a typo) that the spreadsheet says the Caldari UHAV will be faster and more maneuverable than the Caldari DHAV. If things stay as they are, I'll probably end up running one large missile and two small rails on the Sagaris, destroying other vehicles and killing infantry. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6837	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:35:00 - [598] - Quote If you play EVE a DHAV is a talos/naga/tornado/oracle style ship. Big hits. Don't get hit. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:58:00 - [599] - Quote Harpyja wrote: So essentially DHAVs are going to become the current missile HAVs, except that they will be able to insta-pop every HAV out there as opposed to just armor. Not from what I can tell on the spreadsheet as they will only get a max 10% damage bonus. Except that 2 railgun shots and they're dead, or one full clip of swarms... Isn't that the definition of a Glass Cannon? I guess my question to you then is, if DHAVs have the same defense as UHAVs, is there any point in running a SHAV at all? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16191	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:01:00 - [600] - Quote all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:02:00 - [601] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. With the recharge delay Gunlogis have on shields, if it takes any more than one low cost module to bring them to the same levels they are now and Madrugar hardeners get any love, then the instant repair of the armor repairer could get abused with 5 low slots. I'm sure the shield recharge rate of all the hulls would be lowered, but that delay after damage threshold has been broken is not present in armor repairers. Armor hardeners have a much longer duration than shields and the effect of increasing amount of damage repped per second when active. Not much you will be able to do against a plate, 2 hardners, 2 reppers and nitro if the hardener get any love. It's the same as dropsuits, you can at least tank some armor on most of them that have low shield recharge rates ie Cal logi, but once you start removing low slots you become more shield dependant, thus cover and recharge dependant, thus hiding away from battle dependant. There is no comparison when a gallente heavy pushes up on a caldari heavy of equal skill, the Gallente heavy will win with most of thier armor immediately repping after the battle. The nice part about tanks is there is no repping nanohive or repping logi further squewing the battle in armors favor. tl/dr: Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math ). So outside of redline Caldari = run away, Madrugar = keep applying damage every 3 seconds while a Nova Knifer runs over to make a YouTube vid.
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 376	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:11:00 - [602] - Quote Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster... Vote "Stucazz" for new gallente HAV. "H0riZ0n, spaghetti, pizza , pomodoro" cit.BLACK HEART 555
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:11:00 - [603] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6839	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:15:00 - [604] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:33:00 - [605] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With the recharge delay Gunlogis have on shields, if it takes any more than one low cost module to bring them to the same levels they are now and Madrugar hardeners get any love, then the instant repair of the armor repairer could get abused with 5 low slots. I'm sure the shield recharge rate of all the hulls would be lowered, but that delay after damage threshold has been broken is not present in armor repairers. Armor hardeners have a much longer duration than shields and the effect of increasing amount of damage repped per second when active. Not much you will be able to do against a plate, 2 hardners, 2 reppers and nitro if the hardener get any love. It's the same as dropsuits, you can at least tank some armor on most of them that have low shield recharge rates ie Cal logi, but once you start removing low slots you become more shield dependant, thus cover and recharge dependant, thus hiding away from battle dependant. There is no comparison when a gallente heavy pushes up on a caldari heavy of equal skill, the Gallente heavy will win with most of thier armor immediately repping after the battle. The nice part about tanks is there is no repping nanohive or repping logi further squewing the battle in armors favor. tl/dr: Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math ). So outside of redline Caldari = run away, Madrugar = keep applying damage every 3 seconds while a Nova Knifer runs over to make a YouTube vid. First of all, 4 seconds is not that long, and Regulators are being added which will drop that lower. Secondly, while I think passive armor reps should remain, they should be less effective. Active Armor Reps which run on a Duration/Cooldown need to be reintroduce and have a similar HP/s to existing passives when spread out over their duration and cooldown. Given the speed of vehicles, the duration of the shield hardener is sufficient for nearly any situation and will allow the HAV to kill the AVer, tank, or simply escape. Shield Hardeners are also a significnatly higher % resistance, meaning much of its eHP is tied to resists, not HP like the Madrugar. Because of this, the Gunnlogi takes less damage per damage applied, meaning that it has less HP to recover. This means that the effective Recharge Rate is significantly higher than the base 169HP/s. As an example: Tank A has 200 HP and no resists Tank B has 100 HP and 50% resists They both have 200eHP, and repair at 10HP/s If we apply 100 damage to each tank Tank A loses 100 HP Tank B resists the damage and loses 50 HP It will take tank A 10 seconds to fully recover It will take Tank B 5 seconds to fully recover Same eHP, same HP/s recovery rate, but Tank B recovers all of its HP faster than A. As you can see, when it comes to HP recovery, Damage Resistance >> HP. So in the case of a Gunnlogi, a 40% hardener pushes the effective recharge rate from 169 HP/s to 237 eHP/s, and can fit two hardeners at the same time which pushes it even higher depending on usage. The Madrugar with its one 25% rep goes from 137HP/s to 172 eHP/s and currently can only fit a single hardener on typical fits. Also you're making a very poorly designed argument. "Recharge delay necessitates a high shield recharge, 4 seconds of zero reps vs 4 seconds of 300+ reps, with hardeners essentially 500 hps instant repaired ( I can't into exact math )." If the Madrugar has 300+ HP/s that means it has dedicated all 3 of its slots to armor repairers. Not only is this a FailFit, but you're comparing it to the Gunnlogi that is using 0 modules to bolster its regen. You're saying an HAV that dedicates 3 slots to regen....regens better than an HAV that dedicates no slots to regen....well of course its going to be better! That's like saying it's wrong that a Minmatar Sentinel that stacks HP mods have more HP than an Amarr Sentinel that doesnt have any. If you factor in a Shield Booster vs a single Complex Armor Rep, the Gunnlogi can negate the shield recharge delay if it wants with the booster, instantly giving it 1950 HP and starting the recharge of 169HP/s. This means in the first 5 seconds the Gunnlogi Recovers ~1950+5(169) = 2795HP, the Madrugar would recover 845. Pretty massive difference, exchanging high regen for constant and reliable reps. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:34:00 - [606] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster... There was talk of improving armor hardener, which I think makes sense, right now its only advantage is duration, but nerfing shield regen at the same time could squew tank battles.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:02:00 - [607] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster... There was talk of improving armor hardener, which I think makes sense, right now its only advantage is duration, but nerfing shield regen at the same time could squew tank battles. From an EVE perspective... Armor Hardener 55% Reduction 30GJ Activation 20s Duration Shield Hardener 55% Reduction 20GJ Activation 10s Duration For a Dust context, I don't see why we couldn't go with a model where they both have the same resists, the armor longer with a longer cooldown and the shield last shorter with a shorter cooldown. The massive difference in % resistance causes serious balancing issues between armor and shields. Id rather see any difference be in the duration and cooldown, not in the resistance itself. I could see perhaps a small difference in resists (~5%) but overall they need to be closer to one another. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:37:00 - [608] - Quote I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's that shield delay combined with nearly half the duration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:44:00 - [609] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's that shield delay combined with nearly half the duration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing I will agree however that shield regen on the Madrugar is too damn high. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:11:00 - [610] - Quote [qknow the new hulls have different =Pokey Dravon] Doc DDD wrote: I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's delay combined with nearly half tGunlogisration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPXFzLUtbfpCLyCjAoDnoML7L8Nh7VZXMF1Bdhqajdo/edit?usp=sharing I will agree however that shield regen on the Madrugar is too damn high.[/quote] I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however; You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp? If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit. I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds...

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2297	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:14:00 - [611] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster... There was talk of improving armor hardener, which I think makes sense, right now its only advantage is duration, but nerfing shield regen at the same time could squew tank battles. From an EVE perspective... Armor Hardener 55% Reduction 30GJ Activation 20s Duration Shield Hardener 55% Reduction 20GJ Activation 10s Duration For a Dust context, I don't see why we couldn't go with a model where they both have the same resists, the armor longer with a longer cooldown and the shield last shorter with a shorter cooldown. The massive difference in % resistance causes serious balancing issues between armor and shields. Id rather see any difference be in the duration and cooldown, not in the resistance itself. I could see perhaps a small difference in resists (~5%) but overall they need to be closer to one another. Keep in mind that EVE does things differently to balance shield vs armor. As far as I remember, Caldari ships frequently ran extenders one size above their ship class, and that shield regen is always passively recharging at a variable rate, which is also increased through extenders and not just modules designed to lower the recharge time, "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4632	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:22:00 - [612] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however; You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp? If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit. I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds... No my point is that even though the raw HP is different, the eHP of those two fits is very similar, meaning that the Gunnlogi recovers eHP far faster than the Madrugar, while having an equal (and sometimes superior) eHP. And you can argue that you can fit 2 reppers, but that is typically an non-viable fit and would drop the eHP of the Madrugar even more sharply. And keep in mind that the Madrugar still has to fit multiple modules just so it can beat the regen of the Gunnlogi using 0 regen modules. That's my main gripe. (Under the old model) if the Gunnlogi had to fit 1 proto module to get the 169 HP/s, I would be FAR more comfortable with it. As for the new model, I can do that, but looking at the first few seconds after depletion isn't a really clear picture since that is specifically the weakest part of the shield regen. Regardless I think passive shield recharge and passive armor reps need to nerfed into the ground and bring back proper active modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 932	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:47:00 - [613] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I am not following the "damage mods" discussion, we already have damage amps in high, I am not changing any of that. But I do want them to be active. The basic question is this, what is the incentive to fitting X new module over an additional damage mod or additional modules that increase my eHP? It's a question of whether or not the additional properties are going to be worth sacrificing those aspects for. You mentioned active dispersion decreasing modules in the other thread, which is something that I hadn't seen mentioned yet. This is great! This is the type of module that adds a very real and tangible benefit to Large Blaster tanks assuming it gave them limited infantry slaying ability during activation. Im only questioning the overall usefulness of the other proposed active modules. A lot of this is hinged on the insane fitting power of the Gunnlogi at the moment. The thing can fit everything without the need for any sort of PG or CPU upgrade. I would honestly support bringing it down to the level of the Maddy (basically bottlenecking its PG in the same way that the Maddy is CPU bottlenecked) so they could stop being omni-tanked monstrosities. The reason, I imagine, that their PG is as high as it is because of the high fitting cost of Heavy Shield Boosters. But given that Shield Boosters can be interrupted half way through the boosting process its much more reliable to stick a heavy plate/hardener in the lows instead. Secondary questions include, whats the proposed slot layout for these modules? At the moment there's a distinct lack of utility based low slot modules that allow a tank to be able to comfortably stack shields while gaining some secondary battlefield utility. My suggestion would be : Active Dispersion Module - High Slot, on the basis that Maddys are Gallente and Gallente are Blasters. You don't want people comfortably stacking damage mods and the infantry slaying dispersion module as well. Active Heat Sink - Low Slot, so the Gunnlogi can focus on its shields while gaining the benefit of better Rails. Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get I was suggesting that each active module get a passive variant. Active versions in high slots, passive in low slots. Every turret related module should do this, just like it did before. This way, Gal and Cal HAV's aren't imblalanced in terms of utility, as both have their own versions of the same module to use. OK May I refer the discussion on active/passive variants of currently existing modules to this thread? Thanks.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:49:00 - [614] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make with the spreadsheet however; You are comparing the time it takes to rep 4000 armor to 2650 shield, and it takes 10 more seconds to rep 1350 extra hp? If you add another armor repper you are repping 50% more hp faster than shields commencing immediately after taking damage, plus getting your shields repped with no modules, plus the gunlogi has no armor repairing ability unless it has some wierd fit. I know the new hulls have different armor/shield numbers, try redoing the chart with the new base numbers, and most importantly look at what tank has a higher percentage of it's original hp back if they are at 0/0 shield armor and start Regen it over the next 6 seconds... No my point is that even though the raw HP is different, the eHP of those two fits is very similar, meaning that the Gunnlogi recovers eHP far faster than the Madrugar, while having an equal (and sometimes superior) eHP. And you can argue that you can fit 2 reppers, but that is typically an non-viable fit and would drop the eHP of the Madrugar even more sharply. And keep in mind that the Madrugar still has to fit multiple modules just so it can beat the regen of the Gunnlogi using 0 regen modules. That's my main gripe. (Under the old model) if the Gunnlogi had to fit 1 proto module to get the 169 HP/s, I would be FAR more comfortable with it. As for the new model, I can do that, but looking at the first few seconds after depletion isn't a really clear picture since that is specifically the weakest part of the shield regen. Regardless I think passive shield recharge and passive armor reps need to nerfed into the ground and bring back proper active modules. I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree. but the gunlogi can never get more reps the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi. While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4633	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:55:00 - [615] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree. but the gunlogi can never get more reps the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi. While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher. I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:42:00 - [616] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree. but the gunlogi can never get more reps the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi. While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher. I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module? Then we would need to look at - adding a 4 second delay to armor reps, - reduce starting armor level to the same as the starting level of the shield tanks - penalizing armor repair delays for every plate added. - remove any passive reps on the shields of armor tanks. This would make everything 'fair' , which seems to be your arguement. I don't want to homogenize armor and shield, they are both different and have different positives and negatives. 5 low slots is going to be huge for armor tanks, if they are repping faster than shields then I feel we have gone wrong somewhere. Your chart shows that even now, one armor repairer madrugar outreps a gunlogi and the madrugar has more hp. I wouldn't push for any of the above points as I wouldn't push for lower shield reps on the gunlogi. But if rattati sees something we don't then who am I to argue, as long as it makes sense.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 157	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:54:00 - [617] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: ... I want that to change and here's what I'd like it to be (from my thread/spreadsheet): (LAV and dropship stats in thread/spreadsheet) [HAVs]: Caldari: 110 HP/s Minmatar: 88 HP/s Amarr/Gallente: 66 HP/s I also want vehicles to have natural passive reps: [HAVs] Gallente: 25 HP/s Armarr & Minmatar: 22.5 HP/s Caldari: HAV: 20 HP/s If CCP does this, adds regulators, and rechargers, vehicle regen would be in a much more balanced state. 110 hp/s is like a armor rep, along with armor repping shields at 66 hp/s... I don't know what your point is and what you mean by armor repping shields, so I'll try my best to reply to what you said. Yes 110 HP/s shield recharge rate is like a complex heavy armor rep and 66 HP/s shield recharge rate is in-between an advanced and complex light rep. I also said I want vehicles to have base armor repair and with that, vehicles with an armor rep can rep faster than base shield recharge. Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yep, I have raised the low slot issue in this thread and unfair fitting between ca and ga, and both heat sinks and disp modules work for rails and missiles, blaster can use both. There was a whole page of pure dmg mods that i just didnt get Perhaps I'm confused, but currently missiles pretty much hit where you aim. Are you adding in missile dispersion so they can make use of the dispersion reduction modules? Right now, the faster you fire the large missile turret, the more dispersion it gains. Why does armor get to rep faster than shield? assuming no passive shield regen mod. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4637	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:58:00 - [618] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Stuff I'll take that as along winded "Gunnlogi should not have to fit any modules or train any skills to outrep a Madrugar using a maxed out proto module with max skills". Ok, thanks for your feedback. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 157	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:59:00 - [619] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? Besides the feedback I gave on armor repair and shield recharge rates, I have these: It's not fair how Gallente tanks have more of their main tank to use than the Caldari, make it balanced like it is for Cal & Gal dropsuits. Caldari tanks have 36% (1,500) of their total HP (4,150) as armor and only 64% (2,650) as shields; I would like it to be the reverse ratio compared to Gallente tanks: ~23% (958) armor and ~77% (3192) shields. I still would like tanks to have 6 total slots instead of the current 5; 4/2 for Cal, 2/4 for Gal/AM, and 3/3 for Min. Lastly, the total HP, speed, PG/CPU, and other hull stats look fine. duster 35000 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I currently do not see any numbers of the Natural Shield Regen Rate for the Gunnlogi. Do you intend to keep this as is, or change it? This is fairly important because 1. It's currently way too high, and 2. If it is lowered, many pilots will want to be able to boost this back up, and it may be preferential for a slot to be dedicated to a shield recharger or booster. Additionally I'm looking at what you have for bonuses. DHAV seems to imply that is has a +20% Large Turret Bonus, so I'll assume this is +4% a level which is reasonable. However the UHAV Bonus seems to have HP values associated with it but vary between each tier. Could you explain what the per-level bonus for that is supposed to me? The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis. How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay... He meant shield recharge rates not the delay. 137 reps for armor, 168 for shields. armor has no delay. shields do. Choo Choo
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:24:00 - [620] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Stuff I'll take that as along winded "Gunnlogi should not have to fit any modules or train any skills to outrep a Madrugar using a maxed out proto module with max skills". Ok, thanks for your feedback. If you don't want to respond to any of my points that's fine, I took the time to respond to yours. And as per your spread sheet a maxed out madrugar with maxed out skills and a module outreps a gunlogi with no skills. You seem fixated on 'repped to full shields vs repped to full armor' when the total values of what's being repped are not even close to the same. I understand if this is confusing for you, how 4000 is a larger number than 2685, and how waiting 4 seconds before reps start is a penalty for having innate reps. But we are here to help you understand. If I can add 2 shield regulars in a shield tanks low slots to have zero wait for my shields to start repping at 275 points a second while repping my armor for 50 hps, then sure, that would be fair to reduce innate reps, but that would be rediculous. Funny thing is 2 modules will get a Madrugar's reps to 275 points immediately while it's shields rep without a module, AND YOU CAN ADD MORE REPAIR MODULES. So you are right, I don't think shields need a reduction to regeneration rate without using a module. We agree.

