DUST Search - AV feedback

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

AV feedback

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:51:00 - [1] - Quote This thread is intended to be a living document for review of AV weapons. Both Infantry AV and heavy and small turrets can be discussed here. It is intended to discuss where AV is overperforming and where it is failing. This is a discussion of the weapons and the weapon mods. It is not intended at any point to discuss HAV hull rebalance, or particular dropsuits. The objective is to provide rattati input on the ways and hows vehicles come to destruction. I'll open the discussion with a few points: 1: Light weapon AV values are all over the map. Swarms are almost 400 DPS ahead of the IAFG and the PLC is one of the lowest applied DPS weapons in DUST. 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 3: Standard and breach forge guns are inferior in application to the Assault Forge Gun in almost every possible way and are poor choices for AV. 4: Lacking Racial parity in both turrets and infantry AV is creating poor interactions allowing one weapon or one chassis to always be clearly superior. 5: Heavy missile turret burst DPS negates any utility armor vehicles might otherwise have. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. I am quite sure there are more issues. Also where there is a good balance struck we need to look at. While we're fixing what is wrong let's not overlook or lose what is right. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:53:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved. Typing as up now. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:20:00 - [3] - Quote I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:28:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'll open the discussion with a few points: 1: Light weapon AV values are all over the map. Swarms are almost 400 DPS ahead of the IAFG and the PLC is one of the lowest applied DPS weapons in DUST. 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 3: Standard and breach forge guns are inferior in application to the Assault Forge Gun in almost every possible way and are poor choices for AV. 4: Lacking Racial parity in both turrets and infantry AV is creating poor interactions allowing one weapon or one chassis to always be clearly superior. 5: Heavy missile turret burst DPS negates any utility armor vehicles might otherwise have. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. I am quite sure there are more issues. Also where there is a good balance struck we need to look at. While we're fixing what is wrong let's not overlook or lose what is right. 1. Swarms - Broken in many many ways 1a. Locking on through cover - Broken 1b. Firing while not even looking at the target - Broken 1c. Locking onto target then being able to look away and fire - Broken 1d. Missiles travel at 1 speed and that is top speed 1e. Missile tracking is broken - The missiles follow the vehicle where it used to be when it was 1st locked on and if the vehicle has moved the missiles will arrive at the 1st locking point and then move to where the vehicle is now and that includes going around corners and cover 1f. Missiles can go through railings and pipes - Broken 1g. Missiles stop and do a 235deg turn on the spot or in mid air instead of having to turn - Broken 1h. Invisible missiles still happen - Broken 1i. Swarms require 0 skill and aiming ability 1j. AV nades - Remove the seeking mechanism if you cant hit a vehicle then quit the game, timer expires after 5seconds so you cant create minefields 2. FG - Fine mostly - BFG OHK vehicles, IAFG is fastest at applied damage, normal is a bit meh but still useful 3. PLC - Needs a buff 4. Railgun - Applies sustained damage - 4 shots is terrible - Less range than a SL 5. Missiles - High alpha and should stay that way - No splash for a 6ft missile and infantry ignore it, should not happen 6. Blaster - Accuracy nerfed, dispersion is terrible and can miss a LAV at 50m - No use in using it 7. Armor hull is terrible, shield is king 8. 30milSP pilot gets nothing out of 30milSP compared to a 0SP pilot who uses a sica apart from cooldown/activation times 9. Modules are all the same, not even a different in tiers for what it actually does 10. Chrome/Uprising was 100x better even if the swarms and AV nades were even more broken beyond belief
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:28:00 - [5] - Quote It's kinda both. Ditching Minmando bonus would be one thing to help. I don't think any suits should get AV related bonuses it just invalidates the usage by other suits(if it's balanced) or makes them ZOMG **** your Incubus in in three rounds(otherwise). The time it does take to fire three volleys of swarms is stupidly low. For sure. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 768	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:36:00 - [6] - Quote Concerning swarms, i'm going to copy pasta this from another thread. "I think the issue is sort of like scans. Either swarms get in hits or they dont. If they don't dropships will always escape death, if they do Swarms have an abnormally high likleyhood of landing a kill. There is no grey area where either swarmer skill or dropship pilot skill will be able to negate one another. With the lock on style we have, Pilots aren't fightig the swarmer, they are fighting against A.I missiles in flight, that do 90% of the work. Swarmers root for the missile, and when the AI wins, they feel like they won, and the pilot feels cheated. Even if pilots had flares, the swarmer would feel cheated because he could do everything right the AI still wont land a hit. We should try to come up with some middle ground so that swarmers and pilots have a fighting chance that is within thier control and not th A.I. instead of, frankly, snitching about swarms or that once upon a time where an XT1 landed on your head. Core Mechanics have got to be tweaked before this issue can be resolved." Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:43:00 - [7] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: stuff Yeah so nerf the ** out of swarms so people who want** to not put effort will only do minimal damage. PLC is very difficult to use even after the buffs and forge requires the user to be in a heavy suit without all the benefits of an HMG. Wanna fire and forget? Forget getting the best AV weapon then. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:12:00 - [8] - Quote Let me clarify something: This thread is DIRECTLY related to Rattati's bring back the HAVs initiative. It is not a gripe thread. It is not a general complaint thread. It is not in relation to anything but the HAV thread. A statement that "swarms will be difficult to balance around with the HAVs because (insert numbers here) this is what I think might sosolve the problem." Is perfectly applicable. Generically saying "too much range" or "no skill" Are not helpful. this is not a gripe at the devs thread. This is us providing actionable information to aid ratrati and insure that the HAVs will neither be invulnerable to enemy infantry AV and turrets, nor will they be easy meat. I will not be adding any complaint posts to the OP. Only watch points backed by numbers. again. This is NOT a gripe thread. This is an information consolidation thread. If we can't play nice I'll give my advice without your help. But I'd much rather see cooperation. The points will be expanded as the HAV rebalance progresses and new things come to light. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:39:00 - [9] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Let me clarify something: This thread is DIRECTLY related to Rattati's bring back the HAVs initiative. It is not a gripe thread. It is not a general complaint thread. It is not in relation to anything but the HAV thread. A statement that "swarms will be difficult to balance around with the HAVs because (insert numbers here) this is what I think might sosolve the problem." Is perfectly applicable. Generically saying "too much range" or "no skill" Are not helpful. this is not a gripe at the devs thread. This is us providing actionable information to aid ratrati and insure that the HAVs will neither be invulnerable to enemy infantry AV and turrets, nor will they be easy meat. I will not be adding any complaint posts to the OP. Only watch points backed by numbers. again. This is NOT a gripe thread. This is an information consolidation thread. If we can't play nice I'll give my advice without your help. But I'd much rather see cooperation. The points will be expanded as the HAV rebalance progresses and new things come to light. 1. Then this thread isnt needed because first and foremost pilots need to have decent vehicles which are worth skilling into and are useful on the battlefield for PC/FW and are fun for pilots to have fights 2. AV needs to go on the backburner until the above is sorted out
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6701	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:48:00 - [10] - Quote Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. AV

Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 57	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:59:00 - [11] - Quote Plasma Cann: great anti shield AV, able to reload and fire before shield recharge begins. Needs to be heavily skilled to be truly effective (reload and prof). I say it's the most SP expensive AV (since the higher the prof, the closer to "good" it gets.). At prof 5, it does a fair bit of damage to shield vehicles. Predicting the "traveling" parabola is the most useful thing someone needs to learn to unlock the full potential of the cannon. ^ to use the cannon as effective AV, devoting skill points AND player skill is a must, one cannot simply just pick up a cannon and expect to be good w/ it. If the cannon is buffed, don't make it more than 250/300 damage (< still more than needed imho) (S = shield, A = armor) 1501 -> 1751/1801: 1501 * prof 5 (1.26 [sic]) = 1891.26s/1350.9a -> 1751 * prof 5 (1.26 [sic]) = 2206.26s/1575.9a. We are aware shields have lower hp pools and a recharge time. The 1751 allotek can 3 shot a sica, 4/5 shot a well built gunny. Hopefully cann tourists will understand it is a prof it up, or don't use it at all due to the higher difficulty accompanied with low skills. Thanks for reading. Edit: It is the only AV weapon I have prof'd out. (and when i prof out a weapon, i have to prof out my knowledge of said weapon.) If you have any questions (as a PLC user) and no one is available, i'll gladly answer. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:59:00 - [12] - Quote I'm split about how to proceed with the Swarm. While I see that, within it's range, it is much superior to all other AV options, it also isn't much of a problem from my perspective as a pilot. Sure I'd like to shrug them off better, but I generally don't break a sweat unless somebody brings a specialized Minmando with a pro SL, which seems fair. I could support opening it's lock-on range and reducing the sustained DPS, but I feel the SL has an important role in scaring off blaster tanks, which is more in line with it's comparatively short range. As a combined measure we could move the SL towards lower sustained long-range DPS while improving the performance of the PLC significantly. That would align much better with racial styles, but also be a pretty large change. This could go like this: Swarm Launcher: - Lock on time to 1.6 seconds - Lock on range to 250 m - Missile range to 250 m - Shots per clip to 4 - Decrease direct hit damage to dial in a ~20% reduction in sustained DPS (- Increase missile speed by ~15-20% to improve damage application on moving targets within range) Plasma Cannon: - Simple ~30-40% direct damage buff. As an effect I as a DS pilot expect to be able to linger temporarily within SL range, but I will have to repeatedly leave to regenerate. Given that the damage-per-clip is now distributed over 4 shots I will have more time to leave the SL's range. I expect to more often catch a stray shot from the increased lock-on range, but less finishing shots due to the decreased travel range. For HAVs I expect the PLC to become a serious threat within 50 meters and thus take over the blaster-deterrent role. Disclaimer: I'm making this (unfinished) suggestion here to start a constructive discussion. Feel free to suggest a different model if you have something to improve.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:00:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished
Cyzad4 Blackfish Corp. 590	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:28:00 - [14] - Quote I can't really add too much numbers wise, but one thing I would like to see is some tweaks to movement penalties correlated to added magnification on FG. BFG, high damage with terrible charge and you're locked in place so much higher magnification, I'm not saying SR level or anything that silly but some payoff to being a sitting duck. FG, honestly I think is in a decent place, reduced movement but you can hold a charge so it balances out, I would like to see at least marginal magnifaction thogh. AFG, reduce movement penalty by half at least, no magnification. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:41:00 - [15] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished The point. It has flown over your head. Quit trying to get vehicles buffed and AV gimped. Further this is not solely a thread for infantry AV. Turrets are rather important as well I think. I could be wrong. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:42:00 - [16] - Quote Cyzad4 wrote: I can't really add too much numbers wise, but one thing I would like to see is some tweaks to movement penalties correlated to added magnification on FG. BFG, high damage with terrible charge and you're locked in place so much higher magnification, I'm not saying SR level or anything that silly but some payoff to being a sitting duck. FG, honestly I think is in a decent place, reduced movement but you can hold a charge so it balances out, I would like to see at least marginal magnifaction thogh. AFG, reduce movement penalty by half at least, no magnification. There is no upside to mobility lock. Stationary charge plus long charge time means the only vehicle that will get hit twice is one driven by an idiot. AV
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 204	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:46:00 - [17] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished 1.Then 2.why 3.aren't 4.you 5.posting 6.in 7.the 8.other 9.thread 10.instead 11.of 12.this 13.one? The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:50:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished The point. It has flown over your head. Quit trying to get vehicles buffed and AV gimped. Further this is not solely a thread for infantry AV. Turrets are rather important as well I think. I could be wrong. 1. No i gave you what you wanted in the 1st post, AV feedback 2. The hulls have to be sorted out first along with the modules and any other modules that may come back into play 3. The turrets and AV are in the same boat as in how much damage and hits does it take to kill certain hulls at a base and hulls which are skilled up level 5 with everything in the slots but that is only after the hulls are done 4. You cannot ignore the problems that come with certain AV or turrets 5. If we did it your way and did AV first then we would be balancing hulls and fits around AV which is wrong, AV only exists because infantry needed an option to combat vehicles without needing a vehicle