The-Errorist 982	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:31:00 - [621] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster... There was talk of improving armor hardener, which I think makes sense, right now its only advantage is duration, but nerfing shield regen at the same time could squew tank battles. Doing any big change to vehicles will skew tank battles. Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I can't agree with much of that sorry, yes the gunlogi reps with no module. I agree. but the gunlogi can never get more reps the gunlogi has to wait 4 seconds to start getting reps and as per your spread sheet the one repping module on the Madrugar out reps all damage done to a similarly damaged gunlogi. While the base 'tank' of the Madrugar is also higher. I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module? Then we would need to look at - adding a 4 second delay to armor reps, - reduce starting armor level to the same as the starting level of the shield tanks - penalizing armor repair delays for every plate added. - remove any passive reps on the shields of armor tanks. This would make everything 'fair' , which seems to be your arguement. I don't want to homogenize armor and shield, they are both different and have different positives and negatives. 5 low slots is going to be huge for armor tanks, if they are repping faster than shields then I feel we have gone wrong somewhere. Your chart shows that even now, one armor repairer madrugar outreps a gunlogi and the madrugar has more hp. I wouldn't push for any of the above points as I wouldn't push for lower shield reps on the gunlogi. But if rattati sees something we don't then who am I to argue, as long as it makes sense. His chart does not show that on his chart, the max rep rate using an armor rep is 137.5 HP/s, the shield recharge rate for Gunnlogi is 168 HP/s. Also the bluegreen cells are the point where it would finish regenerating base HP and the sand colored cells are when it regened a typical HP fit. The Gunnlogi wins both (the 2nd by a longshot). Also his argument is about making things fair under normal shield/armor constraints and what you're suggesting wouldn't. What he, and many others feel is the most fair model for how things should work: Natural Shield Regen < Fitted Armor Armor Repair < Fitted Shield Regen. If we can't get to that point, I'm willing to compromise by reducing shield recharge rates by at least 18 HP/s, but still leaving them stronger than 1 complex heavy rep with max skills. Then rebalanced shield recharge rates on other race's tanks. One thing is clear though, base shield recharge on shield tanks is too high. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
The-Errorist 982	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:37:00 - [622] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: ... With the recharge delay Gunlogis have on shields, if it takes any more than one low cost module to bring them to the same levels they are now and Madrugar hardeners get any love, then the instant repair of the armor repairer could get abused with 5 low slots. .... Madrugars wont get 5 low slots, 5 is the total high+low slots tanks have. Based on what's on the spreadsheet, they will probably get 1 high and 4 lows. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:48:00 - [623] - Quote I think you might need some help reading spreadsheets. Apart from one second, the madrugar outreps the gunlogi total hps for every second, with a basic rep. Yes 4000 takes longer to rep than 2685, not a surprise. AS PER HIS OWN SPREADSHEET. I'm pretty sure rattati said the gunlogi would be 5 high 2 low, madrugar 2 high 5 low. As per his spreadsheet.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1620	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:04:00 - [624] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? So what are the disadvantages of the UHAV, do they track slower? Turn slower? Accelerate slower? Have a lower top speed? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 828	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:09:00 - [625] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? sure. but we also want tanks to matter. tanks have no role. logi lavs and dropships had a role to heal infantry and tanks. lavs are basically taxis. ADS is close ground support. but tanks? what is there currently that everyone can point to and say..."we need a tank for this?" tanks used to be used to gain an advantage by killing RDVs but now they disappear before we can kill them most of the time. please, let this be only the beginning of the work for vehicles and not a one shot fix. We need a reason for calling in tanks in the first place.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:09:00 - [626] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? So what are the disadvantages of the UHAV, do they track slower? Turn slower? Accelerate slower? Have a lower top speed? Slower, No damage bonus to large turret Probably more is Less slots 2 small turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4639	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:39:00 - [627] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If you don't want to respond to any of my points that's fine, I took the time to respond to yours. And as per your spread sheet a maxed out madrugar with maxed out skills and a module outreps a gunlogi with no skills. You seem fixated on 'repped to full shields vs repped to full armor' when the total values of what's being repped are not even close to the same. I understand if this is confusing for you, how 4000 is a larger number than 2685, and how waiting 4 seconds before reps start is a penalty for having innate reps. But we are here to help you understand. Oh dear, no need to be rude. The point you're failing to recognize is that while the RAW HP of the Gunnlogi is indeed lower than the Madrugar, the fact that the Gunnlogi has 40% resists (15% more than the Madrugar) paired with the fact that they can fit 2 hardeners, means that even with the lower raw HP, their average total eHP is very similar to that of the Madrugar. If you had clicked the link in the chart, you can see the math I used to reach that conclusion. So if the max eHP is similar, what we're really looking at is "How much time does it take to recover 100% of their raw HP first?" because at 100% raw HP, eHP has been completely recovered, right? So if the Gunnlogi regenerates to its full HP faster than the Madrugar, that means it reaches the peak of its eHP faster, yes? So I'm not looking at the raw regen values, and I'm looking at the raw HP values. What I'm looking at is "How much time does it take for the vehicle recover all of its eHP?" That being said, the Gunnlogi does this significantly faster than the Madrugar. I'm sorry if my explanation was not sufficient. As for fitting more repair modules, you have to understand than on a 3 main rack system, 2 reppers is almost always a very bad idea. It means you're typically giving up additional buffer, which given Armor's terrible Hardeners and the fact that it suffers from a severe lack of CPU, your fit is greatly hindered by 2 or 3 repairers. But regardless, that's changing so it doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is that you should totally get modules which boost passive shield recharge, so you can increase the rate further if you want. I know I've posted this before but I'll repeat it again, in order from Slowest Reps to Fastest Reps (assuming equal tiers): Natural Armor Repair (None) Natural Shield Recharge (Constant, with delay) Passive Armor Repair Module (Constant) Passive Shield Recharger Module (constant, with delay) Active Armor Repair Module (Moderate Reps, High duration) Active Shield Booster Module (High Reps, Moderate duration) Active Ancillary Shield Booster (Very High Reps, short duration) Bear in mind that both the passive shield recharge and the passive armor repair modules, would see a significant drop in HP/s. Active modules would tend to have the same average HP/s rate as current reps, but 'crammed together' into a duration and then no reps during cooldown. So for example an armor repairer may have 1 second of uptime for every 3 seconds of downtime, so it would rep at (4137.5)=548/s for 10 seconds, and then cooldown for 30. And yes the tradeoff for the shield recharge delay is the fact that you don't have to fit a module to do maintenance on your primary tank, whereas armor has to. "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 211	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:04:00 - [628] - Quote Yo Doc.... I would listen to Pokey if I were you. He's usually right and this is no exception. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4640	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:11:00 - [629] - Quote I don't mean to be argumentative, and I welcome you to point out if my math is wrong. But I think you're missing the point of my chart. If my analysis is wrong I'd be glad to discuss it, but by what you're saying I think you're misunderstanding a key point to my analysis. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2753	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:13:00 - [630] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If you don't want to respond to any of my points that's fine, I took the time to respond to yours. And as per your spread sheet a maxed out madrugar with maxed out skills and a module outreps a gunlogi with no skills. You seem fixated on 'repped to full shields vs repped to full armor' when the total values of what's being repped are not even close to the same. I understand if this is confusing for you, how 4000 is a larger number than 2685, and how waiting 4 seconds before reps start is a penalty for having innate reps. But we are here to help you understand. Nice comeback using logic. Basically this. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 435	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:34:00 - [631] - Quote A spit-balled idea: Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret? Basic Idea: UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry) Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount)
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 158	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:39:00 - [632] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: A spit-balled idea: Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret? Basic Idea: UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry) Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount) But then it would be beyond defenseless against any vehicle... Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6849	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:39:00 - [633] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I think you might need some help reading spreadsheets. Apart from one second, the madrugar outreps the gunlogi total hps for every second, with a basic rep. Yes 4000 takes longer to rep than 2685, not a surprise. AS PER HIS OWN SPREADSHEET. I'm pretty sure rattati said the gunlogi would be 5 high 2 low, madrugar 2 high 5 low. As per his spreadsheet. Madrugar will be 3/4 The amarr HAV is planned for 2/5 the minmatar is planned for 4/3 AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:43:00 - [634] - Quote pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6849	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:54:00 - [635] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:16:00 - [636] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening. as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself. My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice. shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them. I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls. To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay. I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:23:00 - [637] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. I'm simply pointing out a glaring issue with the existing regeneration numbers so that they're not simply re-used. Ratatti has already agreed that the Gunnlogi's shield regen rate is too high. That being said I was simply offering up a rough concept of modules to allow for both passive and active regeneration to have a place in the game all while avoiding the pitfall that currently plagues the balance between Armor and Shields. A number of options are available and the proper solution is likely a light mix of many of them, but the fact remains that the data I've presented clearly shows a significant difference in the regen capability of armor and shields, given the existing numbers. Therefore, something needs to change. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6851	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:24:00 - [638] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening. as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself. My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice. shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them. I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls. To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay. I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go. Yeah, 400 HP/s madrugars are not on the horizon. Dunno where the hell you're getting that number. This is like the goddamn Logi Slayer thing. The triplerep madrugar is a thing no one is interested in repeating and everyone knows what caused it so quit crying that the sky is falling. On the future unless plans have changed: Regulators Something resembling an energizer/recharger To my knowledge Rattati's not looking at keeping the ungodly native and passive module rep rates. But bluntly what will happen is if you take a Gunnlogi and don't fit any regen mods but the madrugar dumps space into reps he will outrep the gunnlogi. Just like what happens when a galassault stacks five reps in the lows. This of course, will result in horrible bad things happening because of the lack of sufficient buffer to matter. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16894	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:26:00 - [639] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted? If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components. ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself. pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision. All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps. Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV. This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening. as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself. My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice. shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them. I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls. To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay. I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go. I'm more inclined to side with Thaddeus, Pokey, and Breaking on this one. One of the many reasons Shield Tank trump armour tanks currently is the inherently high regenerative power the possess after a very manageable 4 seconds of down time. This is also one of several reasons AV is wholly ineffective against Shield HAV. No HAV should have high passive regenerative power without fitting modules to it for any reason. Thaddeus had a wonderful suggestion of the 90 second passive shield regeneration value on tank hulls which means that if you do not fit any boosters or other value modifying shield modules your shields will constantly and passively recharge over a duration of 90 seconds. This is a fair down time as it means HAV cannot return to fully HP within the space of 20-30 seconds (something that we have taken for granted for far too long) without having to undertake action outselves. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:28:00 - [640] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Yeah, 400 HP/s madrugars are not on the horizon. Dunno where the hell you're getting that number. This is like the goddamn Logi Slayer thing. The triplerep madrugar is a thing no one is interested in repeating and everyone knows what caused it so quit crying that the sky is falling. On the future unless plans have changed: Regulators Something resembling an energizer/recharger To my knowledge Rattati's not looking at keeping the ungodly native and passive module rep rates. But bluntly what will happen is if you take a Gunnlogi and don't fit any regen mods but the madrugar dumps space into reps he will outrep the gunnlogi. Just like what happens when a galassault stacks five reps in the lows. This of course, will result in horrible bad things happening because of the lack of sufficient buffer to matter. Pretty much. No vehicle should be constantly repping 100% of the time at any appreciable rate. Shield Regen should be low with a delay, with Energizers/Rechargers to raise it up, OR Boosters to rep when they want for a short period of time at a high rate, with a cooldown. Armor should have the ability to fit a passive armor rep for low levels of armor repair constantly (less than Natural Shield + Recharger since shields have to deal with the recharge delay), OR fit active armor repairers to rep for a short period of time at a high rate, with a cooldown. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 294	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:41:00 - [641] - Quote If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate. Just sayin
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6851	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:52:00 - [642] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate. Just sayin fast regen for either armor or shields should require an active mod Just sayin AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2753	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:06:00 - [643] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: A spit-balled idea: Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret? Basic Idea: UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry) Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount) But then it would be beyond defenseless against any vehicle... a HAV fitted with a medium turret (turet with the capibilities between that of a small and large turret) would be really good. a faster, decently armored HAV that gives up a large turret to be able to fight infantry. This reminds me of something........ Oh yea, my BO HAV idea, maybe adjusted. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4643	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:41:00 - [644] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate. Just sayin Sure, like the Rechargers/Energizers we've been mentioning over and over ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 158	Posted - 2015.01.30 02:06:00 - [645] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: A spit-balled idea: Is it possible to have some variant of UHAV that goes away with a "main turret" completely, and instead has the driver using 1 / 2 small turrets in lieu of it's main turret? Basic Idea: UHAV Variant: 2 small turrets (need gunners), and a top mounted 1/2-gun linked Small Turret This way you could have a tank type that purely focuses on AI by giving up most if not all of it's AV capability. The smaller turrets having advantage of very quick tracking speed, and having the twin sponsors for a greater volume of fire. (trading quantity for quality to better handle infantry) Think: Imperial Guard Leman Russ Annihilator (2x Lascannons mount) But then it would be beyond defenseless against any vehicle... a HAV fitted with a medium turret (turet with the capibilities between that of a small and large turret) would be really good. a faster, decently armored HAV that gives up a large turret to be able to fight infantry. This reminds me of something........ Oh yea, my BO HAV idea, maybe adjusted. I thought you were referring to small turrets. A small turret as a primary on an HAV would be terribad. Choo Choo
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2297	Posted - 2015.01.30 03:44:00 - [646] - Quote While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4646	Posted - 2015.01.30 04:19:00 - [647] - Quote I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 213	Posted - 2015.01.30 04:42:00 - [648] - Quote Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16243	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:47:00 - [649] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire me too, thats why my kdr is in hell "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4650	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:57:00 - [650] - Quote I imagine the DHAV will be one of those roles deemed to be too weak, but will terrifying in the right hands. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8160	Posted - 2015.01.30 06:04:00 - [651] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire Always been preferable to the concept of a UHAV just because I was always interested in Warhammer 40K. In particular... The Baneblade. Nothing more interesting that a giant mechanism of war rolling up and laying waste to everything in proximity and forcing that 'We need reinforcements!' aspect of warfare. Suppression and fear sort of deal. Then again, I've also been heavily interested in stuff like Self-Propelled Artillery and Indirect Bombardment. Anything that puts the fear into a lot of infantry and makes them want to reconsider what they're doing at the time. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2299	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:09:00 - [652] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16245	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:25:00 - [653] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire Always been preferable to the concept of a UHAV just because I was always interested in Warhammer 40K. In particular... The Baneblade. Nothing more interesting that a giant mechanism of war rolling up and laying waste to everything in proximity and forcing that 'We need reinforcements!' aspect of warfare. Suppression and fear sort of deal. Then again, I've also been heavily interested in stuff like Self-Propelled Artillery and Indirect Bombardment. Anything that puts the fear into a lot of infantry and makes them want to reconsider what they're doing at the time. Exactly, it's fun to be scared. I regularly cite the Tiger from BF1942. That guy was scary, because you knew you couldn't solo him as an Engineer, except through luck or bad piloting, but it was awesome to try and take him down. And that's awesome, gets your adrenaline pumping. Due to his tracking speed, he had difficulty killing infantry, but he still could. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16245	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:26:00 - [654] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that We do have skills for that too. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 829	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:48:00 - [655] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that We do have skills for that too. should have a pilot suit for it too... lol
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 829	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:51:00 - [656] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire me too, thats why my kdr is in hell i prefer to do lots of damage, then lots more again and again as they keep spawning in
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6852	Posted - 2015.01.30 08:50:00 - [657] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 791	Posted - 2015.01.30 11:33:00 - [658] - Quote I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. You could try to Dash in but you are certainly not dashing out. Since just the proto turrets average about 280,000 after the first million in losses you wont be all suicidal like. Which leads me to my next question, Prices. Scaling it up like the dropsuits is not viable. 3,000 isk for a stadard suit to 50,000 for a proto suit. (16.6 times as expensive). 1,610,200 for a proto hull. Without any modules, fit all proto on it you're going to run upwards of 2,000,000 per tank. On the face of it, you could argue that tanks used to cost this much isk. but AV has been buffed to become more more powerfull than before, and its tough to argue that the 'new' proto MBTs will hardly have any more eHP than currently. Given the short nature of Vehicle vs Vehicle fights, and the instagank nature of some of the tank designs, it too much of an isk burnden to place on one person. How about a simple + 25,000 per hull tier? It makes UHAV hull costs nearly double std tank. with only a single proto turret (+ 281,955) it would cost 493,955 isk. The same with DHAVs. You want to be OP, better put up the isk for it. std 97,000 adv 122,000 pro 147,00 pro 172 UHAV / 172 DHAV hull A STD hull cost 97,000 isk. ADV Hull? PRO hull? UHAV? DHAV? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2151	Posted - 2015.01.30 12:59:00 - [659] - Quote STYLIE77 wrote: smart stuff on the first page Just wanted to thank Stylie for his well thought out post, saved me from typing a text wall. As a concerned AVer I will be monitoring this thread (once I finish reading it) just in case things get a little crazy. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6857	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:27:00 - [660] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. AV

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4651	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:25:00 - [661] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 933	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:57:00 - [662] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that We do have skills for that too. Using modules to shorten the activation and cooldown phase of your modules to make fits that excell at hit&run tactics or inversely having really long up-times in exchange for longer cooldowns instead of going for plain old buffer tanks sound like legitimate player choices that are meaningful to both the pilot and his opponents. Maxing your character skills is not a choice, especially not for veteran players. We should definitely give this a thought. If we don't have implemented mechanics for it the idea has to go on the backlog, but it's a good idea.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2045	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:59:00 - [663] - Quote ^technically it is supposed to be shields that are always repping and armor that is active reps only (that could be fun for infantry). Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2152	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:02:00 - [664] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? As an AV player I don't see any major problems with a shield regulator style module for shield tanks like we have for infantry, but constantly repairing shields would likely be a bit much, especially considering the only truly anti-shield AV weapon is a PLC and it's not even functioning as the best anti shield AV at the moment. Still working on reading through everything in here on my breaks Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4651	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:31:00 - [665] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? technically it is supposed to be shields that are always repping and armor that is active reps only (that could be fun for infantry). From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2856	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:56:00 - [666] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate. Just sayin fast regen for either armor or shields should require an active mod Just sayin Or the reps could be active, which would be preferable. I've gotten lazy with only 2 or 3 mods to activate. I would rather have 5 for much increased survivability. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 435	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:16:00 - [667] - Quote Why not take a page from EVE modules and use something like this: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Shield_Boost_Amplifier_I In short: The module makes the Shield Recharger you do have more effective, without adding any more Active modules to what an operator has to worry about. With the "waves of opportunity" mindset these kinds of modules would play in well, as it would improve the "powerful" part of the wave, without making the pilot stronger during the "opportunity" part of the wave.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2856	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:51:00 - [668] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2856	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:53:00 - [669] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that Core grid management and engine calibration are really useful, and I'd like them to stay. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4658	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:26:00 - [670] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. Care to elaborate on why? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

The-Errorist 983	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:44:00 - [671] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: ... From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? On a related note, Caldari and Gallente dropsuits in have the opposite % of armor as shields and for vehicles its not? The Madrugar has 23% of its total HP as shields and the rest of 77% as armor, but the Gunnlogi has 64% shields and 36% armor. It doesn't make sense why the madrugar has more of it's tank to use than the Caldari, especially since the Caldari's main focus is shields. The Cal tanks should have 23% armor and 77% shields, the reverse of what the Gallente has or this. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:49:00 - [672] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? On a related note, Caldari and Gallente dropsuits in have the opposite % of armor as shields and for vehicles its not? The Madrugar has 23% of its total HP as shields and the rest of 77% as armor, but the Gunnlogi has 64% shields and 36% armor. It doesn't make sense why the madrugar has more of it's tank to use than the Caldari, especially since the Caldari's main focus is shields. The Cal tanks should have 23% armor and 77% shields, the reverse of what the Gallente has or this. If I had it my way, Caldari and Gallente vehicles would have inverted Shield/Armor from one another. The primary reason the Caldari have the lower shields now is because their hardeners are a hell of a lot better than armor, but as I've stated before Id prefer those % resists to be closer to one another. Namely shoot for the 30% range for both of them and bring the Caldari's base shields up to compensate for the loss of hardener strength. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 984	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:00:00 - [673] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that I won't want stuff like that taking up the very limited module slot space and replacing those skills. I would rather have them be modules that go on pilot dropsuits. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2857	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:05:00 - [674] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. You could try to Dash in but you are certainly not dashing out. Since just the proto turrets average about 280,000 after the first million in losses you wont be all suicidal like. Which leads me to my next question, Prices. Scaling it up like the dropsuits is not viable. 3,000 isk for a stadard suit to 50,000 for a proto suit. (16.6 times as expensive). 1,610,200 for a proto hull. Without any modules, fit all proto on it you're going to run upwards of 2,000,000 per tank. On the face of it, you could argue that tanks used to cost this much isk. but AV has been buffed to become more more powerfull than before, and its tough to argue that the 'new' proto MBTs will hardly have any more eHP than currently. Given the short nature of Vehicle vs Vehicle fights, and the instagank nature of some of the tank designs, it too much of an isk burnden to place on one person. How about a simple + 25,000 per hull tier? It makes UHAV hull costs nearly double std tank. with only a single proto turret (+ 281,955) it would cost 493,955 isk. The same with DHAVs. You want to be OP, better put up the isk for it. std 97,000 adv 122,000 pro 147,00 pro 172 UHAV / 172 DHAV hull A STD hull cost 97,000 isk. ADV Hull? PRO hull? UHAV? DHAV? That's what the cost used to be. Good pilots won't die much, so it's not like we'll take many losses. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2857	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:07:00 - [675] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. When have we ever said we want tanks to be invincible? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2857	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:09:00 - [676] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. Care to elaborate on why? Your question tells me all I need to know. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:16:00 - [677] - Quote Ratatti, I'm starting to dig into your spreadsheet to calc out exactly what sort of eHP we can expect out of each vehicle type and I have a few concerns (This is of course assuming I'm reading your numbers correctly). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hniJmpoInfnS76Sy5_vIEgft3imMrwKMzslEY8gBcBM/edit?usp=sharing Hardeners assumed to be at 40%, only fitting 1 as per the Ratatti fits. All fits assumed Proto. MBT is sitting around 8400 eHP while hardened. This feels a little low but I'll run with it. UHAV is sitting around 14300 eHP. Well that escalated quickly. From what I gather, it has more base HP than MBT (double to be exact), as well as its skill bonus which adds another 3210 shield HP. Paired with a heavy extender that pushes its raw HP to...well over 9000, hardened sitting around 12,800. So the UHAV has roughly 70% more eHP than the MBT....not so sure about that. DHAV is sitting around 5800 eHP while hardened. It's basically a 25% reduction in base HP from the MBT in addition to the loss of slots, Im concerned these on top of one another will make the DHAV excessively weak, but we'll just have to see how this goes. What I DO have an issue with is it seems all of the base HP reduction is in the shields, leaving the DHAV with 1725 Shield and 1500 armor. That's ~13% difference in shield and armor on a Caldari vehicle... I could see it maybe for Minmatar, but for Caldari that difference needs to be larger. If you want to reduce the base HP by 25%, at the very least maintain the % difference in Shield/Armor from the MBT so that all of the HP loss is not tied to the main pool of HP. Additionally you have the UHAV with 70% more HP than the MBT but the DHAV appears to only be getting a 20% increase to damage and 40% of the UHAV's HP....I think you're going to have a VERY hard time trying to use secondary attributes to properly balance those two. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:18:00 - [678] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. Care to elaborate on why? Your question tells me all I need to know. Well you response doesn't tell me or the rest of the thread anything. I would like to know your personal reasons for why you think it works better. This is called giving constructive feedback. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6864	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:22:00 - [679] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. Care to elaborate on why? Your question tells me all I need to know. However this answer, and your thesis statement tells us nothing why shield HAVs should have their current godawful regen/not have a recharge delay. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4661	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:27:00 - [680] - Quote Here is the deal Spkr. I like to think myself a pretty rational and reasonable person. I have no issue with changing my mind on a topic if someone can offer up a clear and rational explanation on why they are right and I am wrong. That is what is typically called a 'Discussion'. The problem is that if you refuse to offer up an explanation to why I'm wrong and you're right, I will continue to believe that I am correct. If you That is what is typically called an 'Argument'. I love discussion, being constructive is awesome. However, I have no patience nor interest in arguing, as it is not only a waste of my time, but everyone else who actually wants to get stuff done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6870	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:29:00 - [681] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Here is the deal Spkr. I like to think myself a pretty rational and reasonable person. I have no issue with changing my mind on a topic if someone can offer up a clear and rational explanation on why they are right and I am wrong. That is what is typically called a 'Discussion'. The problem is that if you refuse to offer up an explanation to why I'm wrong and you're right, I will continue to believe that I am correct. If you That is what is typically called an 'Argument'. I love discussion, being constructive is awesome. However, I have no patience nor interest in arguing, as it is not only a waste of my time, but everyone else who actually wants to get stuff done. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. AV
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 435	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:17:00 - [682] - Quote A question I feel is also relevant when discussing HAV Progression: Much like Dropsuits there is a tier of dropsuits that can be used even if you are ... less than skilled... and still go ISK positive. My question is if there is a tier of Tank that will have a similar roll (easy to go ISK positive without being stupid)? Or will even the "low-end" tanks cause Tankers to go ISK negative with a "reasonable loss rate" As a corollary to that question: What do you feel is the Expected Loss Rate of tanks? By which I mean how often will the average tanker lose their tank per match. (With scores less than one indicating one loss every X matches) The Expected Loss Rate is assuming average skilled tank operators in average games, where there will be expected to be at least one counter to you on the field during the course of the game. Will prices of the fitted tanks be determined with that in mind? If so at what tier of tank can one be expected to go ISK positive with the Expected Loss Rate? Which tanks break even around half the time? Which are ISK Sinks? My main thrust in asking this is to see what everyone thinks the "average" death rate of vehicles in matches should be, for average pilots. I feel that a part of the discussion on balance should include considerations for the rate Tankers are expected to die on the field, and be forced to either deploy a new tank, or switch to infantry. (Preferably having dedicated tankers always staying in their speciality)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6871	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:21:00 - [683] - Quote I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. AV
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 435	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:27:00 - [684] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way? [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation]
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4672	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:29:00 - [685] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] None at all, this isn't like some exclusive club. More like a thread where spreadsheet nerds waste too much time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6871	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:37:00 - [686] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way? [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] I have no preference for how often tankers die. I'm good at ripping them up, that's good enough. But setting up an arbitrary "what's fair" number of losses isn't going to be a balance point. Hull costs are going to by necessity be revamped. Doesn't make a damn lick of sense for a STD HAV to cost 150k id the top tier is 200k AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:45:00 - [687] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: all i know, is that I want to drive both uhavs and havs. i can imagine the rush of speeding around, almost lav speed, and just blasting tanks, in and out. I think it could be a great way to break out of a camp, keep moving and pick your targets wisely. Isn't this also about making tank combat a little more fun? I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome. It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you. As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak. If the DHAVs are well done I'd skill this character into HAVs JUST for DHAVS. I love doing lots of damage then dying in glorious fire Always been preferable to the concept of a UHAV just because I was always interested in Warhammer 40K. In particular... The Baneblade. Nothing more interesting that a giant mechanism of war rolling up and laying waste to everything in proximity and forcing that 'We need reinforcements!' aspect of warfare. Suppression and fear sort of deal. Then again, I've also been heavily interested in stuff like Self-Propelled Artillery and Indirect Bombardment. Anything that puts the fear into a lot of infantry and makes them want to reconsider what they're doing at the time. Exactly, it's fun to be scared. I regularly cite the Tiger from BF1942. That guy was scary, because you knew you couldn't solo him as an Engineer, except through luck or bad piloting, but it was awesome to try and take him down. And that's awesome, gets your adrenaline pumping. Due to his tracking speed, he had difficulty killing infantry, but he still could. Na. You know what's more scary? a Tiger in Warthunder. Those ******* are nasty. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
The-Errorist 984	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:51:00 - [688] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Any thoughts on the preliminary Hull numbers? On the Proposed HAVs tab, the Gunnlogi and especially the Falchion look like Minmatar tanks with that much armor compared to shields. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:52:00 - [689] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? As far as concepts of modules goes (other than active things, in which needs to be different as long as infantry doesn't have active modules, which I doubt they will ever get), they need to be somewhat similar, otherwise, it'd pretty much be a differnt game switching from infantry to vehicles, which would unnecessarily make it complex. HOWEVER, gameplay wise, I don't want them to play like infantry (vehicles that is). They cover different aspects, and as we have seen, infantry-style TTK and gameplay but with a although lower, still similar (600k as opposed to 800k) ISK price isn't really fun or profitable. They need to feel like vehicles (and more), not big ass suits. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:53:00 - [690] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? Because that worked better for vehicles. What the **** are you talking about? Passive regen absolutely sucked. It was horrid. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:55:00 - [691] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ... From an EVE perspective, sure, but in Dust its the armor that reps constantly and the shields with a delay. I guess my point is that why do we need to make dropsuits and vehicles different? On a related note, Caldari and Gallente dropsuits in have the opposite % of armor as shields and for vehicles its not? The Madrugar has 23% of its total HP as shields and the rest of 77% as armor, but the Gunnlogi has 64% shields and 36% armor. It doesn't make sense why the madrugar has more of it's tank to use than the Caldari, especially since the Caldari's main focus is shields. The Cal tanks should have 23% armor and 77% shields, the reverse of what the Gallente has or this. If I had it my way, Caldari and Gallente vehicles would have inverted Shield/Armor from one another. The primary reason the Caldari have the lower shields now is because their hardeners are a hell of a lot better than armor, but as I've stated before Id prefer those % resists to be closer to one another. Namely shoot for the 30% range for both of them and bring the Caldari's base shields up to compensate for the loss of hardener strength. Well, they don't, because Gallente focuses on active tanking more (rep with a little hardeners) as opposed to Cal passive tanking more, as far as I've seen anyways. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2047	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:58:00 - [692] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way? [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] As a vehicle user that number depends on a few things first is isk cost of vehicles. If I could run a vehicle for the same cost as a dropsuit I'd spend them like dropsuits. The second is feeling like i'm able to accomplish something with my vehicle, I remember calling in 3m isk tanks in 1.6 just to have an on dropped on the rdv - I was madder than you can believe about that (this was before I had taken my previous corps wallet when I divorced them). The third is proliferation of av and its power relative to various tiers of vehicle - currently everyone (or so it feels) not only has wiyrkomi swarms, but also has them on a double damage modded level 5 min commando and it makes it incredibly difficult to use anything less good than the 'best' fits. I was trying to run a dual rep soma for the suppressor mission on an alt with no sp in vehicles earlier and in tracking my deaths 8/10 times I was killed by wiyrkomi's from a minmando (doing ~2400 to armor a shot). I don't mind being shot at or dying, but when the response to any vehicle, less than two minutes in to a match is the highest tiers of av (pro swarms or pro rails) its horribly inequal engagements which kick off arms races. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2756	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:59:00 - [693] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. When have we ever said we want tanks to be invincible? You haven't, but you've heavily implied that you want to be. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 159	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:00:00 - [694] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. You said pony But yeah, HAV's will be used the most, can't wait til the skrubs cry about the DHAV being too weak. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6874	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:03:00 - [695] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. Anyone who actually believes DHAVs are going to rule the battlefield have been drinking too much jungle juice and smoking too much weed. MBT HAVs are going to be kings in class overall. DHAVs are one trick pony weapons. They do one thing. Period. But if you fart too hard in the driver's seat it's likely to damage the chassis. You don't field a DHAV because LOLWINMOBILE, you drop a DHAV for the express purpose if putting death rocks through the face of that HAV/UHAV who has been dominating the infantry. UHAVS will be popular among the HAV MASTER RACE crowd and when the DHAVs and MBTs jump on them the crying will start. I want them because I think it'll be a fun challenge. Just don't expect me to stick around to exchange quiche recipies with your Gunnlogi. You said pony But yeah, HAV's will be used the most, can't wait til the skrubs cry about the DHAV being too weak. Up until one of those "weak" hulls blows the crap out of their HAVs by being overgunned AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2759	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:06:00 - [696] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm going to be VERY honest with you, that's going to be impossible to predict until we start shooting at each other. Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way? [Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation] I have no preference for how often tankers die. I'm good at ripping them up, that's good enough. But setting up an arbitrary "what's fair" number of losses isn't going to be a balance point. Hull costs are going to by necessity be revamped. Doesn't make a damn lick of sense for a STD HAV to cost 150k id the top tier is 200k Arkena would tell you otherwise But really, yes, seeing as hulls are being tiered,there really needs to be cheaper HAV's at the lower end. The reason why people usually runs high end HAV's since the beginning of time is because regardless you're going to not make even on the higher end if you died, so might as well use the best or 2 best fit you got. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 213	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:52:00 - [697] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Harpyja wrote: While the topic of regen is still floating about, why don't we look to EVE for ideas to implement into Dust? Generalized summary on shields in EVE: -Always passively recharging, though at a variable rate which is at a max around 30% shields -Shield recharge per ship is around a base time to full recharge ---This means that adding extenders increases the hp/s ---Allows for passive fits that rely only on resists and recharge rates while maintaining a large shield buffer -Active shield tanking draws a higher capacitor usage as opposed to active armor tanking ---Shield boosters and active hardeners are harder to run for a longer period of time than their armor counterparts -Penalty on extenders is what would equate to an increased hitbox in Dust -Shield tanked ships generally have less utility (medium slots), but a better ability to fit fitting enhancements and turret upgrades (low slots) -Caldari ships are the slowest before plates are added to Amarr ships Armor: -Can only be repaired actively -Armor reps and active armor hardeners draw less capacitor than their shield counterparts, allowing them to be run for a much longer time or for an indefinite amount of time -Armor fits can get a higher armor buffer than comparable shield buffers ---Passive armor tanking uses hardeners and plates to maximize EHP (no reps) ---Theory is that you have more EHP than what you would be able to rep back in an engagement -Gallente focus more on armor rep, Amarr focuses more on bricking I'm wondering if it will be worth a try to implement some of these features into Dust. We could base shield recharge on a base time to full recharge (which of course means that extenders will increase the hp/s) and make it constant and uninterruptible. This could equate to somewhere between 30-40 base shield per second on an unfitted Gunnlogi. Considerably worse than what one active armor rep could achieve. For a passively tanked Gunnlogi, your base shield should be roughly doubled with two extenders, increasing your recharge to 60-80 shield/s, and with maybe two recharger modules you should be able to add around 50% more for a final recharge rate of 90-120 shield/s. You might notice that shield recharges provide a smaller boost, though they should be considerably easier to fit. This seems to address people's concerns that shield gets a natural regen that's simply too high for having to spend zero modules on. The fit I described seems appropriate for what I consider to be a competitive passive fit. Also, fitting your high slots with damage amps and/or other utility modules and armor tanking your Gunnlogi will no longer give you the benefits of a high shield recharge. Another parallel than can be drawn with EVE is to have armor reps have a longer active duration than shield boosters and to provide more HP at the end of their run. I forget how shield boosters and armor reps compared in terms of hp/s. Armor reps can also have a shorter cooldown to replicate capacitor recovery in EVE due to their smaller cap requirements. One last thing I'd like to add: new module inspiration from EVE. Capacitor batteries and capacitor recharge relays. In Dust, we can have a module that increases module active duration (larger cap pool) and a module that decreases cooldown time (faster cap recovery). (I know that this is generalized but for Dust it could work). The first is a high slot module and the second is a low slot module. Perfect for making armor reps last for a longer time and reducing the longer cooldown times of the shield booster. I really like your last idea. Modules that affect Cooldown and duration of modules would be great and add variety. +1 for that We do have skills for that too. And we could use those skills to unlock the modules. Cooldown mods in the lows, duration mods in the highs.. What do you say? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
The-Errorist 984	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:46:00 - [698] - Quote I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 214	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:21:00 - [699] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. The UHAV would have no advantage over the MBT if your skills were implemented. +200 hp is nothing when the MBT gets extra slots Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 159	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:25:00 - [700] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. With that, the UHAV would be so obsolete. Choo Choo

WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 201	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:30:00 - [701] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: So essentially DHAVs are going to become the current missile HAVs, except that they will be able to insta-pop every HAV out there as opposed to just armor. Not from what I can tell on the spreadsheet as they will only get a max 10% damage bonus. Except that 2 railgun shots and they're dead, or one full clip of swarms... Isn't that the definition of a Glass Cannon? I guess my question to you then is, if DHAVs have the same defense as UHAVs, is there any point in running a SHAV at all? from what ive read and can make sense of, SHAVs are supposed to be better at anti infantry compared to DHAVs (destroyers) and UHAVs would be better at anti infantry combat than SHAVs. The SHAVs would likely also have less "Damage Per Second" towards other DHAVs (despite there lower defense which probably ONLY means less total health points) and less DPS towards other UHAVs. The only advantage is that the SHAV is completely controlled by only 1 person. This would appeal to only those players that like to work on there own. In PC this may mean that a if only 1 player can be spared for a tank role they will just use UHAVs but no one will pilot the small turrents until its convenient for the team (saves time having to recall a SHAV and call a UHAV in). In uprising 1.10, HAVs without small turrents are usually worse at anti infantry combat compared to HAVs with 2 small blasters and 1 large blaster. This is just like a SHAV having less anti infantry DPS compared to UHAVs, and SHAVs having less DPS towards UHAVs. Looking at the above example, it may be as if smaller changes have occurred to tank gameplay than originally believed. The only large difference might be that SHAVs may have the same PG and CPU potential as UHAVs (if you exclude the small turrent costs on UHAVs, assuming you used turrents of the correct tier and type that Rattati designed the tank for) We shall see eventually. SHAVs in there final iteration may perhaps have more speed and acceleration compared to UHAVs but less than DHAVs. We don't know, it might be done so SHAVs have a few very small advantages compared to UHAVs and DHAVs. If you want something like that for SHAVs, you should let rattati know. Perhaps you could suggest a 5% increase in armor regen rates for armor SHAVs and 5% increase in shield regen rates for shield SHAVs. OR maybe SHAVs could have 40% larger vertical aiming movement range in degrees (able to aim much higher at dropships). Any of these suggestions might be worth debating on with rattati.
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 201	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:51:00 - [702] - Quote Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:13:00 - [703] - Quote WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:49:00 - [704] - Quote No disrespect to Master Splinter, but your spreadsheets hurt my eyes. Can someone make a better looking one, with like the same stats? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
The-Errorist 984	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:55:00 - [705] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. The UHAV would have no advantage over the MBT if your skills were implemented. +200 hp is nothing when the MBT gets extra slots duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. With that, the UHAV would be so obsolete. You guys didn't scroll to the right to see what it would be like with max skills. I had split the 10% bonus into the skill and the hull. Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet to use the same UHAV skill from Rattati's spreadsheet and the 2.3k more HP, added shield recharge rates and a specific skill bonus Caldari UHAVs. The main point of the spreadsheet was to show armor and shields should be split between the races. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:03:00 - [706] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. He made a actual difference between the Solo HAV and the regular one now? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 159	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:22:00 - [707] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. The UHAV would have no advantage over the MBT if your skills were implemented. +200 hp is nothing when the MBT gets extra slots duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. With that, the UHAV would be so obsolete. You guys didn't scroll to the right to see what it would be like with max skills. I had split the 10% bonus into the skill and the hull. Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet to use the same UHAV skill from Rattati's spreadsheet and the 2.3k more HP, added shield recharge rates and a specific skill bonus Caldari UHAVs. The main point of the spreadsheet was to show how armor and shields should be split between the races. Edit: and more sensible shield recharge rates as well as a specific bonus for how much the shield recharge bonus for caldari should be. I didn't see that last time, looks good. Choo Choo
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 214	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:25:00 - [708] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. The UHAV would have no advantage over the MBT if your skills were implemented. +200 hp is nothing when the MBT gets extra slots duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. With that, the UHAV would be so obsolete. You guys didn't scroll to the right to see what it would be like with max skills. I had split the 10% bonus into the skill and the hull. Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet to use the same UHAV skill from Rattati's spreadsheet and the 2.3k more HP, added shield recharge rates and a specific skill bonus Caldari UHAVs. The main point of the spreadsheet was to show how armor and shields should be split between the races. Edit: and more sensible shield recharge rates as well as a specific bonus for how much the shield recharge bonus for caldari should be. I was actually basing it off of the maxed numbers. Even with Max UHAV you would have gotten about +400 ehp, which is again, nothing. But, good update. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 159	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:31:00 - [709] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: The UHAV would have no advantage over the MBT if your skills were implemented. +200 hp is nothing when the MBT gets extra slots duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. With that, the UHAV would be so obsolete. You guys didn't scroll to the right to see what it would be like with max skills. I had split the 10% bonus into the skill and the hull. Anyway, I edited the spreadsheet to use the same UHAV skill from Rattati's spreadsheet and the 2.3k more HP, added shield recharge rates and a specific skill bonus Caldari UHAVs. The main point of the spreadsheet was to show how armor and shields should be split between the races. Edit: and more sensible shield recharge rates as well as a specific bonus for how much the shield recharge bonus for caldari should be. I was actually basing it off of the maxed numbers. Even with Max UHAV you would have gotten about +400 ehp, which is again, nothing. But, good update. Nnnoooo? It goes up to around 4,800 hp base. 5.1k shields for caldari. Choo Choo
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 214	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:35:00 - [710] - Quote I was talking about before he updated it dude. The 10% did nothing. What it is now is fine Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 214	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:37:00 - [711] - Quote On another note, I believe the HP bonus should actually be a resist bonus, as the UHAV already gets increased HP from being a UHAV. IMO, you should get a 2% bonus to the respective races preferred tank per level, with a 1/1 split for Min (maybe) Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:25:00 - [712] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. He made a actual difference between the Solo HAV and the regular one now? No? I flat out said they're identical aside from the small turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 986	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:51:00 - [713] - Quote I added base armor reps and a new tab with an easy to read chart of base armor & shield reps/recharge, made DHAVs have 75% less HP like from Rattati's spreadsheet, and made MBTs have lower base reps cuz of they have 2 more slot capacity. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 215	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:12:00 - [714] - Quote Is there an ETA on when phase 1 will drop? February? March? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
The-Errorist 986	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:17:00 - [715] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Is there an ETA on when phase 1 will drop? February? March? I'm guessing March because it's a lot of changes, were not not even close on finalizing numbers, and he and the rest of the dev team have to try those changes, and make sure all the numbers are what they should be. On top of all that there's work they already have/working on for the next builds after 1.0. All of that sounds like a nightmare. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
killian178 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 101	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:35:00 - [716] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? Lots. Mod slots, base speed, resistances, handling etc. Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1628	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:39:00 - [717] - Quote There is nothing more I hate than not getting slots as I skill up. This is exactly the reason I use literally standard Commandos over my protos because I gain no benefit for the slot where I want it. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4674	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:46:00 - [718] - Quote killian178 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I don't see why people feel the need to depart from the existing shield/armor mechanics we have in Dust. They're so set on making shields recharge constantly, yet armor already works that way. If people want to run passive fits, why are they not just running armor? I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? Lots. Mod slots, base speed, resistances, handling etc. I'm talking about secondary attributes. I'm talking about tanking style specifically. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16306	Posted - 2015.01.31 08:15:00 - [719] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 173	Posted - 2015.01.31 08:41:00 - [720] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: killian178 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Harpyja wrote: I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor. Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle). Harpyja making passive tanks is supposed to be doable with module investment, thats the point. He wants a passive fit that's always regenerating, like armor, but for shields. I guess my point is, if you do that, what's the difference between shields and armor anymore? Lots. Mod slots, base speed, resistances, handling etc. I'm not talking about secondary attributes. I'm talking about tanking style specifically. Relative effective total buffer amounts (since we're assuming that hardeners will be getting a balance pass, and will be approx equal in overall power). To draw on space-side mechanics (for sake of example) armor gives more buffer directly, while shields gives less buffer directly. However, what shields gain is additional buffer in longer battles, where their shields will be giving them back HP/s just for existing, which helps narrow the actual buffer gap between shields and armor. Now, this still means that shields are more vulnerable to alpha-strike capabilities (since they obviously don't have the same total of HP), but in any slugging match, the shield based ship will have an additional buffer provided by its regeneration, and be much closer to an armor ship in terms of eHP over the course of the engagement. If the mechanics are kept the same in here in DUST, armor will have the higher buffer, and constant regen giving it effective bonus buffer (once again, on top of the superior base buffer, and once again assuming a hardener balance pass), making armor repairers far more valuable than any shield regeneration module (without a significant reducion to repair amount to armor modules, and in direct engagements that you would expect HAVs to be able to tackle). Now, shield regeneration is too high currently, but with a recharge delay, combined with not only a lower base buffer, but a lower effective buffer (read the assumptions about this initiative again)...shields will need to recharge extremely quickly out of combat (relative to armor repairers even) in order to make up for having 2 shortcomings in direct combat. In general I agree that the scale should go: Native Armor Regen < Native Shield Regen < Fit Armor Regen < Fitt Shield Regen < Fitted Armor Repair < Fit Shield Boosting (not necessarily in the same ratios) However, that can only be effective where shields to not have an associated delay (particularly since it seemed to be the general consensus that we wanted a large TTK for HAVs in general). If the above scale would be better for balancing in all cases, then why wouldn't it work for Dropsuits as well? (and on the subject of maintaining consistency within dust, then why not have such a low shield regeneration time (High Regen Rate) to keep consistent with dropsuits? After all, your listed scale doesn't apply to dropsuit modules, and if dust is to be kept consistent it should be applicable). Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6891	Posted - 2015.01.31 10:47:00 - [721] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? I'm going to be critical of the base hull EHP. Putting that much EHP on the hull directly marginalizes the utility of modules. This is one of the current problems and leads directly to cookie cutter fits with little to no variation. While your percentage breakdowns make sense, I'm going to suggest dropping the baseline hull HP some. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 296	Posted - 2015.01.31 16:05:00 - [722] - Quote I like the extra hp, having less slots gives you the opportunity to skip an extender or plate in your fit. With only 5 slots and low ehp you are more than likely going to stack as much hp as you can on a slow target.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 16:36:00 - [723] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4675	Posted - 2015.01.31 16:53:00 - [724] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? For players that don't want to risk bluberries hopping in their tank and shooting small turrets to alert the enemy. We've been over this . "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 176	Posted - 2015.01.31 17:26:00 - [725] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? For players that don't want to risk bluberries hopping in their tank and shooting small turrets to alert the enemy. We've been over this . well...for players who don't want to risk blueberries hopping in their tanks, and NOT shooting the small turrets...just sitting there, doing nothing, quite possibly AFK... Would rather have a kick-blues from vehicle button (bind it to X or something) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 18:09:00 - [726] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: Is the MBT supposed to be a jack of all trades tank which has small turrents? Master of None, yes. The SHAV is superior to the DHAV when fighting infantry in that it has better defenses, but is slower and has less large turret damage so it is not as good as the DHAV when fighting large targets. The MBT is superior to the UHAV when fighting vehicles, as it is faster and have better large turret tracking as well as more slots for weapon utility if it so chooses. SHAV and MBT are identical aside from the existence (or lack of) small turrets. Really the only purpose the SHAV serves is for solo tankers that never want anyone else in their tank. Other than that, it doesn't have much of a purpose. And that is why I'm still confused as to why it exists. If you can make the exact same fits with it minus small turrets, why does it exist again? For players that don't want to risk bluberries hopping in their tank and shooting small turrets to alert the enemy. We've been over this . No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
The-Errorist 988	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:13:00 - [727] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? Sure and by sign you mean make it more very apparent that I designed that spreadsheet besides the title, I just did. I renamed a tap to have The-Errorist, added a cell my Alias in bold, and gave it a bright yellow background on both tabs. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 177	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:45:00 - [728] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? Sure and by sign you mean make it more very apparent that I designed that spreadsheet besides the title, I just did. I renamed a tap to have The-Errorist, added a cell my Alias in bold, and gave it a bright yellow background on both tabs. I think he meant to put it into your signature as well...maybe? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
The-Errorist 988	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:58:00 - [729] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? I'm going to be critical of the base hull EHP. Putting that much EHP on the hull directly marginalizes the utility of modules. This is one of the current problems and leads directly to cookie cutter fits with little to no variation. While your percentage breakdowns make sense, I'm going to suggest dropping the baseline hull HP some. If you had read what I wrote on post #705, you would have known that the main point of the spreadsheet was to show how armor and shields should be split between the races, provide more sensible shield recharge rates, base armor reps, as well as a specific bonus for how much the shield recharge bonus for Caldari should be. Maybe I should also add that to spreadsheet. Putting that much EHP directly into the hull and with the vague penalty to using HP mods to get higher than base HP, would discourage HP tanking, which opens the road for more mods combinations. Also you can't make a direct correlation to our current problem when the situation is shifting to what I said above, more mods will be added, and the DHAV & UHAV tanks having slot layouts of 4/1 and 1/4 instead of 3/2 and 2/3. Glorious spreadsheet of racial tank stats.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4677	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:13:00 - [730] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2762	Posted - 2015.01.31 23:14:00 - [731] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. If turrets didn't suck up so much resources like they used to, that would be a non issue. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4682	Posted - 2015.01.31 23:40:00 - [732] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. If turrets didn't suck up so much resources like they used to, that would be a non issue. Well ok but I don't see why you're so upset about it. Just don't use them if you don't like them. You've honestly spent more time complaining about it than it takes to code them into the system "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
killian178 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 102	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:17:00 - [733] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? I'm going to be critical of the base hull EHP. Putting that much EHP on the hull directly marginalizes the utility of modules. This is one of the current problems and leads directly to cookie cutter fits with little to no variation. While your percentage breakdowns make sense, I'm going to suggest dropping the baseline hull HP some. I disagree Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:22:00 - [734] - Quote killian178 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? I'm going to be critical of the base hull EHP. Putting that much EHP on the hull directly marginalizes the utility of modules. This is one of the current problems and leads directly to cookie cutter fits with little to no variation. While your percentage breakdowns make sense, I'm going to suggest dropping the baseline hull HP some. I disagree No link is present. Choo Choo
killian178 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 102	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:23:00 - [735] - Quote Try again Every commando k.o, every weapon at adv or above. Don't give a damn bout my kdr, I will kill you.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:41:00 - [736] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: No, I mean if smalls didn't effect the amount of fitting possibilities that a HAV could have (seeing as without them you can make the same fits), then why have a different hull just to do that? Seems like a utter waste of time. The idea was to prevent people from not fitting smalls just to free up additional resources. The MBT forces you to fit them, to avoid this issue. The SHAV doesn't have them at all with adjusted resources, for those who don't want smalls for whatever reasons, without giving them 'free' resources. If turrets didn't suck up so much resources like they used to, that would be a non issue. Well ok but I don't see why you're so upset about it. Just don't use them if you don't like them. You've honestly spent more time complaining about it than it takes to code them into the system I'm not upset, confused, yes. I just don't get why they are here. Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2302	Posted - 2015.02.01 15:30:00 - [737] - Quote Godin, the idea between having the SHAV and MBT is that they both can fit the exact same fits, except that the MBT has two small turrets as well. The current design hurts those that want team play when fitting small turrets by reducing the fitting power available to them. I don't know how else I could explain this to you if you're still not understanding. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1633	Posted - 2015.02.01 15:47:00 - [738] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin, the idea between having the SHAV and MBT is that they both can fit the exact same fits, except that the MBT has two small turrets as well. The current design hurts those that want team play when fitting small turrets by reducing the fitting power available to them. I don't know how else I could explain this to you if you're still not understanding. Not to mention that you have to go into MBT to get UHAV and SHAV to get the DHAV. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 19:10:00 - [739] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin, the idea between having the SHAV and MBT is that they both can fit the exact same fits, except that the MBT has two small turrets as well. The current design hurts those that want team play when fitting small turrets by reducing the fitting power available to them. I don't know how else I could explain this to you if you're still not understanding. 1: Why does small turrets cost so much to fit again? 2: What if I want to fit just one small? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6925	Posted - 2015.02.02 05:28:00 - [740] - Quote Because it's the only way to ensure that solo HAV drivers aren't rendered instantly inferior by the standard HAV drivers dismounting the turrets to Instantly free up resources for a superior EHP value. I have explained this before. The difference between an advanced and proto hardener is much less than the difference between a standard small and no smalls. AV

STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 421	Posted - 2015.02.02 11:37:00 - [741] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: I have made a glorious spreadsheet of how I feel hull stats for the all the tanks of all races should be. I also have a different UHAV skill bonus. can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work? Click on dev posts and you will find it... http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4697	Posted - 2015.02.02 15:36:00 - [742] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Because it's the only way to ensure that solo HAV drivers aren't rendered instantly inferior by the standard HAV drivers dismounting the turrets to Instantly free up resources for a superior EHP value. I have explained this before. The difference between an advanced and proto hardener is much less than the difference between a standard small and no smalls. I suppose the alternate method is to give all HAVs a significant %PG/CPU Reduction bonus (75-85%) for small turrets and scale the total PG/CPU capacity around that. So removing the smalls would free up very little resources since the smalls only consumed maybe 15-25% of their listed cost. It would offer a very minimal benefit to not fitting the smalls but less of a benefit from fitting and having them manned. This is largely how the Logistics equipment bonus is supposed to work. It's less heavy handed than the MBT/SHAV dynamic Ratatti has proposed, but also less absolute and does allow solo tankers to gain a slight advantage by not fitting smalls. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 3071	Posted - 2015.02.02 23:03:00 - [743] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. I don't remember that ever being possible, every single iteration of turrets iirc has the current issue today, if you only fit one it automatically goes to the front slot. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4703	Posted - 2015.02.02 23:51:00 - [744] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. I don't remember that ever being possible, every single iteration of turrets iirc has the current issue today, if you only fit one it automatically goes to the front slot. If memory serves, there was a time where you could specifically get it to fit to the top only, but that was quite a while ago. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2767	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:10:00 - [745] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Also, I used to run fits with one single top turret (because bottom turrets suck). That isn't possible anymore. I don't remember that ever being possible, every single iteration of turrets iirc has the current issue today, if you only fit one it automatically goes to the front slot. If memory serves, there was a time where you could specifically get it to fit to the top only, but that was quite a while ago. It was. Stabilized blaster on top. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2767	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:14:00 - [746] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Because it's the only way to ensure that solo HAV drivers aren't rendered instantly inferior by the standard HAV drivers dismounting the turrets to Instantly free up resources for a superior EHP value. I have explained this before. The difference between an advanced and proto hardener is much less than the difference between a standard small and no smalls. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here. I simply don't think the solo HAV should even exist. Seeing as you can make basically the exact same fits, why won't the turrets themselves take up very little fitting cost? Therefore, taking off turrets won't do anything, just gives you options. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16931	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:41:00 - [747] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Because it's the only way to ensure that solo HAV drivers aren't rendered instantly inferior by the standard HAV drivers dismounting the turrets to Instantly free up resources for a superior EHP value. I have explained this before. The difference between an advanced and proto hardener is much less than the difference between a standard small and no smalls. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here. I simply don't think the solo HAV should even exist. Seeing as you can make basically the exact same fits, why won't the turrets themselves take up very little fitting cost? Therefore, taking off turrets won't do anything, just gives you options. Pretty much the same on this one. Pilots should be encouraged to use small turrets and our developers towards actual vehicle locks rather than a half measure. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6939	Posted - 2015.02.03 06:07:00 - [748] - Quote Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 303	Posted - 2015.02.03 21:30:00 - [749] - Quote Rattati: We really need to consider the extra 5% damage every light weapon is going to be doing to vehicles with war barge bonuses. It doesn't sound like much but the damage modded minmando goes from 5800 damage per clip to armor to 6100... in one clip.. and when plasma canons are doing 2000 damage per shot to shields already, the extra 100 will still make a big difference.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2769	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:01:00 - [750] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. About that, if the person doesn't have the skills for said vehicle, I don't think they should be able to even steal it (maybe recall it, but seeing as they don't ahve the skills, it'd be only useful as trophies and extra ISK). EDIT: I'd like eject buttons as well, for hot drops and such. Like people queue up for drops, and the pilot hits a button, launching everyone out of the passenger seats. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:04:00 - [751] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. About that, if the person doesn't have the skills for said vehicle, I don't think they should be able to even steal it (maybe recall it, but seeing as they don't ahve the skills, it'd be only useful as trophies and extra ISK). EDIT: I'd like eject buttons as well, for hot drops and such. Like people queue up for drops, and the pilot hits a button, launching everyone out of the passenger seats. Indeed. How can they hack the vehicle if they do not understand the basic operating systems of the tank or the modules used in the composition of it? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:06:00 - [752] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. About that, if the person doesn't have the skills for said vehicle, I don't think they should be able to even steal it (maybe recall it, but seeing as they don't ahve the skills, it'd be only useful as trophies and extra ISK). EDIT: I'd like eject buttons as well, for hot drops and such. Like people queue up for drops, and the pilot hits a button, launching everyone out of the passenger seats. Indeed. How can they hack the vehicle if they do not understand the basic operating systems of the tank or the modules used in the composition of it? lol according to CPM Soraya Xel, it makes perfect sense that people can hack and drive vehicles without any skill training whatsoever. True story, we exchanged words about it on this week's episode of Biomassed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:13:00 - [753] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not locks. Eject button. Believe it or not, stolen vehicles is intended to be a thing. About that, if the person doesn't have the skills for said vehicle, I don't think they should be able to even steal it (maybe recall it, but seeing as they don't ahve the skills, it'd be only useful as trophies and extra ISK). EDIT: I'd like eject buttons as well, for hot drops and such. Like people queue up for drops, and the pilot hits a button, launching everyone out of the passenger seats. Indeed. How can they hack the vehicle if they do not understand the basic operating systems of the tank or the modules used in the composition of it? lol according to CPM Soraya Xel, it makes perfect sense that people can hack and drive vehicles without any skill training whatsoever. True story, we exchanged words about it on this week's episode of Biomassed. Smashes head against a brick wall. "Whatever am I buying digitally injected skill books for then if everyone has the capacity to do all of this *** anyway?"* But that's derailing. Get back on topic you lot! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:16:00 - [754] - Quote Requiring that you actually have the skill to run the f***ing tank in order to hack, drive and steal it seems like a logical thing to me. Otherwise, as adamance says, why do we have to skill into it? AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:18:00 - [755] - Quote I suppose this is as good of a time as any. It's not quite done (need to finish up some fields for Active Armor reps and add in active shield boosters) but it's pretty close. I'll try to finish those bits up tonight. Feel free to many a copy and play around with it, anything in green should be editable and will auto update everything else. NOTE THAT THE VALUES I THREW IN THERE ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP. STRAIGHT OUT OF MY ASS. NOT INTENDED TO BE EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A PROPOSAL. THEY'RE JUST THERE TO MAKE SURE THE SHEET IS WORKING PROPERLY. But I know someone will freak out anyways ^_^ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dO3Jw-f1MRkKKJj8sgTz1A-M1qxf7IxyJ_v-zBgAlo/edit?usp=sharing "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:21:00 - [756] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I suppose this is as good of a time as any. It's not quite done (need to finish up some fields for Active Armor reps and add in active shield boosters) but it's pretty close. I'll try to finish those bits up tonight. Feel free to many a copy and play around with it, anything in green should be editable and will auto update everything else. NOTE THAT THE VALUES I THREW IN THERE ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP. STRAIGHT OUT OF MY ASS. NOT INTENDED TO BE EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A PROPOSAL. THEY'RE JUST THERE TO MAKE SURE THE SHEET IS WORKING PROPERLY. But I know someone will freak out anyways ^_^ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dO3Jw-f1MRkKKJj8sgTz1A-M1qxf7IxyJ_v-zBgAlo/edit?usp=sharing OH MY GOD THESE NUMBERS WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING??? Now that it's out of the way, actual discussion can occur. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4728	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:25:00 - [757] - Quote Now I know True will probably ask so I'll just get it out of the way. The reason I've got armor at 15 1 second pulses instead of 5-3 second pulses is because Iron Wolf Saber mentioned something to me about issues with pulse duration of over 1 second under the new system, so I just broke it up from 5 long pulses into 15 short ones. Obviously this can be changed to the 3 second pulses if it ends up being non issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1680	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:28:00 - [758] - Quote CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:54:00 - [759] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Now I know True will probably ask so I'll just get it out of the way. The reason I've got armor at 15 1 second pulses instead of 5-3 second pulses is because Iron Wolf Saber mentioned something to me about issues with pulse duration of over 1 second under the new system, so I just broke it up from 5 long pulses into 15 short ones. Obviously this can be changed to the 3 second pulses if it ends up being non issue. If it works it works. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16945	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:59:00 - [760] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. I can somewhat agree with this. Yes UHAV seem to be Rattati's Infantry Tanks (aka tanks designed to withstand lots of fire power and engage and support infantry) but the turrets bonus seems woefully out of place and honestly more suited for something generalist like an MBT. I understand you can't really mess with certain statistics like passive resistances, etc especially if you haven't accounted for them from the start but module durations and cool downs can still work well. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4734	Posted - 2015.02.03 23:07:00 - [761] - Quote I can agree with the higher base HP to compensate for the loss of slots and maybe some extra to help fulfill the role, but I think a role bonus directly to the HP is pushing dangerous territory, especially when balancing against the DHAV. I think bonuses that help the UHAV tank without pushing its HP to insane levels would probably be more appropriate. Like True said, things like increased hardener duration, faster defensive module cooldowns, ect. may allow the UHAV to be tanky in the sense that it can stay in a firefight longer and recover faster, but not turn it into "FACK YOU I HAVE ALL THE HP!" and end up making the DHAV pointless because the damage bonus is not enough to slice through all of that HP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1682	Posted - 2015.02.04 00:11:00 - [762] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. I can somewhat agree with this. Yes UHAV seem to be Rattati's Infantry Tanks (aka tanks designed to withstand lots of fire power and engage and support infantry) but the turrets bonus seems woefully out of place and honestly more suited for something generalist like an MBT. I understand you can't really mess with certain statistics like passive resistances, etc especially if you haven't accounted for them from the start but module durations and cool downs can still work well. 4% hardener duration and cooldown reduction per level. Or 2% increase in efficiency of hardener per level. Or 3% efficiency of Armor/Shield extender per level. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 175	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:02:00 - [763] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. Eh, 2% per level wouldn't be enough. More like 3% or 4% per level. Choo Choo
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16962	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:06:00 - [764] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. Eh, 2% per level wouldn't be enough. More like 3% or 4% per level. That would insanely over powered. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 175	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:15:00 - [765] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet I like ot, but only 400 extra hp for UHAV hulls? And I was actually hoping for the resistance to be fkr everything, base UHAV skill. Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 175	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:16:00 - [766] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP, I want better bonuses for UHAV instead of fitting bonuses. Something to help them be really tanky. The fitting bonus for small turrets should be given to HAV's. The skill for UHAV should not only unlock UHAV but give some sort of bonus, maybe 2% resistance to armor and shield per level. Eh, 2% per level wouldn't be enough. More like 3% or 4% per level. That would insanely over powered. 15% or 20% DR? Not with the current stats on the spreadsheet. Choo Choo
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 181	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:27:00 - [767] - Quote I'd be in favor of a bonus like this (on UHAVs): Caldari/Amarr: Resistance to primary buffer Minmatar/Gallente: Rep/Boost Efficacy Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:19:00 - [768] - Quote Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. The spread between the variants seems pretty good. I still have a few concerns about the DHAV's totals but we'll have to see how it performs in the field. What I am concerned about is that the HP difference between armor and shields is....kinda small, about 1000eHP between A&S for the UHAV and DHAV. It's about 1700 eHP between the MBT which is a bit more reasonable. The reason this concerns me is that the general consensus is that Armor should have more HP than shields, but rep slower. However looking at these eHP values being pretty close...either the difference between rep rates will need to be very small, or the difference in eHP needs to be larger. Also I noticed your "Ultra Bonus" for the Gallente HAV is the same as the Caldari and is listed as (2 Extenders + resists). Is it supposed to be 2 plates worth? Or did you intend that ultra bonus to be the same HP value? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 175	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:23:00 - [769] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:29:00 - [770] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1686	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:36:00 - [771] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 03:39:00 - [772] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. From my understanding, AV is being balanced around the new vehicles. Specifically to match equivalent tiers (STD AV vs STD Vehicle, ADV AV vs ADV Vehicle, ect.) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 175	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:09:00 - [773] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. From my understanding, AV is being balanced around the new vehicles. Specifically to match equivalent tiers (STD AV vs STD Vehicle, ADV AV vs ADV Vehicle, ect.) Good, no more swarm insta-popping. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4736	Posted - 2015.02.04 04:25:00 - [774] - Quote Well it makes sense, you can't balance 1 tier of vehicles against 3 tiers of AV and have it work properly "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 795	Posted - 2015.02.04 06:56:00 - [775] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. Same thing here, yesterday was odd for me shieldtanking. Got instapopped by swarms twice, in a hardened gunlogi. I won't be reporting this untill i can confirm it today though. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 303	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:14:00 - [776] - Quote If there are two minmitar commandos on the other team, vehicles have little chance of making it out of the redline. Feel bad for tankers speccing into DHAV that will spend entire matches diving around corners trying to avoid swarms.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 176	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:43:00 - [777] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If there are two minmitar commandos on the other team, vehicles have little chance of making it out of the redline. Feel bad for tankers speccing into DHAV that will spend entire matches diving around corners trying to avoid swarms. I hope they remove the bonus to swarms, it's just pretty ridiculous. Choo Choo
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 305	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:46:00 - [778] - Quote With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5952	Posted - 2015.02.04 14:11:00 - [779] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. Definitely read his proposal, and maybe pass it to someone on the Legion team. It is worth consideration for the long term. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 17:06:00 - [780] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Vell0cet wrote: All kinds of EVE things My opinion is that active and passive fitting is perfect for vehicle combat in an FPS. Don't forget, EVE does not have WASD movement, it is inherently less dependent on user input, and that's why it has more point and click combat, managing heat, capacity, ammo, ewar etc. Capacitors are just one thing that could be done, needs balancing and design like any other system. Another layer of complexity does not seem like what we need when there are so many low hanging fruit. Just going through the misery of starting to go into vehicles has opened my eyes to the HAV plight of fitting and skilling. On the other hand, in battle it's been a breeze, as in I'm having fun. I also think that a Maddie Blaster fit should be the first tank new players skill into as the turret speed is more forgiving and the charge-up of the rail makes it so much less easy to use than one might think coming from BF, for instance. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. While I'm disappointed that capacitors aren't on the short or medium-term horizon, I appreciate that you're at least communicating that to us. I don't really see capacitors as another layer of complexity. I see it as unifying the complexity of multiple cooldowns that we currently have. It's actually a simplification of the current system. You're right that not everything in EVE should transfer to DUST/Legion. They ARE different styles of games, and managing lots of systems is a big part of EVE's combat experience that wouldn't translate well to DUST--I agree with you there. For one thing, I don't think overheating would make sense in an FPS. It requires too much micromanagement. But with the ability to configure your HAV to your taste, you would have the option to build cap-stable fits that require LESS management than what we have now. It gives the player freedom and flexibility. I also see it as a major balancing tool for you guys. Right now you can really only tweak things that directly increase or decrease survivability. This would give you other variables to tweak that would affect survivability only indirectly. I feel like it would probably be useful to have those balancing options in your toolkit. I know you're not a huge EVE player, but there is a lot of manual piloting in EVE, trying to maintain transversal against your opponent and position properly (If you're clicking "orbit" or "approach" in PvP, you're doing it wrong). Honestly I don't see much changing from a module-management standpoint with the addition of capacitors. You may have to turn a few things off more often to conserve cap, but it would be unwise for a player to fit more active modules than he can manage on his HAV. I'm sure there's a sweet-spot of module count that's reasonable to manage while still engaging in visceral FPS vehicle combat (a repper, prop mod, maybe a hardener or two, it's really not that crazy). I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in terms of maybe influencing your thinking of how/when capacitors might fit into a longer-term roadmap. In my opinion it would be a mistake to write capacitors off as adding complexity to an already complex game. I don't want to derail any progress. It seems like the train is already too far past the station at this point, so I'll respectfully bow out. As always, thanks for your hard work. o7 Now, could you send me on [email protected] your thoughts/designs so I can truly see how it could pan out. Really don't like closing doors, but sometimes it's necessary. Definitely read his proposal, and maybe pass it to someone on the Legion team. It is worth consideration for the long term. Agreed Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 17:32:00 - [781] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets 6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets. Is it just me, or does anyone see a problem with having an HAV designed around dealing infantry also being the toughest out there while the one that is to deal with other tanks and not infantry the weakest in terms of eHP? Let me just provide an example of our current "UHAV". Yes they are already in game and they go by the name of a gunnlogi: Fit: Highs -Double proto shield extenders --- Single hardener Lows - Cpu and Pg mods Turrets - Large proto rail with 2 small proto rails This is my go to fit, and works incredible with GOOD gunners. I'm already able to withstand a fairly large amount of AV fire. But throw in 2 gunners laying waste to the AV out trying to get me and my eHP skyrockets into the realm of being indestructible. Not only to Infantry AV but tank AV as well! I ran this with some pretty good gunners and between the 3 of us we racked up close to 60 kills. And no type of armor could touch it, as the small rails reduce the TTK against other vehicles to levels of ridiculousness. We did this for several matches, and I just laughed. It was quite ridiculous and funny to watch the vain efforts of those out on the field that meant us harm. So do you really consider it a good idea that an UHAV that is more or less designed for killing infantry to be so much stronger than one deigned to kill them. Just skimming the numbers, I see a UHAV to be just about the only tank to use. dHAV seem more novelties that are not going to fill the intended role to a large enough extent. And forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm just now jumping into the conversation. I honestly thought that an AV tank would be stronger against infantry AV as they aren't designed around killing them, where a AI tank would be weaker in comparison but able to effectively deal with infantry AV to counter for the weaker defenses. Am I missing something here?? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 182	Posted - 2015.02.04 21:54:00 - [782] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? Choo Choo
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1705	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:20:00 - [783] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4749	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:17:00 - [784] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. If you're talking about Swarms, they're explosive. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 184	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:52:00 - [785] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With warbarges eventually giving everyone 5% damage to thier light weapons, including swarms and plasma, reducing the HP of tanks doesn't seem like a great idea. Filling a slot with anything that doesn't stack ehp higher or help you get out of range is going to be a rough sell. I like the proposed uhav hull resistances, shields - hybrid , armor - projectile. Which AV weapon is projectile again? technically, missiles even though they are more explosive than projectile. Thanks, forgot if missles were projectile or not. Gallente get missle resistance and caldari get blaster and rail resistance. My neuron blaster will be fun, and using a module the blaster will be able to hit something...for once. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6954	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:36:00 - [786] - Quote Projectiles and laser AV don't exist yet. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 190	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:57:00 - [787] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Projectiles and laser AV don't exist yet. Gallente UHAV has projectile resists. Choo Choo

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

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

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

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

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1261	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:07:00 - [811] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up. I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker? It's not, and unless the damage profile of a swarm launcher is addressed or the lack of an AV weapon as effective as swarms with the same profile against shields, it's not going to change. Even with proposed numbers for the gallente hull, it won't be even close to as durable as the shield version will. You are going to experience a LOT of this, even if it goes on as proposed. There's a reason why the gunnlogi is so much stronger of a choice atm than the madrudger. And unless that get's addressed, your above scenario is going to still happen. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2311	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:25:00 - [812] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1262	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:28:00 - [813] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:32:00 - [814] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right. Mostly agree. Mostly. Ideally, a 3-man UHAV should be a lumbering death machine, capable of taking on multiple Infantry AV simultantiously partially because it's fully manned, capable of killing AV infantry due to small turret bonuses, and partially because it has bonuses to specifically resist infantry AV weapons. It should be exceptionally bad at AV, due to terrible large turret tracking and low speed. Note that the resistance to AV weapons is largely to offset the lower speed when fighting infantry. Because its defensive bonuses (and thus much of its eHP) is tied to an Infantry AV resistance, it's eHP against vehicles is actually very average against Large Turrets, Small Turrets, Installations, and Orbitals. However because it is also slow, it will falter against enemy vehicles and installations very quickly. I think the UHAV should not be impossible to kill by infantry, but a well manned and fit UHAV should be very tough to crack. Additionally, because it is specifically designed to fight infantry and terrible at fighting vehicles. making its hard counter be the DHAV, MBT, ADS, Orbitals, Installations, ect. does not seem unreasonable. UHAVs should feel confident in fighting infantry, but terrified of other vehicles. Similarly, the DHAV should be confident in fighting other vehicles, but terrified of fighting infantry. As for going too extreme with the eHP differences...I agree. As I've said before the loss of slots and base HP on the DHAV is going too far, and the UHAV having like...double the eHP is also too extreme. Similar levels of base HP is more reasonable...let the reduction in slots and bonuses dictate how the vehicles operate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:34:00 - [815] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up. I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker? It's not, and unless the damage profile of a swarm launcher is addressed or the lack of an AV weapon as effective as swarms with the same profile against shields, it's not going to change. Even with proposed numbers for the gallente hull, it won't be even close to as durable as the shield version will. You are going to experience a LOT of this, even if it goes on as proposed. There's a reason why the gunnlogi is so much stronger of a choice atm than the madrudger. And unless that get's addressed, your above scenario is going to still happen. That's not even close to my point. My point is that if you're slow, weak, and outranged by infantry, you are going to die in a fire every time with no way to escape it. Damage profiles is an entirely different issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 189	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:50:00 - [816] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes. Numbers do need to be played with some more to come to a good, balanced system also, I almost had you, but I screwed up and didn't commit...dammit all, so close just trying to get my daily challenges done XD...still need to blow up 3 installations...stupid challenge making me farm points off turrets... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4764	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:06:00 - [817] - Quote Random thought Destroyer HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Fast Movement Fast Large Turret Tracking No Smalls +% Resist to Turrets +% Bonus to Large Turret Ultra HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Slower Movement Fast Small Turret Tracking Slow Large Turret Tracking +% Resist to Infantry AV +% Bonus to Small Turrets "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1262	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:05:00 - [818] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes. Numbers do need to be played with some more to come to a good, balanced system also, I almost had you, but I screwed up and didn't commit...dammit all, so close just trying to get my daily challenges done XD...still need to blow up 3 installations...stupid challenge making me farm points off turrets... Me or harpy, I know I've screwed up a couple times today already! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:26:00 - [819] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Lot of interesting conversation going around. I like harpyj idea, as it was the very first thought that came to mind when I first read of the proposals. I am just a little confused on why some assume that it HAS to have higher defenses to deal with infantry. There are instances now, where I have no gunners running with me where yes a high defense (which is offered by the gunnlogi) is essential in surviving infantry AV. But when I run a good set of gunners (which is the idea surrounding the UHAV), defenses are of lesser concern. AV can't do their work if they can't live long enough to see it through to the end. This is how this plays out now, and I run a very tough tank WITH the gunners. I liken my current tank setup with gunners to the proposed UHAV. Ridiculously OP in the right hands against infantry. I honestly just don't see these proposed changes panning out how people expect. Back to tank spammin! A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right. I personally don't think that we need such separation between tanks. I do say that yes a tank not built for AI should have the best time against infantry AV while a tank built around AI should be more on par with the enemy infantry they are designed to fight, not above and beyond them. But I also wonder why we need such a large separation between the two tank types to begin with. What happens when we Make their base HP more or less equal, and emphasize the differences through role bonuses Your UHAV is slower, but has bonuses to small turrets and makes better use of modules that help the large turret kill infantry. Base Hp could sit around 2500, still tough but not over the top. On the other hand your DHAV is slightly faster, with bonuses to their large turrets, and unable to use small guns. Base HP sits around 3000, current proposed for the UHAV. They are slightly tougher than their counterpart, able to more easily survive AV they will struggle to kill. In this way the 2 tank types will still be distinctively different but stat wise there won't be a huge outright difference. Differences come from skills ( as it should be ) and bonuses associated with those skills. Imagine a UHAV versus a DHAV. >The DHAV is faster, slightly more HP, and bonuses to their large main turret. >The UHAV is slower, slightly less HP, and bonuses to their small turrets. DHAV has an outright advantage over the UHAV when the main gun is considered, but small rails or missiles can play a HUGE part to keeping the UHAV on more even ground against the DHAV. Sure the DHAV seems to have an advantage, but I think it will more or less struggle against a UHAV running rails or missiles, not to mention if it runs anything other than a blaster for the main gun. I think this is something else people don't seem to notice, what happens when you have a UHAV with double the base HP of the counterpart designed to kill it, with small guns that can effectively double DPS against them. I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Pfft hahaha. a tank that has more tank, is faster, and has bonus to large bonus. UHAV would never be used vs tanks. Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:32:00 - [820] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. Maddies have constant regen and have shorter cooldown hardeners, and they last longer. and a shield to cover the armor. Choo Choo

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:36:00 - [821] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Random thought Destroyer HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Fast Movement Fast Large Turret Tracking No Smalls +% Resist to Turrets +% Bonus to Large Turret Ultra HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Slower Movement Fast Small Turret Tracking Slow Large Turret Tracking +% Resist to Infantry AV +% Bonus to Small Turrets Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP. .....no. Of the UHAV has less base hp than current tanks, then no. Choo Choo
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2311	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:43:00 - [822] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Random thought Destroyer HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Fast Movement Fast Large Turret Tracking No Smalls +% Resist to Turrets +% Bonus to Large Turret Ultra HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Slower Movement Fast Small Turret Tracking Slow Large Turret Tracking +% Resist to Infantry AV +% Bonus to Small Turrets Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP. I agree with this. Plus it balances out nicely with the MBTs. DHAVs will have the same amount of EHP as MBTs, against other vehicles, but give up survivability against infantry AV for a bonus towards fighting other vehicles. Same thing with UHAVs: same EHP as an MBT against infantry AV, but give up survivability against vehicles for a bonus towards fighting infantry. MBTs sit nicely in the middle, with 'equal' EHP against infantry and vehicles but without any bonuses towards fighting either vehicles or infantry. I also feel like the MBT should also get some general bonus to make it worthwhile to skill up its respective skill. I'm not a big fan of having basic vehicles and dropsuits have no bonus tied to their respective skills. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4769	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:10:00 - [823] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Random thought Destroyer HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Fast Movement Fast Large Turret Tracking No Smalls +% Resist to Turrets +% Bonus to Large Turret Ultra HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Slower Movement Fast Small Turret Tracking Slow Large Turret Tracking +% Resist to Infantry AV +% Bonus to Small Turrets Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP. .....no. Of the UHAV has less base hp than current tanks, then no. You misunderstand, the resistance bonus versus infantry AV would push its eHP (against infantry) well above the MBT, but its defense against enemy turrets would be lower than the MBT. Inversely, the DHAV's eHP against turrets would be higher than the MBT, but its defense against infantry AV would be lower than the MBT. Also since AV is being changed to match these new vehicles, I don't consider "current tanks" even a factor, as their performance is irrelevant under the new design. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:12:00 - [824] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Random thought Destroyer HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Fast Movement Fast Large Turret Tracking No Smalls +% Resist to Turrets +% Bonus to Large Turret Ultra HAV Less Slots Low Base HP Slower Movement Fast Small Turret Tracking Slow Large Turret Tracking +% Resist to Infantry AV +% Bonus to Small Turrets Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP. .....no. Of the UHAV has less base hp than current tanks, then no. You misunderstand, the resistance bonus versus infantry AV would push its eHP (against infantry) well above the MBT, but its defense against enemy turrets would be lower than the MBT. Inversely, the DHAV's eHP against turrets would be higher than the MBT, but its defense against infantry AV would be lower than the MBT. Also since AV is being changed to match these new vehicles, I don't consider "current tanks" even a factor, as their performance is irrelevant under the new design. ueah, that's the problem, it shouldn't have lower base hp than an MBT. And the DHAV should NOT have higjer ehp to large turrets, they shouldn't be any tankier to other vehicles than the UHAV. UHAV= pure defense. DHAV= lowish hp and high damage. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4769	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:15:00 - [825] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: ueah, that's the problem, it shouldn't have lower base hp than an MBT. If its effective HP is higher, why does it matter? The idea is to make it stronger against infantry than the MBT, and weaker against Turrets than the MBT. Incidentally the Hull's base HP would likely be the same, but the reduced slots would yield a lower raw HP. Harpyja wrote: I also feel like the MBT should also get some general bonus to make it worthwhile to skill up its respective skill. I'm not a big fan of having basic vehicles and dropsuits have no bonus tied to their respective skills. Indeed, I actually made a few suggestions for this a few pages back. Personally I'd like to see the basic skills for both dropsuits and vehicles, reflect a mix of the racial tanking style as well as frame size. What I came up with off the top of my head was Amarr - Decreased Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari - Increased Bonus from Shield Regulators Gallente - Increased Rate from Armor Repairers Minmatar - Increased Rate from Shield Rechargers/Boosters "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:24:00 - [826] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: ueah, that's the problem, it shouldn't have lower base hp than an MBT. If its effective HP is higher, why does it matter? The idea is to make it stronger against infantry than the MBT, and weaker against Turrets than the MBT. Incidentally the Hull's base HP would likely be the same, but the reduced slots would yield a lower raw HP. Harpyja wrote: I also feel like the MBT should also get some general bonus to make it worthwhile to skill up its respective skill. I'm not a big fan of having basic vehicles and dropsuits have no bonus tied to their respective skills. Indeed, I actually made a few suggestions for this a few pages back. Personally I'd like to see the basic skills for both dropsuits and vehicles, reflect a mix of the racial tanking style as well as frame size. What I came up with off the top of my head was Amarr - Decreased Penalty from Armor Plates Caldari - Increased Bonus from Shield Regulators Gallente - Increased Rate from Armor Repairers Minmatar - Increased Rate from Shield Rechargers/Boosters Ah, ok then. I said base hp, not ehp. Look at the python and how quick it dies. eww. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:30:00 - [827] - Quote Yeah the lower raw HP is important as it makes the vehicle innately weaker to AV and Turrets, but then then the bonus makes it very strong against one or the other. I think something along this line would firmly establish what each variant is weak and strong against, as well as establish the MBT as the clear middle ground, making the UHAV and DHAV true side-grades to the MBT. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2821	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:35:00 - [828] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Harpyja wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun. Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs. Maddies have constant regen and have shorter cooldown hardeners, and they last longer. and a shield to cover the armor. Just to point out, Active reps will return SOONtm. Keep that in mind. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:44:00 - [829] - Quote Passive regeneration in general needs a nerf, and active reppers/boosters need to make a return. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 306	Posted - 2015.02.06 01:57:00 - [830] - Quote Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks. AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low. UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast. Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration) Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase )

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:12:00 - [831] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks. AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low. UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast. Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration) Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase ) Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:31:00 - [832] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks. AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low. UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast. Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration) Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase ) Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion? 30% damage, or 25%. most DHAV's will use damage mods. I reaaaaly hope DHAV's don't get a bonus a rails. Choo Choo
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 308	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:34:00 - [833] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks. AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low. UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast. Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration) Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase ) Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion? Last time I looked at Rattatis spreadsheet it had DHAV large turret bonus at 5% per level, 25% maxed, built in better than permanent damage mod. DHAV strategy shouldn't be to go toe to toe vs three players in a UHAV and simply hold down fire button, DHAV should lose that battle. Strategy should more flanking and out piloting UHAV, thanks to mobility. Otherwise I am not going to let anyone in my squad in a turret unless they have proto swarms on the standby. UHAV = Lumbering death machine with 3 infantry. DHAV = Speedy glass cannon with 1 infantry.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 308	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:39:00 - [834] - Quote As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:52:00 - [835] - Quote I just remembered something. Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4770	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:15:00 - [836] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:31:00 - [837] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? The DHAV isn't meant to go toe to toe with a defensive tank. plus the dhav will use damage mods most likely. if you surprise the tank, it's screwed. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4771	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:32:00 - [838] - Quote So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:34:00 - [839] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? Did you factor in small turret damage as well? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 308	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:55:00 - [840] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: [quote=Doc DDD]As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. --------------------------------------------------------------------'-'-''---------- I think you need to look at it more like scout suit with damage bonus vs 3 brick tanked logi suits that combine for 50% more ehp total and are all tied together. It is more play style and strategy, that is the problem with spreadsheet wizards, great at making numbers balance on paper, bad at seeing the big picture. .. sometimes. If DHAV win toe to toe vs UHAVS then there will just be 6 DHAVS zooming around shooting down red RDVs before they can drop anything in. Why have 6 infantry in 2 UHAVS when you can have 6 DHAV S for three times the firepower. Try and imagine there are infantry trying to capture and hold an objective, and the tanks are there to help hold or push the point.

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 309	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:19:00 - [841] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret? Did you factor in small turret damage as well? I am pretty sure he is concerned about solo players calling in UHAVS and running solo ad opposed to solo DHAVS. I am hoping he understands there will be a difference in play style, UHAV will be pricier but slower both moving and tracking while doing less damage. DHAV will rely on quick surprise strikes with emphasis on piloting skills and avoiding stand still toe to toe trading of damage.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:21:00 - [842] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:22:00 - [843] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: [quote=Doc DDD]As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover. Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus. So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP. the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS. So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS DHAV would have 750 HP and 125DPS UHAV would have 1500 HP and 100 DPS. At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster? So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less. --------------------------------------------------------------------'-'-''---------- I think you need to look at it more like scout suit with damage bonus vs 3 brick tanked logi suits that combine for 50% more ehp total than the scout and the logis are all tied together sharing the health pool. It is more play style and strategy, that is the problem with spreadsheet wizards, great at making numbers balance on paper, bad at seeing the big picture. .. sometimes. If DHAV win toe to toe vs UHAVS then there will just be 6 DHAVS zooming around shooting down red RDVs before they can drop anything in. Why have 6 infantry in 2 UHAVS when you can have 6 DHAV S for three times the firepower. This leads to forum tears and Rattati nerfing vehicles to 2 per map. Try and imagine there are infantry trying to capture and hold an objective, and the tanks are there to help hold or push the point. Then imagine how inaccurate large blasters are, and won't be killing anything. Choo Choo
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 309	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:29:00 - [844] - Quote DHAVS will more than likely run a damage mod and it will more than likely not have a stacking penalty, now how much damage will missiles and blasters unleash into the side and back of a UHAV desperately trying to turn it's turret around.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2878	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:36:00 - [845] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: I just remembered something. Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2878	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:38:00 - [846] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I am pretty sure he is concerned about solo players calling in UHAVS and running solo ad opposed to solo DHAVS. I am hoping he understands there will be a difference in play style, UHAV will be pricier but slower both moving and tracking while doing less damage. DHAV will rely on quick surprise strikes with emphasis on piloting skills and avoiding stand still toe to toe trading of damage. I'm the type to try to take them all on in the MBT, just to compare myself to everyone else using specialized hulls. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 192	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:55:00 - [847] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: I just remembered something. Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now. But pi+¦atas go down only after atleast 5 hits... and the proficiency being rotation speed. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4773	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:04:00 - [848] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2880	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:11:00 - [849] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: I just remembered something. Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now. But pi+¦atas go down only after atleast 5 hits... and the proficiency being rotation speed. I was taken out by a Minmando in 5 volleys in a Madrugar. Infantry throwing out that much damage that fast (double swarm) is just insane. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 193	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:51:00 - [850] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? You want a 200% damage bonus? Pffffft ahaha! oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder. Ahahahahaha! you're not supposed to go toe to toe with a tank that is supposed to be tankier than you. you have much to learn about RPG's... Choo Choo