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:11:00 - [19] - Quote Lazer grow up and quit trying to derail ythreads. You saying this thread is useless Isn't useful feedback. Rattati said to go ahead and pull the AV data together which I am doing. I really have zero interest in your opinion on the matter. If you have numbers and real feedback great. If not, I will pretty much ignore your lack of input from here on out. Your usual tactic of spamming negative feedback until the OP gives up and the thread dies will not work. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 57	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:14:00 - [20] - Quote Alright can we stop arguing for the sake of AV balance? Don't make this thread become another waste full of complaints. Please? There will never be balance if we cannot even balance ourselves between reason, emotion, and logic. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:16:00 - [21] - Quote Thank you. Like I said. This is an information gathering thread not a complaint thread. READ. If your input has been covered already In another post repeating it over and over will not help. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1996	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:28:00 - [22] - Quote My only suggestions for right now are to do with the plasma cannon. Step 1) They need to be redesigned to use less cpu and to actually use powergrid (also fix the plc fitting optimization skill). Step 2) Basic plasma cannon should be pushed up to the damage that advanced has(1155 -> 1330) advanced should be jumped up to proto level damage (1330 -> 1505) and proto should get the same 175 point damage increase (1505 -> 1680) Step 3) Rework plasma cannon skill to be 3% reload speed per level from 5% charge reduction per level (.15seconds at max level). Standardize PLC charge time at .45s. Step 4) Maybe add a bit more ammo carried. There's also currently roughly a half second delay between the round leaves a plasma cannon until you start reloading it. This needs to be fixed. Overall the plasma cannon is a bit of a tricky weapon to buff because if you give too much damage or tweaking other stats too hard it starts overperforming against infantry. I think for the most part that the plasma cannon is in a relatively okay spot for light av work given its ability to be shot at infantry or vehicles, it's capable of one-shotting LAV's which is good and it puts some serious hurt into dropships or tanks on a hit (which when followed up by swarm or forge fire makes it work very well). I haven't ran the math for what these changes would do to its total dps at the moment, but I believe the changes to damage would allow proto plasma cannons to oneshot most sentinels (instead of leaving them alive with ~100 health) and overall would be a small buff to their performance against vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:30:00 - [23] - Quote As far as the PLC goes: How badly will it break if we buff it via reload/charge rather than damage? I got the PLC numbers close to AFG efficiency in my other proposal. Will this break it? My gut says no due to the AFG also being direct fire splash. Not going to plug any numbers together till I actually SEE the finalized HAV stats and example fits. So beyond discussing where they crap out and traits to look directly at we're theorycrafting. For swarms: The raw Dps needs to drop. The ability to machinegun missiles is a bit much. My thought is it wasn't the range. Its the rate of fire. Current lock time is base 1.4 modified by skills. Lock can be achieved in 0.85 seconds. That's three shots in under 3 seconds. Faster by far than any alpha weapon. Swarms are a delayed DPS weapon. This means, like in EVE you can literally have all three flights in the air before the first impact. Swarms travel at 60m/sec. They hit 200m in 3.3 seconds. what if 3.3 seconds, the travel time to 200m was it's base lock time with extended lock range? That way you could change the damage values, and the proto lock time would be 2.5 seconds. This would give pilots a chance to react and evade, while giving a swarmer a reason to get close, or alternatively position to be able to volley multiple shots from long range. Damage can be adjusted to keep overall DPS reasonable. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1996	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:46:00 - [24] - Quote ^I'm not an avid PLC user I just squad with the guy who came in 3rd for PLC kills during officer event. I don't think having 'dps' similar to or potentially even higher than an AFG would be 'broken' due to the skill required for use. I would also agree that lock time is an issue for the swarm launcher. I would also say that direct damage per shot is a bit low for the forge gun. Breach should be highest damage per shot, assault should be highest dps, std should be somewhere in between. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:58:00 - [25] - Quote The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:00:00 - [26] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^I'm not an avid PLC user I just squad with the guy who came in 3rd for PLC kills during officer event. I don't think having 'dps' similar to or potentially even higher than an AFG would be 'broken' due to the skill required for use. I would also agree that lock time is an issue for the swarm launcher. I would also say that direct damage per shot is a bit low for the forge gun. Breach should be highest damage per shot, assault should be highest dps, std should be somewhere in between. Given that the PLC is the shortest range weapon at minimum matching it to AFG. It has bigger splash so more infantry utility. As far as swarms go. Because of the 150m lock limit swarms cannot be nerfed in any meaningful way without making them worthless. A dropship travels 150m in 3 seconds at speed. This means swarms HAVE to drop a killing payload in under three seconds, no margin for error. Balancing it as a long range, long flight time weapon would give pilots more reaction time and minimize reliance on the commando for effective use. The three seconds of opportunity has created more problems than it solved AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:00:00 - [27] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Alright can we stop arguing for the sake of AV balance? Don't make this thread become another waste full of complaints. Please? There will never be balance if we cannot even balance ourselves between reason, emotion, and logic. This thread is to help balance, if you have a problem make a logical and professional response. Or you'll always be complaining. No one wants to help a tyrant or a cold hearted person. 1. Balance can only be created when you accept the faults a weapon or turret has, it is not good saying well this is how it works on paper when in game its that broken it really overperforms due to how broken it is 2. You cannot balance the SL when it is so utterly broken, it either gets fixed or deleted and they have tried fixing it many a time and it still does not work
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:01:00 - [28] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:03:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer grow up and quit trying to derail ythreads. You saying this thread is useless Isn't useful feedback. Rattati said to go ahead and pull the AV data together which I am doing. I really have zero interest in your opinion on the matter. If you have numbers and real feedback great. If not, I will pretty much ignore your lack of input from here on out. Your usual tactic of spamming negative feedback until the OP gives up and the thread dies will not work. 1. Not derailing 2. I gave you info on 3rd post 3. I have 0 intrest on you commenting on HAVs in the feedback thread but it doesnt stop you spewing BS 4. You tried spamming my thread with negative feedback so you are just as bad, hypocrite 5. You cannot make numbers for AV or turrets until the hulls have been finished so you know what stats are at a base level and when stuff is level 5 and when the hull is complete with all modules on
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:27:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. Thanks, reading it as i type Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:41:00 - [31] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. Thanks, reading it as i type Laser you have a point, but forcing your opinion / being negative takes away the meaning. Humanity sees negative before positive (i can do 1000 good, but 1 bad will take it all away), it's up to you how you want people to see your posts. Yknow what i mean? 1. Im a negative person when it comes to vehicles, all i have seen in this game is nerf nerf nerf and more nerfing to vehicles since it began so anything positive i take it with a pince of salt because if they are good infantry will get them nerfed again and the cycle will never be broken and vehicles will never progress from WP pinatas to actual useful assets to have on the field
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:45:00 - [32] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. Thanks, reading it as i type Laser you have a point, but forcing your opinion / being negative takes away the meaning. Humanity sees negative before positive (i can do 1000 good, but 1 bad will take it all away), it's up to you how you want people to see your posts. Yknow what i mean? 1. Im a negative person when it comes to vehicles, all i have seen in this game is nerf nerf nerf and more nerfing to vehicles since it began so anything positive i take it with a pince of salt because if they are good infantry will get them nerfed again and the cycle will never be broken and vehicles will never progress from WP pinatas to actual useful assets to have on the field I understand, now that you explained how you feel (as i am a ADS pilot myself) I will now know how to respond to you. Sorry. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6706	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:50:00 - [33] - Quote This is why I don't consider his input useful. He automatically assumes sinister motives regardless of evidence to the contrary. On that magical note I'm blocking his posts. If he makes a point worth looking at someone pipe up an I'll add it to the OP. Im not interested in reading the same repetitive message over and over again while he refuses to allow anyone a dissenting opinion. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:13:00 - [34] - Quote Anyways, back on topic. The DPS of the cannon doesn't truly matter (shields has recharge delay) it's the matter of the number of rounds it takes to kill. MINA makes a point though, the reload could be faster (fighting a tank at 20-40m) because the time of charge + reload = (approx.) forge gun charge (FG = 4 to fire, PLC = 0.6 charge + 3.5 reload = 4.1 to fire; FG = PLC +/- 0.1s) I understand the PLC is a light weapon so, if the reload is too quick it'll offset its anti-infantry ability. Nevertheless, a quicker reload affects the AV ability positively, but too high a reload might offset the weapon in general. how about between AFG and FG? 3.5 seconds? 3 sec reload, 0.5 charge time? (lowering reload to 3, charge to 0.5) Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15243	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:14:00 - [35] - Quote Despite having ~400 more DPS, the engagement range is literally half of what the Forge Gun is. Given how CCP's weapon philosophy is [Range <-> DPS] this is balanced. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6706	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:26:00 - [36] - Quote Atiim wrote: Despite having ~400 more DPS, the engagement range is literally half of what the Forge Gun is. Given how CCP's weapon philosophy is [Range <-> DPS] this is balanced. It's not really working though. And it's alpha vs. dps. Higher alpha TENDS to have longer range in CCP logic. But this is not an absolute. Mostly my problem with the swarm logic is there is no margin for error on either side. If swarms were more flexible and pilots could actually use buildings to evade as often as not we would have less whining. Did you look at my flight time thing? It's a thought. I think it's better than todays blow your wad NOW meta. AV
DDx77 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 91	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:34:00 - [37] - Quote I think the small rail turrets need to have much better angles I would almost look at having no restriction because the small turret is usually obstructed naturally by the vehicle it's on In some case they might be the best counter to a drop ship or infantry/sniper that is camped up high. Suggesting the rail over the blaster b/c it is generally much more efficient at av
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15243	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:35:00 - [38] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: It's kinda both. Ditching Minmando bonus would be one thing to help. I don't think any suits should get AV related bonuses it just invalidates the usage by other suits(if it's balanced) or makes them ZOMG ** your Incubus in in three rounds(otherwise). Actually, removing the MinCom's bonus wouldn't do anything as it has no effect on the Swarm Launcher's TTK when compared to Dropsuits which use 3 DMs (which any suit other than MinComs would put on an SL. Here's an example: Atiim wrote: Against an LAV? Not even remotely. Matari Commando vs. Saga Volley 1: -1323 HP (721.6 Armor HP Remaining) Volley 2: -2067 HP (-1346 Structure HP Remaining) TTK: 2.5s Matari Assault vs. Saga Volley 1: -1328 HP (128 Shield HP / 900 Armor HP Remaining) Volley 2: -1838 HP ( -964 Structure HP Remaining) TTK: 2.5s What does make a difference however, is the Reload Speed bonus as it reduces the time between Volley 3 and Volley 4. Given how this bonus is used for other weapons on the Commando platform, removing this is not neccessary. Dispite that, most vehicles are gone before the 4th volley can hit them either way, and if they aren't they'd be screwed regardless of whether or not it was a MinCom firing them. In case you wanted a look, here's the math explaining why there's no TTK difference. Atiim wrote: Not trying to start an argument, but MinComs only have 2 High Slots. To put that into perspective, MinAssaults with 4 DMs can reach +20% Damage (with stacking penalties) while the MinCom can reach +23.5% Damage with 2 DMs. The 3.5% won't increase the SL's TTK (neither would the 5.5% if the Assault only used 3 DMs). THUNDERGROOVE wrote:** The time it does take to fire three volleys of swarms is stupidly low. For sure. If Swarms were hit-scan or hit near instantaneous like the FG, I'd agree with you. However this is not the case, nor will it ever be unless you're 0m away from the Swarmer (in which case, you screwed up). Swarm Launchers travel at 60m/s, since most SL engagements against HAVs or ADSs take place at around 90m, it will take 1.5s for each volley to hit the vehicle. It takes 1.05s to launch each volley (coupled by the 0.1s re-fire delay) and 3 Volleys actually impacting takes a good 8s. Compared to an AFG, which has a .2s travel time (just a quick guess) and a 2.25s charge time, it takes 7.35s to have 3 volleys impact so the time is no more or less broken than the IAFG's. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15244	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:40:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Mostly my problem with the swarm logic is there is no margin for error on either side. If swarms were more flexible and pilots could actually use buildings to evade as often as not we would have less whining. Did you look at my flight time thing? It's a thought. I think it's better than todays blow your wad NOW meta. The problem with adding a "margin of error" to Swarms is how, and no I haven't seen your flight time idea. Would you mind sending a link? The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
emm kay Direct Action Resources 237	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:49:00 - [40] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 1: Light weapon AV values are all over the map. Swarms are almost 400 DPS ahead of the IAFG and the PLC is one of the lowest applied DPS weapons in DUST. 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 3: Standard and breach forge guns are inferior in application to the Assault Forge Gun in almost every possible way and are poor choices for AV. 4: Lacking Racial parity in both turrets and infantry AV is creating poor interactions allowing one weapon or one chassis to always be clearly superior. 5: Heavy missile turret burst DPS negates any utility armor vehicles might otherwise have. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. I am quite sure there are more issues. Also where there is a good balance struck we need to look at. While we're fixing what is wrong let's not overlook or lose what is right. 1) mildly agree. swarms need less DPS, PLC needs a vehicle buff. 2)don't agree. forge guns are fine because of range. 3) Breach forge guns are fine. they make tanks get a false sense of security. Normal forge guns need a buff. 4)agree 5)not true in the slightest. I runmadrugar all rthe time, and I conswtantly destroy misile tanks, the key is to abuse their turning speed, with your fast turret rotation. 6) missile have highest alpha, rail have slowest turning speed. not hard to counter. unless they're in the redline 7) not true. at point blank, they have the highest dps, and have extrodinary anti infantry abilities. They have supreme tunring speed, and are fine as- is. There is a reason you never see me in battle. it's because I see you first.