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 193	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:52:00 - [851] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: I just remembered something. Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged. Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now. But pi+¦atas go down only after atleast 5 hits... and the proficiency being rotation speed. I was taken out by a Minmando in 5 volleys in a Madrugar. Infantry throwing out that much damage that fast (double swarm) is just insane. Damn, well puthons die in 3. commando's are really annoying, 2 swarms, or 1, 10% damage +damage mods + warbarge bonus... Choo Choo
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 311	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:53:00 - [852] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? What is the scout for if a heavy can beat it toe to toe by a very large margin. Even if the scouts weapon does 40% more damage than the heavy. ON PAPER. The problem is you are not thinking about attack angles, tracking speed, controlled damage bursts, using the environment, working maximum and optimum ranges, knowing when to engage/disengage. Try and apply all the proposed numbers to all the tank battles you have been in.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4773	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:21:00 - [853] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? You want a 200% damage bonus? Pffffft ahaha! oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder. Ahahahahaha! you're not supposed to go toe to toe with a tank that is supposed to be tankier than you. you have much to learn about RPG's... No, I don't actually. I was pointing out how absurd it is. Done being a douche? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 194	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:22:00 - [854] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? You want a 200% damage bonus? Pffffft ahaha! oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder. Ahahahahaha! you're not supposed to go toe to toe with a tank that is supposed to be tankier than you. you have much to learn about RPG's... No, I don't actually. I was pointing out how absurd it is. Done being a douche? I was actually making a reference and pointing something Out. if a DHAV shoots first, or is un noticed then jt will kill the UHAV. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6966	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:43:00 - [855] - Quote The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16644	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:47:00 - [856] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4774	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:07:00 - [857] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. I think it could simply be described as "Resistance to Infantry Anti-Vehicle Weapons" and "Resistance to Large and Small Turrets". On the backend however it might be a little more complicated. Now I know basically nothing about the code so I'm talking out of my ass here... However what if you gave AV Weapons their own damage profile that is tagged different, but performs exactly the same, and then gave the HAV a resistance to that specific damage profile...the weapons should perform the same against everything normally (as they're not getting a specific resistance to that 'hidden' damage profile) but it would allow you to have the UHAV have a resistance to "AV-Explosive" such as swarms, but not specifically "Explosive" such as Missile Turrets. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2311	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:13:00 - [858] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. I'd imagine that it would be possible to have the description say "hand-held anti-vehicle weapons" as opposed to listing all of them. Players get the idea of what the skill does without the wordiness and the hard-coding remains behind the scenes (or show up in the attributes page, not sure how the code links it all) At least I remmeber when vehicle engineering said in the description that it provided a PG bonus when it was in reality ninja-nerfed to not provide one of the most useful bonuses vehicles had. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2359	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:08:00 - [859] - Quote What if UHAVs got hardener duration for role bonuses, while DHAVs got damage mod efficacy? Like the original proposition for the Minmatar Assault. Make it +10% per level or something General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 815	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:30:00 - [860] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. I have to reccomend going against this route. UHAVs will take more the 4 million SP to max out, and players want a good reward for that kind of investment. Any bonus less than 5% per level would not be worth it. Like the uproar caused by the 3% per level ADS ROF bonus for 2.2million SP. Yet, any resistances bonuses have to be very low, otherwise you risk returning the Logi LAV in tank form. Yes it was fast, but its near immortality came from is shield resistance + hardener. The duration sounds better, as it can roll in, smash some troops, swich on the hardener and try o roll out before Infantry defensive fire becomes too over whelming. Its going to be slow but not that slow it cant turn a corner or two to break line of sight. We have to keep in mind how few players really tank, and the reaction a lot of infantry who don't understand resists or following this on the forums. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6967	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:38:00 - [861] - Quote As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 194	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:51:00 - [862] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. Go use a caldari sentinel then come back here and say that. Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 194	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:52:00 - [863] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. I have to reccomend going against this route. UHAVs will take more the 4 million SP to max out, and players want a good reward for that kind of investment. Any bonus less than 5% per level would not be worth it. Like the uproar caused by the 3% per level ADS ROF bonus for 2.2million SP. Yet, any resistances bonuses have to be very low, otherwise you risk returning the Logi LAV in tank form. Yes it was fast, but its near immortality came from is shield resistance + hardener. The duration sounds better, as it can roll in, smash some troops, swich on the hardener and try o roll out before Infantry defensive fire becomes too over whelming. Its going to be slow but not that slow it cant turn a corner or two to break line of sight. We have to keep in mind how few players really tank, and the reaction a lot of infantry who don't understand resists or following this on the forums. Seriously? 4 mil sp? Wth... Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6967	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:53:00 - [864] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. Go use a caldari sentinel then come back here and say that. You mean "go use my favorite one?" AV
gustavo acosta Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 883	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:59:00 - [865] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. Go use a caldari sentinel then come back here and say that. You mean "go use my favorite one?" If there's one thing I know about sentinels is that the caldari sentinel is the best solo sentinel, dat's what my grampapi taught me, and what his grandpapi taught him mmmm hmmm GimmeDatSuhWeet isk We found a new pope to teach shield users how to shield tank, all hail pope redblood the 6th
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 816	Posted - 2015.02.06 09:59:00 - [866] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. I know 15% matters, we have going to stack that resist wih at least one hardener and natural shield resists. -10% to forges and a -20% vs swarms. With out a hardener off the bat the forge is doing - 25% , swarms are doing - 35%. 1 hardener active and Forges do -65% swarms - 75%. Try dealing with that beast in an ambush OMS. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6967	Posted - 2015.02.06 11:24:00 - [867] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. I know 15% matters, we have going to stack that resist wih at least one hardener and natural shield resists. -10% to forges and a -20% vs swarms. With out a hardener off the bat the forge is doing - 25% , swarms are doing - 35%. 1 hardener active and Forges do -65% swarms - 75%. Try dealing with that beast in an ambush OMS. If it has similar base EHP to an MBT then it's doable, just mor difficult so long as AV gets properly tuned versus MBT. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2880	Posted - 2015.02.06 12:47:00 - [868] - Quote Harpyja wrote: At least I remmeber when vehicle engineering said in the description that it provided a PG bonus when it was in reality ninja-nerfed to not provide one of the most useful bonuses vehicles had. 1.7, the end of vehicles. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2880	Posted - 2015.02.06 12:48:00 - [869] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV? It kills everything faster. it's faster. and better tracking. No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus. Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin? What is the scout for if a heavy can beat it toe to toe by a very large margin. Even if the scouts weapon does 40% more damage than the heavy. ON PAPER. The problem is you are not thinking about attack angles, tracking speed, controlled damage bursts, using the environment, working maximum and optimum ranges, knowing when to engage/disengage. Try and apply all the proposed numbers to all the tank battles you have been in. A scout is used for.... scouting. That's why it has the best eWar in the game. And him in tank battles... lol Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2311	Posted - 2015.02.06 14:42:00 - [870] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: What if UHAVs got hardener duration for role bonuses, while DHAVs got damage mod efficacy? Like the original proposition for the Minmatar Assault. Make it +10% per level or something If there are to be any module-specific bonuses, it should be towards their tank-type modules. Through your proposal, Caldari DHAVs will be forced to give up at least one shield module in order to benefit from the bonus whereas the Gallente DHAV will be able to keep a full rack of armor modules in addition to damage modules. I also say no to a hardener duration bonus on UHAVs. If you've ever piloted a HAV, you should know that your hardener is almost never on for its full duration. I don't want a bonus that will apply <5% of the time. A more appropriate bonus would be on cooldown time since you have to go through that 100% of the time you use the hardener. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:06:00 - [871] - Quote A large part of why the Sentinel Damage Resistance is limited to specific damage types is because a blanket damage resist is because resisting all types of weapons would make them too powerful in all situations. The idea was to create situations where a Sentinel would be resistant to specific types of weapons. The concept of AV Damage vs Turret Damage is not that different. You're creating a situation where the UHAV is exceptionally good at fighting one type of weapon, but not as good fighting another type. The issue I'm seeing is some people are envisioning it as such: UHAV is the Defender DHAV is the Attacker MBT is in Limbo This seems reasonable enough in a general sense, however we've already established that as things are currently listed, the UHAV will take about 60% longer to kill than the DHAV in direct combat. While the DHAV has advantages of speed and tracking rotation, a 60% difference is simply too large of a difference to overcome with secondary advantages. Additionally, this places the MBT in an awkward position. It would have the same TTK as the DHAV in a head on encounter, but likely falter due to lower speed...this much is ok. The issue then comes down to the UHAV in which the TTK would be about 60% longer, only to exchange marginally better speed and tracking, but to a lesser extent than the DHAV has. This clearly puts the MBT on the bottom rung, as the DHAV will struggle to kill the UHAV given its massive TTK differential (Even with taking secondary effects into account). Since the advantages the DHAV has over the UHAV (Speed, Damage, and Tracking) are actually weaker on the MBT (Its slower and does less damage than the DHAV, but has drastically inferior defenses to the UHAV) it will actually struggle even more to kill the UHAV. The issue is that the more extreme the DHAV and UHAV get, the more trivialized the MBT becomes. Additionally, as has been pointed out, you'll be running into situations where DHAVs are basically being 1 shotted by AV Infantry, 1 shotted by other DHAVs, and will have to struggle to kill UHAVs. The only think they'll be marginally good at is killing MBTs. UHAVs on the other hand will be able to tank infantry, tank DHAVs, and tank MBTs. You can argue "Well its only on paper!" but when the numbers imply such a massive difference in TTK, you're going to really struggle to try and balance that with secondary advantages (which indeed have to be field tested). For me, I'm starting to think of it like this: UHAV is extremely good at fighting infantry DHAV is extremely good at fighting vehicles MBT is decent at fighting both infantry and vehicles Its a departure from the "UHAV = Defense Tank" and more to a "UHAV = Anti Infantry Tank" but Im curious on why some are so against this concept and I'd like to hear why exactly. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 236	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:20:00 - [872] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: A large part of why the Sentinel Damage Resistance is limited to specific damage types is because a blanket damage resist is because resisting all types of weapons would make them too powerful in all situations. The idea was to create situations where a Sentinel would be resistant to specific types of weapons. The concept of AV Damage vs Turret Damage is not that different. You're creating a situation where the UHAV is exceptionally good at fighting one type of weapon, but not as good fighting another type. The issue I'm seeing is some people are envisioning it as such: UHAV is the Defender DHAV is the Attacker MBT is in Limbo This seems reasonable enough in a general sense, however we've already established that as things are currently listed, the UHAV will take about 60% longer to kill than the DHAV in direct combat. While the DHAV has advantages of speed and tracking rotation, a 60% difference is simply too large of a difference to overcome with secondary advantages. Additionally, this places the MBT in an awkward position. It would have the same TTK as the DHAV in a head on encounter, but likely falter due to lower speed...this much is ok. The issue then comes down to the UHAV in which the TTK would be about 60% longer, only to exchange marginally better speed and tracking, but to a lesser extent than the DHAV has. This clearly puts the MBT on the bottom rung, as the DHAV will struggle to kill the UHAV given its massive TTK differential (Even with taking secondary effects into account). Since the advantages the DHAV has over the UHAV (Speed, Damage, and Tracking) are actually weaker on the MBT (Its slower and does less damage than the DHAV, but has drastically inferior defenses to the UHAV) it will actually struggle even more to kill the UHAV. The issue is that the more extreme the DHAV and UHAV get, the more trivialized the MBT becomes. Additionally, as has been pointed out, you'll be running into situations where DHAVs are basically being 1 shotted by AV Infantry, 1 shotted by other DHAVs, and will have to struggle to kill UHAVs. The only think they'll be marginally good at is killing MBTs. UHAVs on the other hand will be able to tank infantry, tank DHAVs, and tank MBTs. You can argue "Well its only on paper!" but when the numbers imply such a massive difference in TTK, you're going to really struggle to try and balance that with secondary advantages (which indeed have to be field tested). For me, I'm starting to think of it like this: UHAV is extremely good at fighting infantry DHAV is extremely good at fighting vehicles MBT is decent at fighting both infantry and vehicles Its a departure from the "UHAV = Defense Tank" and more to a "UHAV = Anti Infantry Tank" but Im curious on why some are so against this concept and I'd like to hear why exactly. Making the UHAV EXTREMELY slow might help this problem. Say the MBT has 100% movement speed. UHAV has 50% movement speed, and the DHAV has 150% movement speed. Now the MBT can basically do what the DHAV does when fighting a UHAV, to a lesser extent. Another thing that might help is giving UHAV's a flat range reduction of 25% or so, so the MBT can engage it from a safe distance, although this probably shouldn't be done with my other idea because It would mean the UNAV would lose every single time. I'm trying to think of some ways to keep the UHAV as the defender tank, so I'll get back to you on that. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:25:00 - [873] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Making the UHAV EXTREMELY slow might help this problem. Say the MBT has 100% movement speed. UHAV has 50% movement speed, and the DHAV has 150% movement speed. Now the MBT can basically do what the DHAV does when fighting a UHAV, to a lesser extent. Another thing that might help is giving UHAV's a flat range reduction of 25% or so, so the MBT can engage it from a safe distance, although this probably shouldn't be done with my other idea because It would mean the UNAV would lose every single time. I'm trying to think of some ways to keep the UHAV as the defender tank, so I'll get back to you on that. I mean sure there are extreme options like absurdly slow, or locking the large turret so it can't rotate independently from the frame...but that itself has issues. If you're fighting something and try to flee, in theory if it takes you twice as long to run, you have to tank twice as much damage....so where does that land you? Additionally you start to run into that 'fun' factor where secondary attributes are so restrictive that the gameplay itself doesn't feel enjoyable.' Also I'm not typically a fan of negative bonuses, otherwise I'd just nerf UHAV large turret into the ground, but that will then negatively affect its AP capabilities which isn't the intention. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 236	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:26:00 - [874] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Making the UHAV EXTREMELY slow might help this problem. Say the MBT has 100% movement speed. UHAV has 50% movement speed, and the DHAV has 150% movement speed. Now the MBT can basically do what the DHAV does when fighting a UHAV, to a lesser extent. Another thing that might help is giving UHAV's a flat range reduction of 25% or so, so the MBT can engage it from a safe distance, although this probably shouldn't be done with my other idea because It would mean the UNAV would lose every single time. I'm trying to think of some ways to keep the UHAV as the defender tank, so I'll get back to you on that. I mean sure there are extreme options like absurdly slow, or locking the large turret so it can't rotate independently from the frame...but that itself has issues. If you're fighting something and try to flee, in theory if it takes you twice as long to run, you have to tank twice as much damage....so where does that land you? Additionally you start to run into that 'fun' factor where secondary attributes are so restrictive that the gameplay itself doesn't feel enjoyable.' Also I'm not typically a fan of negative bonuses to damage or range, otherwise I'd just nerf UHAV large turret into the ground, but that will then negatively affect its AP capabilities which isn't the intention. I had an idea a while back that UHAV's take more damage to their critical points, to give MBT's an advantage against them and to give infantry AV a better chance if they're smart. Say 30% extra damage to the weak point. Inversely, the DHAV could have a stronger weak point so they don't get insta popped Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6978	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:35:00 - [875] - Quote I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:56:00 - [876] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2105	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:06:00 - [877] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. I remember seeing old enforcers (and even regular tanks) getting chased around by infantry av squads inside LAV's. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4777	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:02:00 - [878] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. I remember seeing old enforcers (and even regular tanks) getting chased around by infantry av squads inside LAV's. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6981	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:16:00 - [879] - Quote they want DHAVs to be able to outrun LAVs loaded with AV gunners. they're being coy about it. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4777	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:28:00 - [880] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: they want DHAVs to be able to outrun LAVs loaded with AV gunners. they're being coy about it. LAV's actually having a purpose besides basic transport? GASP "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:36:00 - [881] - Quote I'd envision the ratio for all scenarious would be a .15 difference beween classes, wih MBTs being the middle ground Speed ratio UHAV 0.85 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 1.15 HP UHAV 1.15 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 0.85 Large turret Damage UHAV 0.85 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 1.15 Small Turret Damage UHAV 1.15 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 0 This gives a 30% gap beween the specialist tanks, 15% gap beween the specialist and the general purpose tanks. DHAV vs MBT: DHAV gets 15% more speed and damage but MBT has 15% more eHP and 100% damage from small tturrets UHAV vs MBT: UHAV has 15% more ehp and 15% stronger small turrets, MB has 15% more speed and 15% more dmage. UHAV vs DHAV: DHAV has 30% more speed and damage but UHAV has 30% morehp and 115% more damage (comparing to other vehicles that can fit small turrets) from small turrets. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2105	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:09:00 - [882] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think we're digging in our asses a little deeply to justify things guys. MBTs are reasonably speedy now. all the UHAVs would need to slow down would be 20-30% speed loss AT THE ABSOLUTE MOST. Because they NEED a chance to escape if Infantry get gud and threaten to overwhelm them. It doesn't have to be a HUGE chance. But there has to be a chance. Further there's no need for DHAVs to be able to go more than 20% faster than an MBT. They're fragile but there should never be a guarantee of escape. 20% was about the range I imagined for speed differential. I remember seeing old enforcers (and even regular tanks) getting chased around by infantry av squads inside LAV's. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at? Oh, I wasn't really getting at anything. It was a statement of support that even the Uhav needs to be capable of running away. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6990	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:40:00 - [883] - Quote Ok Rattati if your HAV numbers are anywhere close to final, and the ones we see today are the ones we can expect to see in the future? Swarms will need to be nerfed. Hard. On-paper DPS vs shields for an triple-modded Wiyrkomi Swarm launcher does the following DPS: Shields: 1027.22 DPS Armor: 1540.83 DPS Call me insane, but that's a bit much for what you're proposing right now. Forge Guns would be in an OK-ish place with better rate of fire. proto fitted HAVs it looks like will require a reload to kill solo on the UHAVs. For whatever reason this fails to upset me. Plasma cannon will need a rework to be viable, but that's not hard. We either spike the alpha hard, or we up the reload speed and lower the charge time significantly. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2106	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:52:00 - [884] - Quote Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6990	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:57:00 - [885] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. it can't be OP against infantry even if I match it's rate of fire to the Assault forge. You're looking at more or less identical attack profiles except one has a wider splash and is harder to aim. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:05:00 - [886] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. Hmmm it feels odd to have an operation skill that ups reload speed and then a reload skill which does the same thing.... "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2107	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:18:00 - [887] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one. Hmmm it feels odd to have an operation skill that ups reload speed and then a reload skill which does the same thing.... It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:21:00 - [888] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. I will admit that the benefit of the operation bonus feels pretty negligible, but at the same time I don't really like doubling up on the same modifier with 2 skills. Perhaps projectile speed? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6991	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:23:00 - [889] - Quote I'm looking at it. changes won't have to be as extreme as they would be to be viable for chrome numbers but the PLC definitely needs a tweak up, and bluntly the reload speed is the roadblock. dropping that sharply should do everything we need it to do , with potentially very MINOR tweaks to charge. However this is a thread derail, I wanted to point out a problem with extant AV before it becomes the ugly surprise hiding under the desk to take a swipe at him. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2108	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:42:00 - [890] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. I will admit that the benefit of the operation bonus feels pretty negligible, but at the same time I don't really like doubling up on the same modifier with 2 skills. Perhaps projectile speed? Projectile speed is not a problem, it is currently in a decent spot. Reload speed is the bottleneck. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6991	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:48:00 - [891] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: It is odd but its much better than current operation skill which shaves of 15/100ths of a second which is negligible, reloading is the primary drawback to a plc. I will admit that the benefit of the operation bonus feels pretty negligible, but at the same time I don't really like doubling up on the same modifier with 2 skills. Perhaps projectile speed? Projectile speed is not a problem, it is currently in a decent spot. Reload speed is the bottleneck. Hell the alpha isn't bad, the charge up isn't :horrible: but the reload speed is what kills it. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4780	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:49:00 - [892] - Quote Back on topic...Ok lets take a moment to look at bonuses under the premise of damage resistance against infantry AV. MBT +2000 Base Shields +2650 Module Shields (2 Extenders) =4650 Raw Shields UHAV +3000 Base Shields +1325 Module Shields (1 Extender) =4325 Raw Shields So before Bonuses, MBT will have 325 more shield HP more than the UHAV. Our general goal is to make the MBT slightly better at dealing with enemy vehicles than the UHAV, so similar levels of eHP against turrets with the MBT being faster/better tracking achieves this goal fairly well. Since there is a fairly small difference in HP (325) we'll just leave that as is with the understanding that it might be slightly tweaked in the future. So it comes down to upping the UHAV's resistance against infantry. If the resistance is specifically towards infantry AV, It is more reasonable to go with a pretty high eHP. We'll shoot for what Ratatti initially proposed to see how it looks. Ratatti's Initial "Ultra Bonus": +3210 HP Oh boy, that's a bit of a jump. So in order for the UHAV to gain that much eHP against AV using its base HP, you're looking at ~75% resistance, or +15%/lvl. Eeeeesssh thats pretty intense, landing the UHAV at about ~11700 eHP once its in a hardened state. Note: MBT eHP = ~7300 (~40% less than UHAV) DHAV eHP= ~4500 (~60% less than UHAV) Discuss? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6991	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:54:00 - [893] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Back on topic...Ok lets take a moment to look at bonuses under the premise of damage resistance against infantry AV. MBT +2000 Base Shields +2650 Module Shields (2 Extenders) =4650 Raw Shields UHAV +3000 Base Shields +1325 Module Shields (1 Extender) =4325 Raw Shields So before Bonuses, MBT will have 325 more shield HP more than the UHAV. Our general goal is to make the MBT slightly better at dealing with enemy vehicles than the UHAV, so similar levels of eHP against turrets with the MBT being faster/better tracking achieves this goal fairly well. Since there is a fairly small difference in HP (325) we'll just leave that as is with the understanding that it might be slightly tweaked in the future. So it comes down to upping the UHAV's resistance against infantry. If the resistance is specifically towards infantry AV, It is more reasonable to go with a pretty high eHP. We'll shoot for what Ratatti initially proposed to see how it looks. Ratatti's Initial "Ultra Bonus": +3210 HP Oh boy, that's a bit of a jump. So in order for the UHAV to gain that much eHP against AV using its base HP, you're looking at ~75% resistance, or +15%/lvl. Eeeeesssh thats pretty intense, landing the UHAV at about ~11700 eHP once its in a hardened state. Note: MBT eHP = ~7300 (~40% less than UHAV) DHAV eHP= ~4500 (~60% less than UHAV) Discuss? the UHAV is killable with the forges, if the RoF comes up a bit. It'll require a reload as I mentioned earlier. swarms are still going to overkill as they retain over 1000 DPS vs. shields with damage mods. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6994	Posted - 2015.02.07 07:15:00 - [894] - Quote All in all the HAV numbers seem solid. While Rattati's turrets aren't where I would put them, they are also solid. Bluntly I want to test them against the AV we have now to see if my assessment of what handheld AV will need to be competitive Is correct. If we get a sweet spot for the forge and PLC then awesome. However, I think swarms are going to absolutely require a mechanical overhaul in order for the balance we need to occur. Simply nerfing them will tip them over the razor's edge Into being a bad joke. Buffing them is not a solution in any reality. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:32:00 - [895] - Quote The UHAV skill books has got to change in SP requirement. To unlock the skill book for racial UHAVs you need to spec into Level 3 HAV operation, Level 3 UHAV, and then spec into UHAV HAV x 2 skill Level 1: 24,880 Level 2: 74,640 Level 3: 174,160 UHAV x 6 Level 1: 49,760 Level 2: 149,280 Level 3: 348,320 Racial UHAV x 12 Level 1: 74,640 Level 2: 223,920 Level 3: 522,480 Level 4: 1,044,960 Level 5: 1,866,000 Total required SP 4,553, 040. Minimum time to unlock (divide by cap = 750,000) 6 weeks. Both the DHAV and the UHAV should be a 8x skill, not a 10x or a 12x skill. There is also the possibility of reskinned amarr and minmatar versions, unless there is a respec planned for their release ( which i doubt) then i don't see the need to put an extraordinary SP investment burden on tankers. Most of whom will want to have different types available. Certainly the SHAV or MBT to PRO, at least one destroyer and one UHAV. Having the right tool for the right job is important. Thats should be more than enough of an SP sink for a while, rather than 12 x skills to inflate it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6994	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:36:00 - [896] - Quote Don't forget about passive SP Tesfa. That's separate from the 750,000. This needs to be accounted for in your math. Also frames are a x6 skill. Specialist dropsuits are x10. The HAV skill at x2 provides a similar SP paywall to the dropsuit command skill. However, that being said I think the racials should be x10 like tge dropsuits, not x12. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.07 10:10:00 - [897] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't forget about passive SP Tesfa. That's separate from the 750,000. This needs to be accounted for in your math. Also frames are a x6 skill. Specialist dropsuits are x10. The HAV skill at x2 provides a similar SP paywall to the dropsuit command skill. However, that being said I think the racials should be x10 like tge dropsuits, not x12. Save x12 for post-level 5 content if we ever get it. You're right about the passive SP, that does make the Proto hull acessible with hitting the cap in under 6 weeks. You understood the point i was driving at, which is to have the SP investment reflect the dropsuit costs. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 210	Posted - 2015.02.07 10:20:00 - [898] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: The UHAV skill books has got to change in SP requirement. To unlock the skill book for racial UHAVs you need to spec into Level 3 HAV operation, Level 3 UHAV, and then spec into UHAV HAV x 2 skill Level 1: 24,880 Level 2: 74,640 Level 3: 174,160 UHAV x 6 Level 1: 49,760 Level 2: 149,280 Level 3: 348,320 Racial UHAV x 12 Level 1: 74,640 Level 2: 223,920 Level 3: 522,480 Level 4: 1,044,960 Level 5: 1,866,000 Total required SP 4,553, 040. Minimum time to unlock (divide by cap = 750,000) 6 weeks. Both the DHAV and the UHAV should be a 8x skill, not a 10x or a 12x skill. There is also the possibility of reskinned amarr and minmatar versions, unless there is a respec planned for their release ( which i doubt) then i don't see the need to put an extraordinary SP investment burden on tankers. Most of whom will want to have different types available. Certainly the SHAV or MBT to PRO, at least one destroyer and one UHAV. Having the right tool for the right job is important. Thats should be more than enough of an SP sink for a while, rather than 12 x skills to inflate it. Yeah, 12x is too much. I'm leaning toward 8x. Choo Choo
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6995	Posted - 2015.02.07 10:36:00 - [899] - Quote 8x means less investment of SP than a dropsuit. 10x. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 13:33:00 - [900] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 8x means less investment of SP than a dropsuit. 10x. Alright So someone that hasn't played in months, and doesn't use vehicles, gets to decide the path vehicles take? And now you want tanks to use more SP? Please, go ruin a different game. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

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

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

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

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2887	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:03:00 - [931] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Players being childish wrote: words and more combatitiveness and arguing pointless arguing derailing random childish You guys are derailing the thread again. UHAV and DHAV skill should be 8x or 10x as 12x 4.5m sp is too much. 8x 10x is too much. The suits aren't 10x, there's no reason specialized tanks should be 10x. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2887	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:05:00 - [932] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle users Fyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av. So who do you consider users on here? There's obviously Doc, Harp and Godin. Anybody else.... not so sure. And again............... I can't say the Cal scout is a great suit because I don't have it. All the same as people can't say tanks are easy to use if they don't use them. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2889	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:18:00 - [933] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Because you present and argue them poorly. Maybe I should've taken debate class in high school just to make you happy. Look at my above exchanges with breakin stuff, and my exchanges about av with pokey & breakin. I've pointed out errors in their thinking when I've found them, provided refutations and counterarguments and I've done that all civilly and without attacking them or their characteristics. I'm attacking their ideas, not them. I'm pointing out that they have no experience in a tank. That's not a personal attack, that's saying they have no experience with something. People are much more willing to listen to you and consider your position when you're acting in a reasonable, mature manner and not attacking them See above Look at that hierarchy of arguments in the link. Screaming "YOU'RE NOT A **ING TANKER" will never get you anywhere, try instead going "Well you would think this because [x], but when you have some experience it's actually [y]". That's exactly what I'm doing. They think being in a tank is hard because they don't do it. They think AV is hard because it can't destroy a tank in 2 seconds flat, minus the PRO breach, which few people use because it actually requires timing for the perfect shot. I have nearly two years' experience in a tank. When I joined Red Star, I did 5-10 PC battles for a month straight, and that doesn't include the re-ups.More like 20-25 or 30 a day. And in every single one of them, I was in a tank. That said, you really consider their opinion about tanks, which they have no experience in to be worth more than mine, when I actually have PC experience in tanks? Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken. He doesn't do anything on the vehicle side. He also argued vehemently that the UHAV shouldn't have a lot of HP, even though on Rattati's original thread, he hinted that it would take a laser strike to destroy one. That's not "listening to an explanation," that's covering his ears and yelling "I can't hear you." There cannot be a rational argument with someone like that, when it's right in the thread for the whole world to see. Ignoring does nothing to prove a point. He doesn't listen to anything I say, even though I've been in a tank for so long. He hasn't. 1: Pokey Pilots. He's not a very good DS pilot (), but he's a pretty decent HAV pilot. Breakin does too, although not nearly as much, however at least tries to listen to people. 2: links to what Breakin said, and I'm pretty sure you took that out of context. 3: Your argument is flawed, as it pretty much says that AV or infantry can't talk about balance of vehicles because they don't use them. You must not understand the fact that THEY STILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM.** Just Letting you know that. He has 17k all-time kills. I've checked. That tells me he barely plays the game. I've also never seen him at all. Never seen Breakin at all, either. Infantry can go bugger off, I'll take care of enemy tanks, instead of them launching asteroids at us. It was just fine during Chromosome, there was no need to reverse it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2889	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:21:00 - [934] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I would say that the average infantry that complains when vehicles don't kill them, but refuses to use AV or vehicles to counter or Pilots such as Sparky who refuse to take the opinions of others shouldn't even comment. I do read their comments, problem is, what they say just sounds dumb. Blaster easy to use? Not at all. Large missile good against infantry? Not when an explosive the size of a golf ball has a larger splash radius and more splash damage than a missile the size of a human. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4821	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:47:00 - [935] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: He has 17k all-time kills. I've checked. That tells me he barely plays the game. I've also never seen him at all. Never seen Breakin at all, either. Nah just means I have a life and a job and other things that I do besides no-life on Dust. Also I've never seen you either, therefor you must not even exist. Spkrception! "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 246	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:57:00 - [936] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: I would say that the average infantry that complains when vehicles don't kill them, but refuses to use AV or vehicles to counter or Pilots such as Sparky who refuse to take the opinions of others shouldn't even comment. I do read their comments, problem is, what they say just sounds dumb. Blaster easy to use? Not at all. Large missile good against infantry? Not when an explosive the size of a golf ball has a larger splash radius and more splash damage than a missile the size of a human. Lol, missiles are good against infantry if your accurate. If I actually went after infantry with my XT-201 every game, I would be getting 20+ kills a game. I like to focus on other things though, like tanks. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 825	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:35:00 - [937] - Quote If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7020	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:47:00 - [938] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I tend to agree here. branching off the DHAV and UHAV from the HAV skill will be simpler, and less clunky. I don't think there needs to be two separate HAV skills, just prefitted turrets and no turrets on market. simplicity in a complex system helps keep the learning curve from going here. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:49:00 - [939] - Quote With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive ) I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled. Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing. Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots. I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks.
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.08 14:13:00 - [940] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: wordswordswords and more combatitiveness and arguing Watching spkr try to interact with more reasonable vehicle users Fyi, repeatedly screaming that someone doesn't play this game isn't attacking their ideas, it's attacking them through their characteristics - You are going "They don't have enough EXPERIENCE to even be QUALIFIED to have an opinion on this" which is your standard modus operandi. According to you only you are qualified to have an opinion on vehicles or av. So who do you consider users on here? There's obviously Doc, Harp and Godin. Anybody else.... not so sure. And again............... I can't say the Cal scout is a great suit because I don't have it. All the same as people can't say tanks are easy to use if they don't use them. Umm, me. Probably the best of them all Tanks - Balancing Turrets