DDx77 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 92	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:52:00 - [41] - Quote For swarms: The raw Dps needs to drop. The ability to machinegun missiles is a bit much. My thought is it wasn't the range. Its the rate of fire. Current lock time is base 1.4 modified by skills. Lock can be achieved in 0.85 seconds. That's three shots in under 3 seconds. Faster by far than any alpha weapon. Swarms are a delayed DPS weapon. This means, like in EVE you can literally have all three flights in the air before the first impact. Swarms travel at 60m/sec. They hit 200m in 3.3 seconds. what if 3.3 seconds, the travel time to 200m was it's base lock time with extended lock range? That way you could change the damage values, and the proto lock time would be 2.5 seconds. This would give pilots a chance to react and evade, while giving a swarmer a reason to get close, or alternatively position to be able to volley multiple shots from long range. Damage can be adjusted to keep overall DPS reasonable.[/quote] As a tank hater I would not be against this but I would like either increased ammo supply or further reduced efficiency of the vehicles main blaster An increase in the distance you can get a lock might also balance lower dps
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:59:00 - [42] - Quote Margin of error: a range where the swarms cannot turn. (how i understood it) I'm gonna try to explain this w/o a picture. See a baseball diamond? The swarm is homebase and the angle between 1st and 3rd is the "FOV." If swarms predict movement rather than following (targeting the front of the ship) AND can only turn as far as it's FOV, i believe it's dodgeable (cannot surpass the "error" zone) Now, small tweaks to the FOV and how far it predicts and maybe inertia (tight turning at full speed is impossible) addition... Would be good. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:01:00 - [43] - Quote Breach is not a viable AV weapon by itself. Heavy mods weren't rebuffed solely because of the HMG. Rattati mentioned that once. I should have clarified and said single shot alpha for rails. The burst DPS of the missile turret is beyond excessive. There's no other weapon that can hit 3000+ DPS. And I have yet to encounter any situation in my madrugar where a rail hasn't been the superior option to the blaster to date. Right now the rail is the best all round weapon for heavy turrets. Finally the dispersion for blasters vs. Infantry is horrendous. All of my OP assertions are tested in game and crosschecked with numbers. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:05:00 - [44] - Quote DDx77 wrote: As a tank hater I would not be against this but I would like either increased ammo supply or further reduced efficiency of the vehicles main blaster An increase in the distance you can get a lock might also balance lower dps I don't hate HAVs I hate the drivers. further, nerfing the blaster further only makes it worse at AV, where it remains the worst weapon. Every nerf taken to protect infantry has simultaneously gimped it further vs. Vehicles. And the premise of slowing swarm RoF REQUIRES extending lock range. The tolerances on swarms are too tight to nerf anything without a fundamental rethink on what needs poked at. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:14:00 - [45] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Breach is not a viable AV weapon by itself. If there is an open field (no where for cover perse) the breach is alright. A wyr breach can 1 shot a base armor incubus at armor. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
DRT99 Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:27:00 - [46] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. 2: Heavy weapons are also hamstruck by a pitiful ammo capacity (very noticable for AFGs) and inability to carry nanohives. 6: MLT&STD rails hurting, entry level tanking completely dead due to heat changes, cant kill a bricked tank before overheat. Need to either gang up or use infantry AV and jump out. 7. Possibly rework it into the old railgun, but with approx 40m range? Additional points: Cannot get accurate results from 20gj rails with broken hit detection. Small missiles possibly too strong all around Dodging swarms unreliable, only ever had it had it happen once (they were fired at my LAV from above and infront, hit ground behind me. I felt like a badass)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:34:00 - [47] - Quote Right now dodging swarms is more a matter of circumstance than intent AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 625	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:34:00 - [48] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Breach is not a viable AV weapon by itself. Heavy mods weren't rebuffed solely because of the HMG. Rattati mentioned that once. I should have clarified and said single shot alpha for rails. The burst DPS of the missile turret is beyond excessive. There's no other weapon that can hit 3000+ DPS. And I have yet to encounter any situation in my madrugar where a rail hasn't been the superior option to the blaster to date. Right now the rail is the best all round weapon for heavy turrets. Finally the dispersion for blasters vs. Infantry is horrendous. All of my OP assertions are tested in game and crosschecked with numbers. 1. Missile turret is made for high alpha and the SL in uprising could hit 3k per volley from 6missiles 2. If the missile turret did any less then why pick that over the rail?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:43:00 - [49] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Missile turret is made for high alpha and the SL in uprising could hit 3k per volley from 6missiles 2. If the missile turret did any less then why pick that over the rail? the problem with the missile turret is the high adds vs. armor tanks. You can get close and shotgun an armor tank, a point you have made before and I have experienced firsthand. And the Swarm Launcher from uprising doing 3k a shot ticked me off righteously. It made running a forge gun the idiot option, because easy street was a couple million SP away. Rails being highest single shot Alpha and longest range should have the lowest DPS out of all of the turrets. If Missiles were more between rails and blasters for efficacy we could make a case for the projectiles moving faster so you could hit the targets more accurately further out than a blaster can clip optimally. My problems with heavy turrets are that the Railgun is hands down the most efficient in all situations, and is more likely to kill infantry in blaster optimal than the blaster, and the missile turret can blap any armor tank you can field because 3,000+ DPS not including damage mods, skills or the profile bonus vs. armor. Are there highly skilled blastermobile drivers? Yes, and my hat's off to you. However, until the heavy turrets conform to the standard progression of High alpha = Lower DPS and High DPS meaning lower alpha across the board, HAV vs. HAV fights are going to remain the short, brutal affairs better reserved for those charming times when a scout meets a sentinel. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 634	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:04:00 - [50] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Missile turret is made for high alpha and the SL in uprising could hit 3k per volley from 6missiles 2. If the missile turret did any less then why pick that over the rail? the problem with the missile turret is the high adds vs. armor tanks. You can get close and shotgun an armor tank, a point you have made before and I have experienced firsthand. And the Swarm Launcher from uprising doing 3k a shot ticked me off righteously. It made running a forge gun the idiot option, because easy street was a couple million SP away. Rails being highest single shot Alpha and longest range should have the lowest DPS out of all of the turrets. If Missiles were more between rails and blasters for efficacy we could make a case for the projectiles moving faster so you could hit the targets more accurately further out than a blaster can clip optimally. My problems with heavy turrets are that the Railgun is hands down the most efficient in all situations, and is more likely to kill infantry in blaster optimal than the blaster, and the missile turret can blap any armor tank you can field because 3,000+ DPS not including damage mods, skills or the profile bonus vs. armor. Are there highly skilled blastermobile drivers? Yes, and my hat's off to you. However, until the heavy turrets conform to the standard progression of High alpha = Lower DPS and High DPS meaning lower alpha across the board, HAV vs. HAV fights are going to remain the short, brutal affairs better reserved for those charming times when a scout meets a sentinel. 1. Missiles are explosive as is the SL so it will do damage to armor and poor to shield but due to the number of missiles in the turret it isnt a bad option when engaging shield vehicle due to the amount of damage produced and also that it stops regen - Surpise attack is best for shield 1a. Missiles on there own are 500damage per missile, for full alpha you have to land all missiles to make sure or you run the risk of them either escaping or hitting you 2. FG was mostly ran in PC matches for Uprising due to the ability of covering the objective and sniping infantry, also were used against vehicles when the chance came around to help out any friendly vehicles 3. Rails should be long range but not high alpha - Back in the day you could 2 shot a Sagaris it was that high alpha which leads to twitch shooting and redline rails 4. We had accelerated missile launchers - Due to being missiles you can argue that they should hit to 400m out since the SL can do it, same goes for small missiles too 5. Railgun is best if you are head on or basically closer to the redline - If railgun vehicle is attacked from the side and back then its on borrowed time 5a. The railgun has the accuracy to kill infantry the blaster does not and L missiles need a direct hit on infantry due to 6ft missile causing 0 splash in most cases which is pure BS 5b. The missiles are in a good place, they are an alternative to the railgun but require an alpha strike on an unsuspecting target which requires a good portion if not all the missiles to hit to make sure its gone 6. The railgun can get 4 shots off then overheats but has 300m range terrible tracking 6a. Missiles are 250m but missile travel time 6b. Blaster 50m range but requires to get upclose which is risky and no heat sink to help out

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:09:00 - [51] - Quote Basically IMHO turrets orverall are a clusterf*ck. There's no guiding principle, just a lot of non-consistency. Infantry Av is better laid out and even then from a balance perspective you might as well be using a shotgun to hit a bullseye at 50m. I prefer a more methodical approach to balancing turrets and AV, which is one of the reasons I made the thread. I can do this on my own, easily. I prefer to do it so that everyone gets to have a word in. The only thing I'm really NOT interested in is assumptions that core mechanics can be changed. If Rattati says "I will fix (insert stupid thing here)" then I'm more than happy to account for it. For now this theorycrafting is under the assumption that we're stuck with the mechanics we have. AV
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:09:00 - [52] - Quote Let's assume we gave the SL an increased lock-on-time (~2.5 secs) while increasing lock-on range (~250 m) and adjusting for DPS. Would it then not infringe on the purpose of the FG? Other than that I do think the PLC should be the 0-75 meter AV weapon of choice. For that it mainly needs a direct damage buff of about 30%.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:32:00 - [53] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Let's assume we gave the SL an increased lock-on-time (~2.5 secs) while increasing lock-on range (~250 m) and adjusting for DPS. Would it then not infringe on the purpose of the FG? Other than that I do think the PLC should be the 0-75 meter AV weapon of choice. For that it mainly needs a direct damage buff of about 30%. it never infringed on the purpose of the FG even with 400m range. and no, for swarms to balance out they need to be able to have full lock range in exchange for severely nerfed lock time. otherwise we're waving pissin in the wind. the swarms balance tolerances are far too tight AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:08:00 - [54] - Quote But if swarms have full range, wouldn't that means swarms can control a great distance, rendering an entire 400m sphere vehicle-less? Or am i understanding you wrong breakin? Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:15:00 - [55] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: But if swarms have full range, wouldn't that means swarms can control a great distance, rendering an entire 400m sphere vehicle-less? Or am i understanding you wrong breakin? slower rate of fire means pilots still have more time to react and get to cover. I have a theory about how swarms track, and if I'm right I'm going to facepalm. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:20:00 - [56] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: But if swarms have full range, wouldn't that means swarms can control a great distance, rendering an entire 400m sphere vehicle-less? Or am i understanding you wrong breakin? slower rate of fire means pilots still have more time to react and get to cover. I have a theory about how swarms track, and if I'm right I'm going to facepalm. I kinda understand but, the way rooftop camping is, i must disagree there. It'll be a nightmare to try to get them off the roofs, a swarm proof myron would be the only way. Share your theory? I would like to know what you think if you don't mind. And, is it able to find a way to dodge swarms by any chance? I would want to know your ideas/opinion too Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6716	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:24:00 - [57] - Quote I think swarms update the target's last location based on a timer. So every... we'll say half second it updates the target location. So it bombs along on the last valid trajectory and THEN updates 30m later.so your dropship bolts around a corner where they should turn and ram. But they overshoot and turn the corner because they had not hit their update tick yet. It's a way to save processor speed by not having them update constantly and having swarms eat all of the calculation time. basically to fix tracking the algorithm needs to be reset to always zero in on the target rather than follow it's pathing. so the longer the flight time the more chances a dropship has to get behind something solid AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:35:00 - [58] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think swarms update the target's last location based on a timer. So every... we'll say half second it updates the target location. So it bombs along on the last valid trajectory and THEN updates 30m later.so your dropship bolts around a corner where they should turn and ram. But they overshoot and turn the corner because they had not hit their update tick yet. It's a way to save processor speed by not having them update constantly and having swarms eat all of the calculation time. basically to fix tracking the algorithm needs to be reset to always zero in on the target rather than follow it's pathing. Ah! So what you believe the swarms' location is updated on a thread that sleeps every x milliseconds. I agree based on how jerky the swarms movement becomes (Fly backwards when you get swarmed and you'll see what i mean) Also if you descend straight down the swarms spin above you until the location is updated, and your descent is slower. ^ tl;dr, seems true based on what happens in-game But, why not simply update the location ahead or behind the vehicle based on the velocity towards/away from the swarms? I'm just shoehorning an idea to fix that, i dont know if that solves the issue. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1999	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:41:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I think swarms update the target's last location based on a timer. So every... we'll say half second it updates the target location. So it bombs along on the last valid trajectory and THEN updates 30m later.so your dropship bolts around a corner where they should turn and ram. But they overshoot and turn the corner because they had not hit their update tick yet. It's a way to save processor speed by not having them update constantly and having swarms eat all of the calculation time. basically to fix tracking the algorithm needs to be reset to always zero in on the target rather than follow it's pathing. so the longer the flight time the more chances a dropship has to get behind something solid What about increasing the amount of time it takes for swarms to update and reducing the rate that they turn? Ie make them clumsier. I don't think this would change too much for ground game as it's not terribly hard to get them to smash into cover etc, but it could make worlds of difference for air. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6717	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:57:00 - [60] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I think swarms update the target's last location based on a timer. So every... we'll say half second it updates the target location. So it bombs along on the last valid trajectory and THEN updates 30m later.so your dropship bolts around a corner where they should turn and ram. But they overshoot and turn the corner because they had not hit their update tick yet. It's a way to save processor speed by not having them update constantly and having swarms eat all of the calculation time. basically to fix tracking the algorithm needs to be reset to always zero in on the target rather than follow it's pathing. so the longer the flight time the more chances a dropship has to get behind something solid What about increasing the amount of time it takes for swarms to update and reducing the rate that they turn? Ie make them clumsier. I don't think this would change too much for ground game as it's not terribly hard to get them to smash into cover etc, but it could make worlds of difference for air. if you want to crash them into walls the solution would be to do the exact opposite. AV

Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 61	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:05:00 - [61] - Quote I'm getting on dust now, if you guys would like to squad up/sync against each other for in game data? Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1999	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:06:00 - [62] - Quote I'm talking more about have them zoom by air targets and potentially waste fuel in turning around then coming back to target. there's no real easy guesswork for this though. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 194	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:16:00 - [63] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I'm talking more about have them zoom by air targets and potentially waste fuel in turning around then coming back to target. there's no real easy guesswork for this though. Congrats on that 2000th like I just gave you :) Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1489	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:36:00 - [64] - Quote Although it is out of the scope of your post, HAV/AV "balance" can't be achieved without changing the expectations of vehicle users. If they pay 500K for a vehicle and can only make 150K a match they understandably think that they should rarely be killed. You can't balance around that, they must be OP to achieve that. The price of well fitted vehicles should drop drastically, and they should expect to be roughly equivalent to a proto dropsuit in survivability. Second, the "swarm problem" is less a problem with swarms themselves and more a problem of how easy it is to fit a SL at a SD and then go back to whatever. Remove this ability and only let those in dedicated swarm fits have them and almost all the problems are solved. Increased turn radius for swarms against DS is in order. A small change in profile damage making them more effective against shields and less effective against armor seems like it would help the armor/shield imbalance. Forge guns remain Ok, but with the Gunnloggi being prominent struggles. I personally found that BW eliminated my ability to play forge. I do not camp with the blues, I would set up nests in unlikely spots to ambush vehicles. This is no longer possible. If I play forge I spend the whole match looking for a hive. Small turrets need some love across the board. Large Missile turrets seem to need some toning down. What is needed is some data to look at to see how things are actually performing. Tankers say blasters are useless against infantry now, as infantry it seems to me that they are still overperforming. Who is right? The data knows. Without it we are all just throwing darts with our bias blinders on. Because, that's why.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6721	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:39:00 - [65] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Although it is out of the scope of your post, HAV/AV "balance" can't be achieved without changing the expectations of vehicle users. If they pay 500K for a vehicle and can only make 150K a match they understandably think that they should rarely be killed. You can't balance around that, they must be OP to achieve that. The price of well fitted vehicles should drop drastically, and they should expect to be roughly equivalent to a proto dropsuit in survivability. Second, the "swarm problem" is less a problem with swarms themselves and more a problem of how easy it is to fit a SL at a SD and then go back to whatever. Remove this ability and only let those in dedicated swarm fits have them and almost all the problems are solved. Increased turn radius for swarms against DS is in order. A small change in profile damage making them more effective against shields and less effective against armor seems like it would help the armor/shield imbalance. Forge guns remain Ok, but with the Gunnloggi being prominent struggles. I personally found that BW eliminated my ability to play forge. I do not camp with the blues, I would set up nests in unlikely spots to ambush vehicles. This is no longer possible. If I play forge I spend the whole match looking for a hive. Small turrets need some love across the board. Large Missile turrets seem to need some toning down. What is needed is some data to look at to see how things are actually performing. Tankers say blasters are useless against infantry now, as infantry it seems to me that they are still overperforming. Who is right? The data knows. Without it we are all just throwing darts with our bias blinders on. the BW change didn't affect my ability to assault vehicles even slightly. There's a knack to it, and playing it safe means less fun violence AV
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:44:00 - [66] - Quote As AV goes Assault Swarm Launcher (Longer Lock-on range, Shorter Lock-on Time, Far Less Damage) Swarm Launcher (75 Meter Lock On Range (Might aid in Rendering if they have to get closer), 3 second Lock On time, Slightly less damage. 1000 damage per volley means 3000 damage a Clip. Prof 5 takes this up to around 1200 damage a shot. Minmando gives around 1400 damage. Two Damage Mods at 10% bonus gives 1600 damage. 3 volleys on a fully maxed character Minmando Glass Cannon to kill Repping Ion Madrugars. ) Breach Forge Gun (Keep as current. It can OHK if it hits the vehicle right.) Assault Forge Gun (Keep as Current. Has close to 5000 DPS in the clip. ) Standard Forge Gun (Buff Damage Slightly. 5500 DPS in Clip needed to justify longer charge as well as holding the charge. Or return splash so it can be used vs infantry??) Breach Plasma Cannon Needs to be added Fires like an RPG. No Splash damage, Around 1500 Damage Vs Shields to hurt those Hardener Gunnlogis. Longer Charge Up Time. Plasma Cannon (Leave as is) Blasters need to either have dispersion lowered as a skill, or have a bonus tied to those UHAVs. That way you have a reason to bring one out aside from stronger HP. Rail Guns- Should be able to fire enough kill a tank if they stay at range, Blasters should destroy them up close. Increase Damage Percentage to Shields. Explain why 2 Damage Mods cannot be active on a Blaster, but 3 can be on a Gunnlogi. Missiles- Gankers. The Bane of Armor Tankers. Should have slightly less Range However The turrets really could be fixed if they had their old variants rereleased, and then fixed from 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 6721	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:46:00 - [67] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: I'm getting on dust now, if you guys would like to squad up/sync against each other for in game data? I'm on. go ahead and invite me AV
Kierkegaard Soren Eridani Light Horse Striker 657	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:47:00 - [68] - Quote Regarding swarms: Yes, too easy against dropships of all flavours, although I've seen exceptional pilots hug the ground to make lock ons and sustained barrages impossible, but the level of skill required to pull that off must be astronomical, so we really can't balance swarms around this. I consider the low HP of dropship hulls a part of this issue, but still. Very little skill is required. Very poor against shield tanks. Profficieny is part of the problem here: Swarms do massive bonus damage to armoir hulls, which is why they melt so fast. Against shield tanks you can unload two full clips and still not pick up e WP for damaging them sufficiently. Naturally, poorly fitted tanks will die but for the most part they pretty much shrug off swarms and carry on as normal. Conversely, armour tanks are paper tigers, which makes little sense when you consider that armour is designed to stand and deliver, not stand and fall over and burst into flames. Swarms need a damage profile change. I've argued for a while now that they need to be switched to hybrid-rail, so that the calmandos gets its AV option and, more importantly, so that the imbalance between damage dealt to the two defense types isn't so massively pronounced. Assault swarms should keep the current flight dynamics all swarms do currently, but deal 30% less damage, making them decent against LAVs and dropships but poor against heavier vehicles. Standard swarms should be much slower with a poor turning capability. Dedicated Commando. CEO of Eridani Light Horse Strikers. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6721	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:51:00 - [69] - Quote assault swarms are functionally identical to standard. the only difference is the ability to lock two targets, which is functionally as useful as a football bat. AV spreadsheet has been updated, check the link in my sig, again as a reminder this spreadsheet only has CURRENT Av numbers. There is nothing theoretical in the sheet (yet) so this is all current hard data. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6722	Posted - 2015.01.24 21:25:00 - [70] - Quote Given the numbers I have seen from the mass driver I'm expecting the actual AV numbers for NK and flaylocks to be hilariously bad AV

Kierkegaard Soren Eridani Light Horse Striker 658	Posted - 2015.01.24 21:55:00 - [71] - Quote Nova knives are only good for hurting the feelings of tanks. Dedicated Commando. CEO of Eridani Light Horse Strikers. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1489	Posted - 2015.01.24 22:06:00 - [72] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: Although it is out of the scope of your post, HAV/AV "balance" can't be achieved without changing the expectations of vehicle users. If they pay 500K for a vehicle and can only make 150K a match they understandably think that they should rarely be killed. You can't balance around that, they must be OP to achieve that. The price of well fitted vehicles should drop drastically, and they should expect to be roughly equivalent to a proto dropsuit in survivability. Second, the "swarm problem" is less a problem with swarms themselves and more a problem of how easy it is to fit a SL at a SD and then go back to whatever. Remove this ability and only let those in dedicated swarm fits have them and almost all the problems are solved. Increased turn radius for swarms against DS is in order. A small change in profile damage making them more effective against shields and less effective against armor seems like it would help the armor/shield imbalance. Forge guns remain Ok, but with the Gunnloggi being prominent struggles. I personally found that BW eliminated my ability to play forge. I do not camp with the blues, I would set up nests in unlikely spots to ambush vehicles. This is no longer possible. If I play forge I spend the whole match looking for a hive. Small turrets need some love across the board. Large Missile turrets seem to need some toning down. What is needed is some data to look at to see how things are actually performing. Tankers say blasters are useless against infantry now, as infantry it seems to me that they are still overperforming. Who is right? The data knows. Without it we are all just throwing darts with our bias blinders on. the BW change didn't affect my ability to assault vehicles even slightly. There's a knack to it, and playing it safe means less fun violence I switched to swarms. Which seems to be the cause of many complaints. I don't mean me personally switching but so many doing it. Because, that's why.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6723	Posted - 2015.01.24 22:10:00 - [73] - Quote Meh. F&F is a righteous pain in the rear AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1330	Posted - 2015.01.25 01:04:00 - [74] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: stuff The thing is, despite any amount of theory crafting, no one has been able to predict how the gameplay has worked out in any major chance CCP has done. This is why baby steps is the best thing CCP can do when it comes to balancing at least for things that don't require skill tree changes. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1330	Posted - 2015.01.25 01:31:00 - [75] - Quote By the way Breakin'. If you're looking for any specific information/stats about swarms which isn't in game or in the SDE ask me. Some stuff that would be nice for mathing mLockOnAcquisitionInterruptionTime 0.3 mLockOnAcquisitionTime 1.4 mLockOnLosingAngle 90 mLockOnLosingTime 1 These stats are the same on all variants of swarms. Supa s33kr3t Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6724	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:43:00 - [76] - Quote If you can find tge unlisted shot delay on the PLC I'd appreciate it. And please see if it's duplicated on any other weapon. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1330	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:35:00 - [77] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: If you can find tge unlisted shot delay on the PLC I'd appreciate it. And please see if it's duplicated on any other weapon. So the PLC operation skill modifier modifies m_ChargeInfo.m_fChargeUpTime m_ChargeInfo.m_fChargeUpTime is 0.6 However there are a few other numbers under m_ChargeInfo Quote: "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDamageMultiplierCurve.curveIndex": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDamageMultiplierCurve.m_fMultiplier": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDamageMultiplierCurve.m_fOffset": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDamageMultiplierCurve.maxInValue": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDownCurve.curveIndex": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDownCurve.m_fMultiplier": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDownCurve.m_fOffset": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeDownCurve.maxInValue": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeUpCurve.curveIndex": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeUpCurve.m_fMultiplier": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeUpCurve.m_fOffset": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_ChargeUpCurve.maxInValue": 1 "m_ChargeInfo.m_bChargeOncePerTriggerPress": "False" "m_ChargeInfo.m_bFireOnMinCharge": "True" "m_ChargeInfo.m_eChargeStartType": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_fChargeDownTime": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_fChargeMoveSpeedMult": 0.7 "m_ChargeInfo.m_fChargeUpTime": 0.6 "m_ChargeInfo.m_fMaxChargeHeldTime": 0 "m_ChargeInfo.m_fMinChargeToFire": 1 If CCP doesn't want this posted just edit it out or whatever. e: I think you were talking about the delay between when the projectile fires after the charge up being full. I can't seem to find much other than what I listed. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 345	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:41:00 - [78] - Quote AV is **** and doesnt work, and the AV v V balance makes playing in both roles unfun and boring. But since thats not very constructive Ill just say: Dropships are way too vulnerable to large railgun turrets. Swarm Launchers are not fun to use. Swarm Launchers are not fun to fight against. Plasma Cannon needs a major buff in anti vehicle damage to make it useful. Heavy Turrets (excluding possibly the blaster) do so much damage in such little time that it makes any vehicle v. vehicle engagement incredibly short (unless its all these dumb 8 billion ehp gunnlogi fit of the months everyone is using). The main problem with the breach forge gun is that it requires you to be still, this makes you an easy kill for the thing you are trying to kill, particularly large missile or large rail turrets. The large blaster turret needs the dispersion nerf to be at least partially rolled back. The damage profile debate on AV weapons vs. the overpowered gunnlogi is a red herring, the reality of the situation is the gunnlogi is just straight up way better than the madruger right now, and should be nerfed (10% less hardener effectiveness might be about right, but whatever works is fine by me). Small blaster turret is complete crap right now. Please fix/rework. Small railgun turret has something odd with where the projectile goes vs. where the dot is. Im not sure if it has dispersion or if its always 100% accurate, but even with a completely unmoving vehicle there are big problems with hitting people even when the dot is fully engulfed by the target and red. Hitting with this turret seems entirely random. This should be investigated and fixed. Small missile turrets need to be fixed to never, ever hit the dropship that fired them (Or is that intentional? Seems dumb). Buffing Nova Knife damage to vehicles would make them useful (50-100% more damage would not be out of the question). Since you have to break cover, run up to a vehicle, and slice it up to apply the damage, why isnt it doing more damage? A militia assault dropship would be welcome. Vehicle prices are too high for prototype stuff, this encourages conservative and unfun play. Thats it I guess, Im sure I have more in me but Im bored.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 345	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:50:00 - [79] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Although it is out of the scope of your post, HAV/AV "balance" can't be achieved without changing the expectations of vehicle users. If they pay 500K for a vehicle and can only make 150K a match they understandably think that they should rarely be killed. You can't balance around that, they must be OP to achieve that. The price of well fitted vehicles should drop drastically, and they should expect to be roughly equivalent to a proto dropsuit in survivability. Second, the "swarm problem" is less a problem with swarms themselves and more a problem of how easy it is to fit a SL at a SD and then go back to whatever. Remove this ability and only let those in dedicated swarm fits have them and almost all the problems are solved. Increased turn radius for swarms against DS is in order. A small change in profile damage making them more effective against shields and less effective against armor seems like it would help the armor/shield imbalance. Forge guns remain Ok, but with the Gunnloggi being prominent struggles. I personally found that BW eliminated my ability to play forge. I do not camp with the blues, I would set up nests in unlikely spots to ambush vehicles. This is no longer possible. If I play forge I spend the whole match looking for a hive. Small turrets need some love across the board. Large Missile turrets seem to need some toning down. What is needed is some data to look at to see how things are actually performing. Tankers say blasters are useless against infantry now, as infantry it seems to me that they are still overperforming. Who is right? The data knows. Without it we are all just throwing darts with our bias blinders on. In my tank I generally find it much easier to kill reds with a railgun turret these days. This has risks (its much easier to surprise and kill me with another tank if Im sitting there halfway through a reload after having made a bunch of noise and not really paying enough attention to whatever Im not shooting, but its still much more effective than the new blaster. You can still feather the blaster trigger to avoid alot of the dispersion, but it is significantly harder to hit infantry with it now, and you have to attack them from much closer (leaving you more vunlerable to AV return fire). At the same time its about the worst AV gun there is, lacking in range, damage output, and sustained damage. This turret has no purpose right now, and should be fixed in some way.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 775	Posted - 2015.01.25 09:30:00 - [80] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: By the way Breakin'. If you're looking for any specific information/stats about swarms which isn't in game or in the SDE ask me. Some stuff that would be nice for mathing mLockOnAcquisitionInterruptionTime 0.3 mLockOnAcquisitionTime 1.4 mLockOnLosingAngle 90 mLockOnLosingTime 1 These stats are the same on all variants of swarms. Supa s33kr3t more please? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6736	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:25:00 - [81] - Quote Thundergroove: The 0.5 second delay between shot fired and reload on the PLC. And if there is an iidentical trait on any other weapon. AV
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.25 15:00:00 - [82] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: mLockOnLosingAngle 90 mLockOnLosingTime 1 These stats are the same on all variants of swarms. Supa s33kr3t Thanks for digging this up. Does that mean there's currently a system implemented that could be used to dial back the "Lock an, turn around and shoot in the air"-behavior of Swarms? And it's been there all the time? And could be patched in a hotfix? I'd love to hear some experience from the devs what happens when you set mLockOnLosingAngle to 25-30. ... Some of these mechanics have a hugely detailed design to them. We already saw the in-depth mechanics related to dispersion on hit-scan weapons. I'm starting to think the person who did the design on the FPS mechanics actually knew what he was doing. Except there was no QA-team to dial in the right numbers and thus we have good mechanics with the wrong parameters.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.01.25 18:34:00 - [83] - Quote Since you have access to some variables, do you also have access to some code also? I want to see if Breakin's homing theory is true. To be specific what I'm looking for is a thread that updates the location which sleeps every 'X' milliseconds. And if it is possible to increase the number of iterations the loop structure would go through. (UNSURE IF THIS IS HOW SWARMS WORK, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT) If that can't be seen/can't be posted (unsure if there'll be any legal problems) I understand. ^ if it cannot be seen, is it okay to ask a dev specific questions relating to the code? sorry for the caps, phone is dying and well i'm typing in quick reply * Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1332	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:13:00 - [84] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Thundergroove: The 0.5 second delay between shot fired and reload on the PLC. And if there is an iidentical trait on any other weapon. I'll look again. Roughly 450 attributes and nothing that I found pertaining to that. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1333	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:24:00 - [85] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Does that mean there's currently a system implemented that could be used to dial back the "Lock an, turn around and shoot in the air"-behavior of Swarms? And it's been there all the time? And could be patched in a hotfix? Yes. It's possibly for them to change any of these values at any time. That's what the synchronizations are. Shamarskii Simon wrote: Since you have access to some variables, do you also have access to some code also? I want to see if Breakin's homing theory is true. To be specific what I'm looking for is a thread that updates the location which sleeps every 'X' milliseconds. And if it is possible to increase the number of iterations the loop structure would go through. (UNSURE IF THIS IS HOW SWARMS WORK, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT) If that can't be seen/can't be posted (unsure if there'll be any legal problems) I understand. ^ if it cannot be seen, is it okay to ask a dev specific questions relating to the code? sorry for the caps, phone is dying and well i'm typing in quick reply * I have a bit over 600,000 lines of code which includes some standard libraries. I had to decompile Python bytecode. I won't release anything but I can make sense of it for you if it's there. The thing is, most of the stuff that is in Python is stuff like UI, out of match networking, etc. It looks like all the firing stuff isn't there though, so it's probably implemented elsewhere. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:56:00 - [86] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Since you have access to some variables, do you also have access to some code also? I want to see if Breakin's homing theory is true. To be specific what I'm looking for is a thread that updates the location which sleeps every 'X' milliseconds. And if it is possible to increase the number of iterations the loop structure would go through. (UNSURE IF THIS IS HOW SWARMS WORK, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT) If that can't be seen/can't be posted (unsure if there'll be any legal problems) I understand. ^ if it cannot be seen, is it okay to ask a dev specific questions relating to the code? sorry for the caps, phone is dying and well i'm typing in quick reply * I have a bit over 600,000 lines of code which includes some standard libraries. I had to decompile Python bytecode. I won't release anything but I can make sense of it for you if it's there. The thing is, most of the stuff that is in Python is stuff like UI, out of match networking, etc. It looks like all the firing stuff isn't there though, so it's probably implemented elsewhere. Ah, it's in Python? Sadly I can't pinpoint what i'm looking for then (I've just started to learn Python so I can use Blender). How about some variables? Anything relating to vehicle speed/location? Or Swarm location? I think that's a good place to start. I expect some things to be serverside so I understand if it's an impossible find for some things i might ask for. First understanding the mechanics might be a good starting point, from there i think we as a community can rebuild swarms accordingly... -I know i'm asking for way too much with this one- is there anything like a JAVADOC there also? It could help us understand just what the variable is used for. P.S. i have a good feeling for this topic.. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1333	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:12:00 - [87] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Ah, it's in Python? Sadly I can't pinpoint what i'm looking for then (I've just started to learn Python so I can use Blender). How about some variables? Anything relating to vehicle speed/location? Or Swarm location? I think that's a good place to start. I expect some things to be serverside so I understand if it's an impossible find for some things i might ask for. First understanding the mechanics might be a good starting point, from there i think we as a community can rebuild swarms accordingly... -I know i'm asking for way too much with this one- is there anything like a JAVADOC there also? It could help us understand just what the variable is used for. P.S. i have a good feeling for this topic.. It's probably documented on their end, but it's decompiled bytecode so there's no comments. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.01.25 20:29:00 - [88] - Quote Ah, thanks for the info. I'll consult you whenever i need a variable / line check. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:22:00 - [89] - Quote A quick idea just came to mind. Why not give small blasters a 77/63 (the old rails' damage profile against vehicles) profile against vehicles. It's damage is already too low to break recharge but, it can give better combat support in the sense of AV. Rail = 90s/110a vehicle : 63s/77a infantry Missile = 79s/119a Blaster = 77s/63a vehicle : 110s/90a infantry This will cause: Rail - Superior AV capabilities, best at vehicle combat support. Some infantry support ability. Missile - the bridge between AV and AI, equally effective. Blaster - Superior AI capabilities, best at infantry combat support. Some vehicle support ability. Well, after hit detection on infantry is fixed. (Thunder that's your queue) I know hit detection is dealt with serverside but can you show some blaster variables that we can analyze? I Appreciate it!! Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1333	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:35:00 - [90] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: A quick idea just came to mind. Why not give small blasters a 77/63 (the old rails' damage profile against vehicles) profile against vehicles. It's damage is already too low to break recharge but, it can give better combat support in the sense of AV. Rail = 90s/110a vehicle : 63s/77a infantry Missile = 79s/119a Blaster = 77s/63a vehicle : 110s/90a infantry This will cause: Rail - Superior AV capabilities, best at vehicle combat support. Some infantry support ability. Missile - the bridge between AV and AI, equally effective. Blaster - Superior AI capabilities, best at infantry combat support. Some vehicle support ability. Well, after hit detection on infantry is fixed. (Thunder that's your queue) I know hit detection is dealt with serverside but can you show some blaster variables that we can analyze? I Appreciate it!! Welp 80GJ Ion Cannon wrote: "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxOffsetAngle": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxShootAtTimeAccuracy": 1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxStationaryAccuracy": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMinOffsetAngle": 0.12, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fNewOffsetInterval": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fNoiseConstant": 0.1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fPitchOffsetScalar": 0.1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fShotTimeTillAccurate": 8, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fStationaryDecay": 50, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fStationaryTimeTillAccurate": 8, I did find some interesting things that look like they tweak turret AI, so it seams installations use the turrets types for stats. Nifty. Other stuff too like overlay colors/alpha/positions. Attack/Defend order score bonus radius. Draw distances, even WP rewards. Soo much stuff CCP can easily tweak. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 166	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:55:00 - [91] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: A quick idea just came to mind. Why not give small blasters a 77/63 (the old rails' damage profile against vehicles) profile against vehicles. It's damage is already too low to break recharge but, it can give better combat support in the sense of AV. Rail = 90s/110a vehicle : 63s/77a infantry Missile = 79s/119a Blaster = 77s/63a vehicle : 110s/90a infantry This will cause: Rail - Superior AV capabilities, best at vehicle combat support. Some infantry support ability. Missile - the bridge between AV and AI, equally effective. Blaster - Superior AI capabilities, best at infantry combat support. Some vehicle support ability. Well, after hit detection on infantry is fixed. (Thunder that's your queue) I know hit detection is dealt with serverside but can you show some blaster variables that we can analyze? I Appreciate it!! Welp 80GJ Ion Cannon wrote: "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxOffsetAngle": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxShootAtTimeAccuracy": 1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMaxStationaryAccuracy": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fMinOffsetAngle": 0.12, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fNewOffsetInterval": 2, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fNoiseConstant": 0.1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fPitchOffsetScalar": 0.1, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fShotTimeTillAccurate": 8, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fStationaryDecay": 50, "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fStationaryTimeTillAccurate": 8, I did find some interesting things that look like they tweak turret AI, so it seams installations use the turrets types for stats. Nifty. Other stuff too like overlay colors/alpha/positions. Attack/Defend order score bonus radius. Draw distances, even WP rewards. Soo much stuff CCP can easily tweak. any chance you can find projectile velocities for Missile Turrets, Forge Guns, and Large Railguns? oh, and swarm launchers Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1333	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:30:00 - [92] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: any chance you can find projectile velocities for Missile Turrets, Forge Guns, and Large Railguns? oh, and swarm launchers I actually have my tool for analyzing export data running at the moment looking for changes in between recent hotfixes. I'll edit this post with any findings with velocities Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:27:00 - [93] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: any chance you can find projectile velocities for Missile Turrets, Forge Guns, and Large Railguns? oh, and swarm launchers I actually have my tool for analyzing export data running at the moment looking for changes in between recent hotfixes. I'll edit this post with any findings with velocities e: Having the same issues when the SDE first came out, where types don't list the entities they use for projectiles. Dumping a list of all things in the Entity class for anything of value. If you manage to find the difference blasters went through, we can "tweak" small blasters till it's "better" on paper. And! You did say User Interface is in the .py right? A quick way to understand some variables is to see what info is displayed when someone goes over the weapon. I'll take some time after my exam to try and understand the large blaster variables. What if large blasters' worked with small blasters' version of dispertion? I'm guessing -> "m_AccuracyProperties.m_fStationaryDecay": 50, -> might be dispertion Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
rasputin900000 Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:56:00 - [94] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. Swarms be been broken since the nerf, 1 you can't lock on say a rail tank he out ranges you as well with any tank that wants too they can. Drop ships have the ability to stay out of range with altitude, if you're "getting hammered" you probably should look at your modules there are several tankers and ads pilots that have no problems surviving if not your modules it could be that you're situational awareness isn't as good as you think. My forge and swarms are maxed and lots of vehicles get away because of the lock on range and times on the swarms if they need anything it would be more range and quicker lock on times. The missile travel limit is OK as it is they shouldn't be able to chase you forever across the map. Most vehicles that are killed all have the same thing in common "greed" they overstay their welcome trying to get kills they should've passed up. F-22 raptors are some of the best attack aircraft in the world but the pilots don't hang around trying to kill 1 more guy, Abrams drivers don't for the most part drive into 20 enemies without some kind of troop support to back them up either if they did they would most likely "get hammered" too.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6762	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:54:00 - [95] - Quote I think you're missing my intent on the swarms. I'm not advocating a blanket nerf. I'm advocating a rethink on how we use their existing mechanics. I think we can do better than giving a three second kill window overall. Unfortunately any attempt to nerf anything with the current lock range limit will render swarms untenable unless fired en masse. And bluntly I don't accept any argument based on "well it's unfair because three of them can gang up on me" as valid, so while I dislike the current mechanics, unless we find a better balance fulcrum they have to stay as-is. AV
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1918	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:58:00 - [96] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Thundergroove: The 0.5 second delay between shot fired and reload on the PLC. And if there is an iidentical trait on any other weapon. I'll look again. Roughly 450 attributes and nothing that I found pertaining to that. there does not have to be an attribute, it can be simply hardcoded because of reasons... and there definately is a lock after after firing. the swarm launcher had this long time ago too.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6765	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:24:00 - [97] - Quote If it's hardcoded then it cannot be hotfixed. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 65	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:23:00 - [98] - Quote If it's hardcoded, i hope they (CCP) used a constant. If they used code conventions you'll see a constant (ALL CAPS) at declaration. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6766	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:31:00 - [99] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: If it's hardcoded, i hope they (CCP) used a constant. If they used code conventions you'll see a constant (ALL CAPS) at declaration. You nerds have exceeded my nerd knowledge threshold. You should feel bad. But if you find it let me know. AV
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:33:00 - [100] - Quote Not sure why people are buttmad about the ability to lock on, then turn and shoot the swarms. If you have used swarms for more than a total of half a minute you'd know that its absolutely vital to be able to do this to direct the swarms around pipes, rails, walls, etc that are around the swarm user, otherwise swarms wouldnt be useful because half their damage would always go straight into the walls around whoever is firing them. Crazy Idea To Balance Swarms vs. Dropships: What if we imagine dropships (I dont care about tanks, **** tanks, they are fine vs. swarms as is) have some kind of passive anti lock system that prevents more than 4-6 swarm missiles at a time from being locked on? STICK WITH ME HERE. This means that the current balance of "if you gtfo immediately you will probably survive" vs. one swarm launcher is preserved, but it helps get rid of the situation where 2-3 swarmers all fire on you at the same time and you are screwed, and theres nothing you can do (which sucks and only really happens due to the near guaranteed hit factor on the first one or two volleys fired). This means some other form of AV would be required to ensure a kill, and it would have to be a "skill based" AV type.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6768	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:48:00 - [101] - Quote Haye to say it, but that's not a solution unless it comes in the form of an active module. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 65	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:12:00 - [102] - Quote The most i can hope for is dodgable swarms. Same speed, looser turning radius (80 degrees is still too high... 65-50 degrees is my guess.) and, a few other things... Like inertia. But start inertia, turning circle next Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Stupid Blueberry Pure Evil. Capital Punishment. 973	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:46:00 - [103] - Quote Haven't read the whole thread yet but I want to talk about doing something to the standard forge variant to give people a reason to use it over assault. I was thinking maybe let people actually store a charge without holding r1? Faster projectile speed? Something, I dunno. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Haajakin Kalen. Blueberry smokin' that crack y'all
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6769	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:59:00 - [104] - Quote Stupid Blueberry wrote: Haven't read the whole thread yet but I want to talk about doing something to the standard forge variant to give people a reason to use it over assault. I was thinking maybe let people actually store a charge without holding r1? Faster projectile speed? Something, I dunno. working on it. I'll spring my ideas on Rattati once I get a feel for how powerful the new HAVs are going to be AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 65	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:59:00 - [105] - Quote The assault forge gun should be weaker than the standard version. I understand it's not a big difference but... It's an assault weapon (lower damage, higher rof) it shouldn't be both stronger and quicker charge. That's just a thought though. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6769	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:04:00 - [106] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: The assault forge gun should be weaker than the standard version. I understand it's not a big difference but... It's an assault weapon (lower damage, higher rof) it shouldn't be both stronger and quicker charge. That's just a thought though. Actually I wanted to set the alpha strike of the standard directly between the breach and assault. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 65	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:19:00 - [107] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The assault forge gun should be weaker than the standard version. I understand it's not a big difference but... It's an assault weapon (lower damage, higher rof) it shouldn't be both stronger and quicker charge. That's just a thought though. Actually I wanted to set the alpha strike of the standard directly between the breach and assault. Works out. In the sense of stronger tanks, does that mean stronger dropships? in the sense of slots, ehp or both? Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5673	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:19:00 - [108] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. Agreed. The damage on them seems fine, but you can throw out that damage at a psychopathic rate. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 429	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:00:00 - [109] - Quote I have wanted dropships to be able to scrub swarms since I first took to the sky. I still wish I could do this and have lots of ideas on how to implement it. The truth, though, is that at best, only something moving the speed of a jet should be able to scrub a homer. I haven't given up on jets and the future of Dust/Legion so making dropships able to scrub swarms now does seem like we'd be ruining things for later. Even so, here is an idea on changing swarms to work in a less artificial fashion: Give swarms fuel instead of max flight range. When Swarms change their angle at "x milliseconds", force them to lose extra fuel and most importantly, lose speed based on the sharpness of the direction change. Extreme angles costing more fuel and more loss of speed. The speed can then progress back towards maximum at their normal acceleration rate. When swarms run out of fuel they pop. I would also point out this would do VERY LITTLE for tanks vs swarms, as they wouldn't often be able to create situations where any of this mattered. I also noticed THUNDERGROOVE that your data dump shows swarms still have a 90 degree turning before losing lock. I thought this was changed to 70 degrees in the last balancement pass on swarms? What happened?
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1335	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:28:00 - [110] - Quote To clarify, the data I'm getting is from a serialized Python object which I used CCP's internal script which ships with DUST for whatever reason which is modified to export everything to the SDE instead of just what they want to export. I then use the database file with my custom tool to get attributes easier. As for the stuff with projectile velocities, I gave up after letting it run for 2000 individual entities to try to find the typeID. When I get time, I'll re-write the method to make it faster and more memory efficient. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6783	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:16:00 - [111] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The assault forge gun should be weaker than the standard version. I understand it's not a big difference but... It's an assault weapon (lower damage, higher rof) it shouldn't be both stronger and quicker charge. That's just a thought though. Actually I wanted to set the alpha strike of the standard directly between the breach and assault. Works out. In the sense of stronger tanks, does that mean stronger dropships? in the sense of slots, ehp or both? too early to tell. if HAVs get buffed to where AV has to spike up to counter then yeah dropships will natively have to follow. If HAVs get properly unf***ed then we have a solid basis to iterate dropships into the system. But until I see the final numbers on HAVs? It's all a giant guessing game. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 66	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:27:00 - [112] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: To clarify, the data I'm getting is from a serialized Python object which I used CCP's internal script which ships with DUST for whatever reason which is modified to export everything to the SDE instead of just what they want to export. I then use the database file with my custom tool to get attributes easier. As for the stuff with projectile velocities, I gave up after letting it run for 2000 individual entities to try to find the typeID. When I get time, I'll re-write the method to make it faster and more memory efficient. Good luck! Would help if i knew Python at all. So the order we looking at is this: PLC, Swarm, forge > large turrets, HAVs >> DS > ADS, small turrets >> LAVs? If that made any sense. I'll talk to some people in 1st Airborne for some swarm suggestions, i'll post about the fair/viable ones. Later i'll make a mega post with other peoples' opinion/ideas (i.e when i get on a computer) Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2133	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:45:00 - [113] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. Somebody break out a stopwatch and a youtube clip, I've ran swarms since closed beta and I've not been able to fire swarms that fast since pre 1.7..... when did this happen? Because when I fire, at all maxed swarm skills, it's nearly 2 seconds just to lock, then you have to wait about 1.5 seconds before you can lock again. If you press the lock button again too fast it does nothing. You know I've been behind you on AV since we used to bash balance over Mr. Zitro's head daily, but 3 shots in under 3.5 seconds? ....lets just say I've personally not managed that stat on the best of days.... Do you have a video of this feat? 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.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1335	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:55:00 - [114] - Quote Scan Resolution would be a nice way to balance swarms against different targets, maybe? Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6789	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:29:00 - [115] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. Somebody break out a stopwatch and a youtube clip, I've ran swarms since closed beta and I've not been able to fire swarms that fast since pre 1.7..... when did this happen? Because when I fire, at all maxed swarm skills, it's nearly 2 seconds just to lock, then you have to wait about 1.5 seconds before you can lock again. If you press the lock button again too fast it does nothing. You know I've been behind you on AV since we used to bash balance over Mr. Zitro's head daily, but 3 shots in under 3.5 seconds? ....lets just say I've personally not managed that stat on the best of days.... Do you have a video of this feat? Ok 3.15 exactly according to the math with level 5 swarms. The weird little shot delay at the back end of the PLC was apparently removed from swarms. It's a full second delay on the forge hilariously AV
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:28:00 - [116] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. Somebody break out a stopwatch and a youtube clip, I've ran swarms since closed beta and I've not been able to fire swarms that fast since pre 1.7..... when did this happen? Because when I fire, at all maxed swarm skills, it's nearly 2 seconds just to lock, then you have to wait about 1.5 seconds before you can lock again. If you press the lock button again too fast it does nothing. You know I've been behind you on AV since we used to bash balance over Mr. Zitro's head daily, but 3 shots in under 3.5 seconds? ....lets just say I've personally not managed that stat on the best of days.... Do you have a video of this feat? Ok 3.15 exactly according to the math with level 5 swarms. The weird little shot delay at the back end of the PLC was apparently removed from swarms. It's a full second delay on the forge hilariously Does the math include the time you are releasing a volley and the down time it takes before you can make a lock again? I trust your math, but I'm not sure it's all inclusive. I will be testing this later just to be sure. 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 6799	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:01:00 - [117] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Does the math include the time you are releasing a volley and the down time it takes before you can make a lock again? I trust your math, but I'm not sure it's all inclusive. I will be testing this later just to be sure. What you are talking about is the refire delay I was talking about. I can't find it. We've found the values for the PLC and the forge gun, but cannot locate any of the others as yet. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1337	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:01:00 - [118] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: more please? What are you interested in? I gave out pretty much everything currently not exported in the public SDE and also is relevant to the type itself. There are other stuff like bullet magnetism, AA and aim friction(adhesion) but really don't feel comfortable dropping that stuff out there considering some of the stuff that might get stirred up Oh and it's not that relevant to the topic at hand. Looks like there's a few attributes left over from when swarms were dumb fire. Oh ejection angles of the swarms. Quote: "mEjectHorizontalAngle": 16384, "mEjectVerticalAngle": 5000, As for the swarm launcher projectile Quote: Opened DB with version debug Name: 'prj_swarmlauncher_std' \| 353038 { "typeId": 353038, "typeName": "prj_swarmlauncher_std", "attributes": { "NetCullDistanceSquared": 2.5e+09, "mArcHeight.0": 1000, "mArcHeight.1": 1000, "mArmDelay": 0, "mBounces": 0, "mConstantTrackingTimer": 0.2, "mDispertionAngle.0": 0, "mDispertionAngle.1": 0, "mEjectVelocity": 40, "mFlightVfxParameter.floatValue": 0, "mIgnitionTriggerDistance": 30000, "mKillRange": 500, "mLaunchLength.0": 10, "mLaunchLength.1": 10, "mMaxRotationSpeed": 12743, "mMeshScale": 0.5, "mMissileKillRange": 100, "mPathMode.0": 1, "mPathMode.1": 1, "mProjProp.accelRate": 1200, "mProjProp.damageDecay": 10, "mProjProp.damageRadius": 100, "mProjProp.damageType": 351771, "mProjProp.directHitDamage": 260, "mProjProp.explodeByTouch": "True", "mProjProp.explosionMomentum": 500, "mProjProp.explosionType": 354592, "mProjProp.gravityScale": 0, "mProjProp.initSpeed": 500, "mProjProp.maxRange": 40000, "mProjProp.maxSpeed": 6500, "mProjProp.minimumDamage": 0, "mProjProp.occludedSplashDamage": "True", "mProjProp.projectileLifeSpan": 9, "mProjProp.splashDamage": 19, "mProjProp.splashDamageType": 351772, "mRandomModPercent.0": 0.1, "mRandomModPercent.1": 0.1, "mSounds.0.isDummyOneShot": "False", "mSounds.0.isLocal": "False", "mSounds.1.isDummyOneShot": "False", "mSounds.1.isLocal": "False", "mSounds.2.isDummyOneShot": "False", "mSounds.2.isLocal": "False", "mSpeedAfterIgnition": 6000, "mSpiralFactor.0": 0.5, "mSpiralFactor.1": 0.1, "mSplashDamage.curveIndex": 0, "mSplashDamage.m_fMultiplier": 1, "mSplashDamage.m_fOffset": 0, "mSplashDamage.maxInValue": 1, "mSpread.0": 1000, "mSpread.1": 1000, "mTeleportingTime": 5, "mTracing": "True", "mTrackDelay": 0.8, "mTrackTurningSpeed.0": 800, "mTrackTurningSpeed.1": 800, "tag.0": 353512, "tag.1": 354887 } } Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Text Grant PIanet Express Smart Deploy 387	Posted - 2015.01.28 03:08:00 - [119] - Quote The assault swarm launcher is pointless, and should be given a different buff instead of locking on to multiple targets. There is never a need to half your DPS. Instead a faster lock on, or a longer lock on range would be appreciated.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1338	Posted - 2015.01.28 07:18:00 - [120] - Quote Text Grant wrote: The assault swarm launcher is pointless, and should be given a different buff instead of locking on to multiple targets. There is never a need to half your DPS. Instead a faster lock on, or a longer lock on range would be appreciated. I'm more partial to removing it. It's just another stupid thing for CCP to "balance" Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.

Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.28 09:29:00 - [121] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Does the math include the time you are releasing a volley and the down time it takes before you can make a lock again? I trust your math, but I'm not sure it's all inclusive. I will be testing this later just to be sure. What you are talking about is the refire delay I was talking about. I can't find it. We've found the values for the PLC and the forge gun, but cannot locate any of the others as yet. I'm not certain of the exact value either, but my partner and I just finished recording a video for this. Our best attempt at firing them as fast as we could begins: (exact times pulled from the video editor) 01:36:00 Start first lock 01:37:73 First lock complete 01:38:60 First swarm finishes firing 01:40:93 Second lock completes 01:41:63 Second swarm finishes firing 01:44:53 Third lock completes 01:45:47 Third swarm finishes firing This was at 170ish meters. Between the start of the first lock and firing the last lock is a lot more time than 3.15 seconds. In fact, it takes longer than 3.15 seconds from the start of the first lock to the end of the second lock. Even without the milisecond data from the editor you can easily tell that it takes longer than 3.15 seconds to even lock the second volley, let alone lock and fire the two shots. Also, my partner shooting at me in this video has Prof. 4 swarms and was using a STD 'Dren' swarm launcher with no damage mods, and the tank I'm in is a MLT Soma with 2 MLT BPO heavy armor repairs, a MLT scanner and a MLT fuel injector if you are curious about the damage I was taking. I would also like to note that the poor blue who's dropship was killed in this video at just after 2:50 (and who later attacked my partner once or twice) was sent 2 million ISK for his trouble. Lastly, my partner wishes to apologize for the video quality. And she say's if you don't like it, 'Up yours'. 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 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:36:00 - [122] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Does the math include the time you are releasing a volley and the down time it takes before you can make a lock again? I trust your math, but I'm not sure it's all inclusive. I will be testing this later just to be sure. What you are talking about is the refire delay I was talking about. I can't find it. We've found the values for the PLC and the forge gun, but cannot locate any of the others as yet. I'm not certain of the exact value either, but my partner and I just finished recording a video for this. Our best attempt at firing them as fast as we could begins: (exact times pulled from the video editor) 01:36:00 Start first lock 01:37:73 First lock complete 01:38:60 First swarm finishes firing 01:40:93 Second lock completes 01:41:63 Second swarm finishes firing 01:44:53 Third lock completes 01:45:47 Third swarm finishes firing This was at 170ish meters. Between the start of the first lock and firing the last lock is a lot more time than 3.15 seconds. In fact, it takes longer than 3.15 seconds from the start of the first lock to the end of the second lock. Even without the milisecond data from the editor you can easily tell that it takes longer than 3.15 seconds to even lock the second volley, let alone lock and fire the two shots. Also, my partner shooting at me in this video has Prof. 4 swarms and was using a STD 'Dren' swarm launcher with no damage mods, and the tank I'm in is a MLT Soma with 2 MLT BPO heavy armor repairs, a MLT scanner and a MLT fuel injector if you are curious about the damage I was taking. I would also like to note that the poor blue who's dropship was killed in this video at just after 2:50 (and who later attacked my partner once or twice) was sent 2 million ISK for his trouble. Lastly, my partner wishes to apologize for the video quality. And she say's if you don't like it, 'Up yours'. which swarm launcher are you using? The Wiyrkomi Swarm Launcher or the Wiyrkomi Specialist Swarm Launcher? The wiyrkomi specialist is identical in all ways except it has a longer lock time at 1.96 then combined with a 0.3 second refire delay penalty that isn't documented for a baseline fire time of 2.26, of which only 1.96 is counted for the lock reduction skill. AV
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:44:00 - [123] - Quote If you watch when she gets ammo from her hive, it's a STD 'Dren' swarm launcher. (mentioned this when writing my partners swarm levels, 3 paragraphs from the end) 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.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.28 10:58:00 - [124] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Does the math include the time you are releasing a volley and the down time it takes before you can make a lock again? I trust your math, but I'm not sure it's all inclusive. I will be testing this later just to be sure. What you are talking about is the refire delay I was talking about. I can't find it. We've found the values for the PLC and the forge gun, but cannot locate any of the others as yet. I'm not certain of the exact value either, but my partner and I just finished recording a video for this. Our best attempt at firing them as fast as we could begins: (exact times pulled from the video editor) 01:36:00 Start first lock 01:37:73 First lock complete 01:38:60 First swarm finishes firing 01:40:93 Second lock completes 01:41:63 Second swarm finishes firing 01:44:53 Third lock completes 01:45:47 Third swarm finishes firing This was at 170ish meters. Between the start of the first lock and firing the last lock is a lot more time than 3.15 seconds. In fact, it takes longer than 3.15 seconds from the start of the first lock to the end of the second lock. Even without the milisecond data from the editor you can easily tell that it takes longer than 3.15 seconds to even lock the second volley, let alone lock and fire the two shots. Also, my partner shooting at me in this video has Prof. 4 swarms and was using a STD 'Dren' swarm launcher with no damage mods, and the tank I'm in is a MLT Soma with 2 MLT BPO heavy armor repairs, a MLT scanner and a MLT fuel injector if you are curious about the damage I was taking. I would also like to note that the poor blue who's dropship was killed in this video at just after 2:50 (and who later attacked my partner once or twice) was sent 2 million ISK for his trouble. Lastly, my partner wishes to apologize for the video quality. And she say's if you don't like it, 'Up yours'. which swarm launcher are you using? The Wiyrkomi Swarm Launcher or the Wiyrkomi Specialist Swarm Launcher? The wiyrkomi specialist is identical in all ways except it has a longer lock time at 1.96 then combined with a 0.3 second refire delay penalty that isn't documented for a baseline fire time of 2.26, of which only 1.96 is counted for the lock reduction skill. Ok dren. What was her swarm skill? Because at level 5 swarms are supposed to get a 25% reduction to lock time. If she's unskilled then yes, you're floating right around the baseline lock time. which for the dren is 1.4 I believe. In the same paragraph I mentioned her swarm type, I said she has Prof. 4 swarms. Though the skill may say it gives a 25% reduction, it's not exactly noticeable as you can see. 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.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.28 11:10:00 - [125] - Quote Basically if you knock off the last 0.47 seconds, call it a margin for human error if you like, you still take 9 seconds from the start of the first lock to when the last swarm leaves the barrel. That's still well over 2 times as long as the proposed 3.15, and it's just over 3 times as long if you don't knock off that last 0.47s. Non variant swarms, OP 5. Also note how even though I'm still a huge target in plain view in that tank, an easy target for a forge or even a PLC if I don't move, 3 steps back and you can't even lock anymore. 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.
Text Grant PIanet Express Smart Deploy 387	Posted - 2015.01.28 11:41:00 - [126] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Text Grant wrote: The assault swarm launcher is pointless, and should be given a different buff instead of locking on to multiple targets. There is never a need to half your DPS. Instead a faster lock on, or a longer lock on range would be appreciated. I'm more partial to removing it. It's just another stupid thing for CCP to "balance" It would be a huge disappointment if CCP started removing content again to "balance"
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6824	Posted - 2015.01.28 11:49:00 - [127] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Basically if you knock off the last 0.47 seconds, call it a margin for human error if you like, you still take 9 seconds from the start of the first lock to when the last swarm leaves the barrel. That's still well over 2 times as long as the proposed 3.15, and it's just over 3 times as long if you don't knock off that last 0.47s. Non variant swarms, OP 5. Also note how even though I'm still a huge target in plain view in that tank, an easy target for a forge or even a PLC if I don't move, 3 steps back and you can't even lock anymore. yeah I know, something is fishy with the numbers here AV
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2138	Posted - 2015.01.28 12:19:00 - [128] - Quote Agreed. Mathematically they are busted, but in practice they function very differently. Heading to work, I'll check back in later. 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.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1962	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:35:00 - [129] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: yeah I know, something is fishy with the numbers here there is nothing fishy, most pilots are just whiny wimps exaggerating. with fire interval, burst interval, lock on delay (not lock on time which is also additionally to that) you will at best fire a volley per 2,55s and that is not accounting any UI delays we currently have. that is 489 base dps with proto swarms before reload and 326 base dps factoring in reload. his video shows it perfectly how reality is vs the blurred vision of whiny pilots. in comparision: PLC has 0.5s fire interval additionally to charge up. with max reload skill and proto PLC that would be ~294 base dps. forge guns has 480 dps without reload and 365 dps with reload. it appears to have no fire interval at all, only charge up. in short: swarms are currently, performance wise, in line with all other AV options we have
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6825	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:17:00 - [130] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: yeah I know, something is fishy with the numbers here there is nothing fishy, most pilots are just whiny wimps exaggerating. with fire interval, burst interval, lock on delay (not lock on time which is also additionally to that) you will at best fire a volley per 2,55s and that is not accounting any UI delays we currently have. that is 489 base dps with proto swarms before reload and 326 base dps factoring in reload. his video shows it perfectly how reality is vs the blurred vision of whiny pilots. in comparision: PLC has 0.5s fire interval additionally to charge up. with max reload skill and proto PLC that would be ~294 base dps. forge guns has 480 dps without reload and 365 dps with reload. it appears to have no fire interval at all, only charge up. in short: swarms are currently, performance wise, in line with all other AV options we have they have a 1 second fire interval for forges. AV

Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1965	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:41:00 - [131] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Jack McReady wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: yeah I know, something is fishy with the numbers here there is nothing fishy, most pilots are just whiny wimps exaggerating. with fire interval, burst interval, lock on delay (not lock on time which is also additionally to that) you will at best fire a volley per 2,55s and that is not accounting any UI delays we currently have. that is 489 base dps with proto swarms before reload and 326 base dps factoring in reload. his video shows it perfectly how reality is vs the blurred vision of whiny pilots. in comparision: PLC has 0.5s fire interval additionally to charge up. with max reload skill and proto PLC that would be ~294 base dps. forge guns has 480 dps without reload and 365 dps with reload. it appears to have no fire interval at all, only charge up. in short: swarms are currently, performance wise, in line with all other AV options we have they have a 1 second fire interval for forges. my bad but that is still 360 dps without reload for the regular forge. there is still the option for the assault forge which has higher dps. this thing is still a beast considering the amount of shots per reload and range coupled with the alpha and AI capabilities. I also think one second doesnt change the fact that swarms are not the powerful as the pilot wimps are claiming.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1345	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:22:00 - [132] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: my bad but that is still 360 dps without reload for the regular forge. there is still the option for the assault forge which has higher dps. this thing is still a beast considering the amount of shots per reload and range coupled with the alpha and AI capabilities. imho this doesnt change the fact that swarms are not as powerful as the pilot wimps are claiming. It takes only three volleys of proficiency two prototype swarms to kill a complex 60mm plated Incubus. You don't even know they're coming until the first hits, because they don't render. Forges may be good, but swarms are the lazy mans AV and should be balanced as such. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2140	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:11:00 - [133] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Jack McReady wrote: my bad but that is still 360 dps without reload for the regular forge. there is still the option for the assault forge which has higher dps. this thing is still a beast considering the amount of shots per reload and range coupled with the alpha and AI capabilities. imho this doesnt change the fact that swarms are not as powerful as the pilot wimps are claiming. It takes only three volleys of proficiency two prototype swarms to kill a complex 60mm plated Incubus. You don't even know they're coming until the first hits, because they don't render. Forges may be good, but swarms are the lazy mans AV and should be balanced as such. My partner just fitted an incubus with approximately the health of a complex plate (2 basic plates equipped, meaning it has 86 more eHP than your ship with a single complex armor mod) and an armor hardner and I hopped into it while my Prof. 4 swarm partner shot at it. Here's the ship's stats and here's her swarm fitting at the time. And just for you, here's the video. You'll notice that not only did I survive 3 volleys, I survived with 397 HP. Which means your ship should have survived with 311 armor. And if you say 'but you were using a hardner'.... then you obviously don't know much about flying a dropship. Also note that I was just chilling out taking the hits, I had plenty of time to out range them but I did not. And if I were specced into them (I have 0 SP in vehicles) or had a better fitted ship, or even if I could have fit an armor repair, there would have been very little reason for me to have died when caught in this scenario. Edit: Not trying to imply the armor vehicles, or even dropships, are in a good place. Just straightening out facts you had distorted. 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.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2032	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:25:00 - [134] - Quote ^if you had dropped the hardener for a rep you wouldn't have lived, you were also aware that there would be inconing fire and were probably at a range where you could have broken lock via range. These situations seldom happen for ads because hovering at 170m means were not actually doing our jobs, we need to get much closer in order to do things like remove uplinks or support squadmates. Being blindsided by swarms at 70m will usually mean there's already a second volley in the air and a third locking. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2140	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:35:00 - [135] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^if you had dropped the hardener for a rep you wouldn't have lived, you were also aware that there would be inconing fire and were probably at a range where you could have broken lock via range. These situations seldom happen for ads because hovering at 170m means were not actually doing our jobs, we need to get much closer in order to do things like remove uplinks or support squadmates. Being blindsided by swarms at 70m will usually mean there's already a second volley in the air and a third locking. The video was 34 seconds long, if you want to claim something about it, watch it. Also, it was at approximately 94 meters, and if she were specced into dropships it would have been fitted with a complex plate, an armor rep AND a hardner, so you point on that is a bit moot. Lastly this video was made to disprove that you could kill a complex armor modded Incubus at Prof. 2 swarms with only 3 volleys. Not that my Prof. 4 swarm partner could kill an unhardened Incubus with only 3 volleys. As I said before, we were disproving a point, not making one about the state of the vehicles. If you have any other outrageous claims to make though, we are happy to test them for you. (Whether the result is good or bad for AV I might add. ) 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.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2032	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:16:00 - [136] - Quote ^unable to watch from phone currently Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 931	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:22:00 - [137] - Quote Thanks for the playtesting and footage. It really helps giving those spreadsheets a proper foundation. I sometimes tend to get caught up in numbers myself - and there's only a limited time available for trying out different roles.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2141	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:28:00 - [138] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Thanks for the playtesting and footage. It really helps giving those spreadsheets a proper foundation. I sometimes tend to get caught up in numbers myself - and there's only a limited time available for trying out different roles. We are more than happy to show any inaccuracies in a persons statements on video, and if that helps show you a role better, we are happy to help. 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.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2142	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:48:00 - [139] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^unable to watch from phone currently Ah, sorry for the remark then. I do believe my point still stands though. As does my offer 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.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 362	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:21:00 - [140] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^if you had dropped the hardener for a rep you wouldn't have lived, you were also aware that there would be inconing fire and were probably at a range where you could have broken lock via range. These situations seldom happen for ads because hovering at 170m means were not actually doing our jobs, we need to get much closer in order to do things like remove uplinks or support squadmates. Being blindsided by swarms at 70m will usually mean there's already a second volley in the air and a third locking. You said alot of words but all I read was "if you dont use your modules or react and you fit your dropship badly, you die". Well... duh.

Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1989	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:49:00 - [141] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: It takes only three volleys of proficiency two prototype swarms to kill a complex 60mm plated Incubus. . if you dont fit your ship properly, dont use your modules and dont react accordingly you die, who would guess. beside that, if swarm would kill you in that "scrub pilot scenario" then a forge would too.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1351	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:25:00 - [142] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: It takes only three volleys of proficiency two prototype swarms to kill a complex 60mm plated Incubus. . if you dont fit your ship properly, dont use your modules and dont react accordingly you die, who would guess. beside that, if swarm would kill you in that "scrub pilot scenario" then a forge would too. If you see nothing wrong with that you're delusional. Again. Swarms are fire and forget weapons designed for players who want to put less effort into the game. As such, the user should get the same treatment back. The only thing keeping assault dropships being used is the current shield meta and the persistence of the few left. Three volleys is ** all for time. Since swarms don't render past 80 meters, 100 if you're lucky you never see the first volley. The second ones hit you within 3-6 seconds, all while the damage markers tell you the wrong direction of the hits. The third one kills you, because by the time you could even infer where they were coming from there's little to no cover. It doesn't matter though, because the swarms were probably originating from what you thought was a safe area and you flew right into them. This doesn't only happen to "scrub pilots". It happens to people who have been using dropships for years now. It's not that they're bad. The mechanics are ****. But since you're the master of dropship fitting, how would you fit a particle cannon Incubus for AV using current modules? e: Get on with it. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6835	Posted - 2015.01.29 08:51:00 - [143] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: It takes only three volleys of proficiency two prototype swarms to kill a complex 60mm plated Incubus. . if you dont fit your ship properly, dont use your modules and dont react accordingly you die, who would guess. beside that, if swarm would kill you in that "scrub pilot scenario" then a forge would too. This is not helpful feedback. AV
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1989	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:01:00 - [144] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: some stuff you are supposed to die just like everyone else. if you cant accept that, then dont fly a drophship. the dropship isnt even that expensive compared to a full proto suit and you get immunity to all AI weapons, huge mobility and a gtfo button. fun fact, the following fit survives 3 volleys from max skills proto swarm with 2 complex damage mods on a minmando 20GJ Particle Cannon Basic 120mm Armor Plates Enhanced Armor Hardener Complex Light Armor Repairer Basic Afterburner the only thing I can agree with is that a dropship needs a lock on warning, everything else is just biased whining.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1351	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:19:00 - [145] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: some stuff fun fact, the following fit survives 3 volleys from max skills proto swarm with 2 complex damage mods on a minmando 20GJ Particle Cannon Basic 120mm Armor Plates Enhanced Armor Hardener Complex Light Armor Repairer Basic Afterburner the only thing I can agree with is that a dropship needs a lock on warning. lol a fit that requires small railgun fitting V and armor fitting V. A fit shouldn't need an oversized plate to survive, same thing goes with Pythons and oversized extenders. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1989	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:21:00 - [146] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: lol a fit that requires small railgun fitting V and armor fitting V. A fit shouldn't need an oversized plate to survive, same thing goes with Pythons and oversized extenders. a fit that requires max skills survivies an AV fit that requires/has max skills. I would say it is working as intended.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2038	Posted - 2015.01.29 11:42:00 - [147] - Quote ^No, as there is a disproportionate level of investment required by the vehicle user. Either we use all of our skillpoints on vehicles and the game changes to accommodate people who have zero infantry skills via stuff like remote hacks and massive maps... Effectively allowing fully skilled vehicles to play with zero infantry investment. Or we spend a decent chunk of sp on infantry things *as they are required to play the game in meaningful manners* and then we are also able to invest in vehicles and expect reasonable survivability, utility and life expectancy for our non infantry skill choices and large monetary investments. If we have to put away our 'toys' to play the game in meaningful manners our level of sp investment goes up dramatically as unlike core skills & equipment & weapons which carry over when the fotm changes our vehicle skillpoints are useless on a map like research lab. "I get to spend at most 15m sp into my one role (if that's all I've done) to negate your >18m sp investment... And you don't get to play unless you've also spent 10-15m on top of that for a dropsuit". Understand where this is going? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6836	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:35:00 - [148] - Quote I haven't actually encountered the need to drop infantry skills on my HAV alt. I do all my infantry scutwork on this character. AV
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2144	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:43:00 - [149] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^No, as there is a disproportionate level of investment required by the vehicle user. Either we use all of our skillpoints on vehicles and the game changes to accommodate people who have zero infantry skills via stuff like remote hacks and massive maps... Effectively allowing fully skilled vehicles to play with zero infantry investment. Or we spend a