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 434	Posted - 2015.02.08 14:24:00 - [941] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive ) I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled. Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing. Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots. I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks. Totally agree, if you want a good Hav spend Sp in it, after this it s obvious pretend a bit of immortality with that skill at level 5 Welcome to Aurlord 1.0. Building a vayu in my garage, waiting for aurlord 1.1 soon(tm)
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:48:00 - [942] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive ) I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled. Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing. Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots. I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks. Totally agree, if you want a good Hav spend Sp in it, after this it s obvious pretend a bit of immortality with that skill at level 5 Thing is I've already dumped a **** ton into HAV's, and to have to dump even more, and THIS much more is silly. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:59:00 - [943] - Quote As I woke up, a thought occurred into my mind: I'm not sure that the Enforcers and Marauders bonuses should be what they are, being focused only around AI or AV. My reasoning for this is because currently, HAV's don't have a role. From what I've gathered, the popular opinion is that HAV's should be based around killing big ** (so installations and **), while being good at AV. You could say that Enforcers still fits, as it's a although weak hull, still has a damage bonus, Marauders don't really fit under that (more so as a infantry support tool). Seeing as we don't have the big things to shoot at really (installation count is low, and infantry hacks them to quickly to really blow them up), I'd say that for the moment it's fine. But like the passenger suggestion, I believe that it should change to something else. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2125	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:55:00 - [944] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive ) I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled. Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing. Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots. I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks. Totally agree, if you want a good Hav spend Sp in it, after this it s obvious pretend a bit of immortality with that skill at level 5 No, a 12x skill is far too costly. That's 50% more than a max level dropsuit role. I do not feel that this is a position based in reason or sound logic especially with the false assertions of 'immortality' provided by vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4847	Posted - 2015.02.08 18:29:00 - [945] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I tend to agree here. branching off the DHAV and UHAV from the HAV skill will be simpler, and less clunky. I don't think there needs to be two separate HAV skills, just prefitted turrets and no turrets on market. simplicity in a complex system helps keep the learning curve from going here. Yep I agree as well. Not only does it not make sense that Small Turrets vs No Small turrets on an HAV would dictate a different skill, but it's really an unnecessary SP sink. Simply have the 4 racial HAV Operation skills which each unlock their racial MBT and SHAV, and then the DHAV and UHAV skills branching off of that skill. It's clean and simple. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2125	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:49:00 - [946] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I tend to agree here. branching off the DHAV and UHAV from the HAV skill will be simpler, and less clunky. I don't think there needs to be two separate HAV skills, just prefitted turrets and no turrets on market. simplicity in a complex system helps keep the learning curve from going here. Yep I agree as well. Not only does it not make sense that Small Turrets vs No Small turrets on an HAV would dictate a different skill, but it's really an unnecessary SP sink. Simply have the 4 racial HAV Operation skills which each unlock their racial MBT and SHAV, and then the DHAV and UHAV skills branching off of that skill. It's clean and simple. Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:38:00 - [947] - Quote I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2316	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:53:00 - [948] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out. And I'm glad that it isn't up to you because that's just a terrible idea. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4855	Posted - 2015.02.09 00:45:00 - [949] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2126	Posted - 2015.02.09 01:21:00 - [950] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? SHAVs were meant to be a bit harder to unlock so people had to have turrets. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4856	Posted - 2015.02.09 01:25:00 - [951] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? SHAVs were meant to be a bit harder to unlock so people had to have turrets. .....I still don't see why. I have to train more skills....to not have turrets? It's basically a Gunnlogi Type-II, a variant, not an upgrade or anything. I see no valid reason to require either of them to have more or less of a skill investment than the other. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2126	Posted - 2015.02.09 02:15:00 - [952] - Quote I'm just going off of rattati's design intent. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2317	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:04:00 - [953] - Quote Just spitballing an idea here... If the SHAV is to be a variant of the HAV, without any upgrades or anything as Pokey has said, why not just have one operation skill for both of them? It would be similar to infantry weapons -> 1 operation skill, multiple variants. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1736	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:06:00 - [954] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? I don't see the point in getting HAV level to 5 just to unlock proto HAV's and then having to level up UHAV skill to utilize the passive bonuses. I'm pretty sure people wold revolt if you have to get Assault Dropsuit skill to level 5 to unlock proto and then you have to get the racial to level 5 to get the passive assault bonuses. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4859	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:14:00 - [955] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Maybe key the HAV operation skill to unlock std adv pro HAV's at level 1 2 3 and SHAV's at 3 4 5 I don't really see the point, why would a player who chooses to play solo have to spend more SP to unlock which is basically the exact same time? I don't see the point in getting UHAV level to 5 just to unlock proto UHAV's and then having to level up UHAV skill to utilize the passive bonuses. I'm pretty sure people wold revolt if you have to get Assault Dropsuit skill to level 5 to unlock proto and then you have to get the racial to level 5 to get the passive assault bonuses. To be quite frank, I'd prefer an unlock system where STD, ADV, and PRO unlocked on ranks 1-3 and then 4 and 5 were there for additional bonus ranks. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16934	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:48:00 - [956] - Quote Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 249	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:56:00 - [957] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. I only have 1 question about the skills. Are we going off the sa,e system we have right now where HAV operation unlocks both racial vehicles when you level it up, or the old system where you did HAV operation< Racial HAV operation< specialized racial HAV operatio. The old system was much better IMO. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 829	Posted - 2015.02.09 04:36:00 - [958] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. 10x for the destroyers and UHAVs would really, really be strectching it but thats the upper limit. At 12 x I wouldn't know how to go about offering Infantry balance suggestions, having SP investment on par with the suits removes any excuses from vehicle users as to why they feel the right to go on a infantry farming spree. Anyways, its a bit early to go voer this topic, perhaps another feedback thread on the SP tree investment would be good, get everybodies eyes on it. As far as i can tell, in terms of your spreadsheet the only hot topics to crop up in my eyes are SP tree (as you said theory crafted for now nothing final) Changes to missiles (other thread) Changes to rails (other thread) small rail stats (other thread) But hey its been a long grindy week and weekend for you devs concerning warlords, so no pressure from my end. Pace on the pages is beginning to slack a bit, some of us has been posting about tanks almost daily since december. Pay no mind when the spkr, breaking, pokey etc flareups happen. Given the specific references to the master spreedsheet it seems everybody is still generally on board with the new suggestions. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4864	Posted - 2015.02.09 06:46:00 - [959] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: [Pace on the pages is beginning to slack a bit, some of us has been posting about tanks almost daily since december. Pay no mind when the spkr, breaking, pokey etc flareups happen. Given the specific references to the master spreedsheet it seems everybody is still generally on board with the new suggestions. Hey now, every once in a while I say something remotely useful! But yeah the skill tree Ratatti has is not exactly how I'd like to see it...I'll do a mockup tomorrow and get a link in. As for skill multipliers I'll let you kids fight over that, it's not really my cup of tea. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7023	Posted - 2015.02.09 09:10:00 - [960] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. I am less concerned honestly with individual skill costs. I'm more on the "overall investment" If an HAV and sentinel benefit from the same number of skills with similar skill bonusing Then they should cost similar. If a HAV has less skills total then it should be more expensive per skill Then the sentinel. HOWEVER.. Unbonused skills should not cost the same amount as bonused skills IMHO. The value isn't there as much. It also means that you're getting less overall utility. So enough editorial from me. I want tanks so I can shoot at them and get a feel for the V/AV interaction. I have a pretty good idea based on the posted numbers how it'll play out, but I want to confirm. AV

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1736	Posted - 2015.02.09 12:55:00 - [961] - Quote Will there be a vehicle skill tree respec like there was for dropsuits in 1.8 since we are literally getting everything changed. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7025	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:00:00 - [962] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Will there be a vehicle skill tree respec like there was for dropsuits in 1.8 since we are literally getting everything changed. Can we not start that argument In this thread? My gut would say yes but since we are no longer dependent upon the devs deciding to give a mass refund it's not certain. We did not have pay-for respecs when the dropsuit parity hit. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 833	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:03:00 - [963] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Will there be a vehicle skill tree respec like there was for dropsuits in 1.8 since we are literally getting everything changed. Good question but i doubt it. The hull are only additions to HAV operation, which every tanker has already specced into level 1 already. Don't understand why 1 point in the skill tree needs to be respeced. It sort of makes more sense for the turrets, but since infanty didn't get a respec once rifles / dropsuits were changed wholesale i cant see why turrets would be exempt. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:09:00 - [964] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. We have specializations for each race to worry about, commando and sentinel for arguments' sake, then there's turrets and core skills. Of course that's more SP than a single dropsuit. We also have the ADS and Saga II, for lack of the logi LAV, so let's call those the assault and scout for arguments' sake. Assuming the tank operation is 4x and 8x: So that's what, 8 PRO suits? More SP if you want the base tank operation to need to be level 5 for PRO tanks. Then there's core skills, and most of them should be useful. Shield, armor, PG and CPU 5%, etc. Then there's turrets, and I'm really hoping the small fragmented won't be its own tree. I don't have enough SP to get everything to level 5. I'm going to have to make due with 3s here and there, until I get at least 90mil SP. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:12:00 - [965] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked. I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure. I only have 1 question about the skills. Are we going off the sa,e system we have right now where HAV operation unlocks both racial vehicles when you level it up, or the old system where you did HAV operation< Racial HAV operation< specialized racial HAV operatio. The old system was much better IMO. Dropsuit operation = unlocks access to all dropsuit skills: 1x = HAV operation unlocks access to all tank skills: 1x. Absolutely no need to change that. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:23:00 - [966] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I like it the way it is, if it was up to me I would make it 20 times to keep the scrubs out. If that was the case, nobody would bother with them, because you're looking at what, 12mil for that book to 5? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:27:00 - [967] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With the new skill cap I like the 12x, will keep the level 5 specialist tanks for the first couple months in the hhands of those really interested in investing the time ( which really isn't that long when you can get 1 mil sp a week if you cap + passive ) I am guessing electronics and engineering will also serve a purpose and need to be leveled. Seriously, even playing a couple games a day until this update comes out will probably bank you enough to level pretty high into everyrhing. Regular Havs will still have thier place with 7 slots. I am still hoping that instead of nerfing shields ( the only tank build that can survive 2 proto AV infantry for 10 seconds before death is eminent if the pilot doesn't find cover deep in the redline) that armor hardners have thier % reduction increased at the cost of duration so they have a fighting chance. Even if armor hardeners were at 30% damage reduction at current duration there would be more parity with the immediate armor reps. Right now armor hardners are not useful on tanks. Armor tanks aren't useful at all unless you have very extensive experience in a tank. Armor needs to be brought up to the level that shield is at, rather than knocking down shield to be at the level armor is at. That gives us two broken, useless tanks instead of just one. If you bring armor up, that gives us two okay tanks, and armor can actually put up a fight against shield. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:33:00 - [968] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work. I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.09 14:43:00 - [969] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work. I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then. Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7027	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:01:00 - [970] - Quote the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 833	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:31:00 - [971] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point. Didn't mean to speak for you there, but that was the consensus as I was seeing it. Given the relative few that check this thread out as often as possible, I also think working out the finer details of SP requirements should be in a seperate thread. Just to get fresh attention / feedback from a wider group, the kind who are more likley to check out a new feedback thread from rattati and not feel overwhelmed by sifting through 40+ pages of a thread that been here for quite a while now. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:59:00 - [972] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet @ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x. The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank. It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm. You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well. I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work. I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then. Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point. It'll cost too much if the multiplier is too high, and I doubt AV will ever be rebalanced. It needs to be easy to destroy us. My Python easily countered by MLT swarms. I also lost another to a pair of forge guns and a swarm. Teamwork in action, though the way infantry are on here, they resolutely believe it should take only one person to take out a tank. Funny thing is, I can easily destroy some random that doesn't know what they're doing, using AV, yet they complain they can't take out people like that. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4876	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:01:00 - [973] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7031	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:03:00 - [974] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". as though that argument didn't get old the second time it was trotted out. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:13:00 - [975] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7033	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:19:00 - [976] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. I agree. I believe that SP dumped into a given fit should be as valuable as the same amount of SP dumped into any other fit. Just having a badass tank isn't enough. Most of the people I ripball through are just bads. But every so often you get that one guy who actually has half a brain and a clue and then it's fun attacking vehicles again. Means something when you dump a good driver's HAV, that kinda thing can completely alter the course of a battle. Just like having a good logi who isn't merely a WP farming dingbat can make the difference between a phenomenal squad and a dead squad. AV
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 253	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:28:00 - [977] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. I agree. I believe that SP dumped into a given fit should be as valuable as the same amount of SP dumped into any other fit. Just having a badass tank isn't enough. Most of the people I ripball through are just bads. But every so often you get that one guy who actually has half a brain and a clue and then it's fun attacking vehicles again. Means something when you dump a good driver's HAV, that kinda thing can completely alter the course of a battle. Just like having a good logi who isn't merely a WP farming dingbat can make the difference between a phenomenal squad and a dead squad. I hope to see you in battle some day Breakin. I've only faced 1 or 2 good AV'ers in pubs, and it gets old stomping all the bad ones. (Like the ones who just stand still while they're swarming. Makes them so easy to missile snipe.) Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7033	Posted - 2015.02.09 16:36:00 - [978] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. I agree. I believe that SP dumped into a given fit should be as valuable as the same amount of SP dumped into any other fit. Just having a badass tank isn't enough. Most of the people I ripball through are just bads. But every so often you get that one guy who actually has half a brain and a clue and then it's fun attacking vehicles again. Means something when you dump a good driver's HAV, that kinda thing can completely alter the course of a battle. Just like having a good logi who isn't merely a WP farming dingbat can make the difference between a phenomenal squad and a dead squad. I hope to see you in battle some day Breakin. I've only faced 1 or 2 good AV'ers in pubs, and it gets old stomping all the bad ones. (Like the ones who just stand still while they're swarming. Makes them so easy to missile snipe.) I don't wait for tanks to come to me. If you're on a map with me and I realize that you're using an HAV or ADS it's a given you're going to see me attacking shortly after I notice it. So if you ever see me standing in the middle of the road, not moving, shooting your HAv with an assault rifle or HMG? It's because I want you to kill me so I can get to hunting you faster. all BS aside, when fighting vehicles is fun, it's FUN. But shooting bads is kinda like a guilty pleasure. You know it's not fair, but the fireballs let you roast the marshmallows... AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4880	Posted - 2015.02.09 17:14:00 - [979] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. That's fine, but what I'm trying to avoid is making an overpowered tank and then justifying it with a high SP cost. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Galvatrona Death Merchants Inc. 3	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:32:00 - [980] - Quote enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4881	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:33:00 - [981] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. @_@ if you had read the thread you would know that is what is effectively being done. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 254	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:33:00 - [982] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Ummmm..... No. What Rattati has planned is much better. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2891	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:52:00 - [983] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: the problem with "keeping it in the hands of specialists" is newbies get hosed, and it discourages players that want a specific HAV class to run on the side. I'll admit. I want a DHAV. Because I find the idea of rolling around the battlefield in a murder bus hunting enemy vehicles while having to avoid infantry attack hilarious. I also think exploding is funny. Doesn't matter who, even me. I like things that explode. I agree. Getting into a specialist HAV from a Generic HAV should feel similar to going from a Frame Dropsuit to a Specialist Dropsuit. Making Specialist HAVs arbitrarily harder to spec into simply because "We want to keep the scrubs out" is just not a good design. Specialist HAVs should take work to train into, but should not feel like they're reserved for vets with excessive amounts of SP. Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill". We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference. That's fine, but what I'm trying to avoid is making an overpowered tank and then justifying it with a high SP cost. Intelligence is OP. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17038	Posted - 2015.02.09 20:15:00 - [984] - Quote Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1737	Posted - 2015.02.09 21:53:00 - [985] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. I'm seriously not even excited for this new stuff. Why? Because it's going to CONTINUE to be arcade like. I hate arcade like tanks. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4892	Posted - 2015.02.09 21:59:00 - [986] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. I'm seriously not even excited for this new stuff. Why? Because it's going to CONTINUE to be arcade like. I hate arcade like tanks. My gripe is more so maintaining the status quo with how hardeners work. I still want tanks fit with more hardeners that last less time. I mean given the 'sample' fittings for what PG/CPU is based off of, I don't foresee Ratatti changing them in any significant way. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:08:00 - [987] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. I'm seriously not even excited for this new stuff. Why? Because it's going to CONTINUE to be arcade like. I hate arcade like tanks. My gripe is more so maintaining the status quo with how hardeners work. I still want tanks fit with more hardeners that last less time. I mean given the 'sample' fittings for what PG/CPU is based off of, I don't foresee Ratatti changing them in any significant way. Hardeners haven't changed? What about reps? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4897	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:09:00 - [988] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Galvatrona wrote: enough is enough, just put enforcer tanks back in and be done with it. Almost could accept that. The more the discussions go on the more apparent it becomes that I'm not interested in the new designs. I'm seriously not even excited for this new stuff. Why? Because it's going to CONTINUE to be arcade like. I hate arcade like tanks. My gripe is more so maintaining the status quo with how hardeners work. I still want tanks fit with more hardeners that last less time. I mean given the 'sample' fittings for what PG/CPU is based off of, I don't foresee Ratatti changing them in any significant way. Hardeners haven't changed? What about reps? As far as I can tell, he currently has no plans to change existing modules at this moment aside from perhaps HP modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 255	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:24:00 - [989] - Quote I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17056	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:45:00 - [990] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Or both to a convergent 30%...... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 255	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:47:00 - [991] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Or both to a convergent 30%...... Eh, I'm not super convinced on what they should be. Whether it be convergent, or shield a little better than armor is indifferent to me. Armor needs to be buffed though. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4897	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:52:00 - [992] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Or both to a convergent 30%...... Never really sure why they were different %'s in the first place. They're the same % in EVE for a reason. And yeah the Cloak-like soft cooldown was my suggestion, Ratatti at the very least noted that the hard cooldown was undesirable. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1742	Posted - 2015.02.10 01:56:00 - [993] - Quote Can somebody tell me the total SP I need to get UHAV skill to level 5 and unlock level 5 UHAV, I have HAV operation level 1 already. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:04:00 - [994] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: I think the idea floating around with a cloak-like soft Cooldown would be really nice. That's all I would change about active mods, besides bringing armor hardeners up to 35% Or both to a convergent 30%...... Never really sure why they were different %'s in the first place. They're the same % in EVE for a reason. And yeah the Cloak-like soft cooldown was my suggestion, Ratatti at the very least noted that the hard cooldown was undesirable. That's a far better unquestioning than adding a cap. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:14:00 - [995] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: As far as I can tell, he currently has no plans to change existing modules at this moment aside from perhaps HP modules. ....................... Yea, Master Splinter, that's just silly. Part of the arcade is the fact that hardeners and reps sucks ass. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Hell Destroyer State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 13	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:37:00 - [996] - Quote Just thinking out loud here I read over your ideas and they seemed good , but I thought about things such as I don't want to have to buy a proto tank for how much isk compared to the standard and get the same slot but I can fit more stuff. You should make skills In the tanks that allow for things such as 5% to blaster dispersion per level on say galente hav and say 5% to range on the rails or something like that to make the tank better as they are more skilled into them, similar to what you have done with ads. What I am worried about is a tank costing 1,000,000isk and that's just what you have pre fit on it and I can't make it the way I want without having two gunners. I don't think the yellow mods are a good thing. I like the different types of tanks and maybe at proto they get an extra high or low depending on the style of tank. This would make it worth getting a proto tank and spending the extra isk. I know it is hard to please everyone and I like that you are thinking about tankers and infantry alike.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16992	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:48:00 - [997] - Quote Guys, thanks for all the advice. I am going to lock this down now, because pages keep adding and I can't keep up . The final proposal will be posted as fast as I can. Stay tuned. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Moody come back

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.

GimmeDatSuhWeet isk

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris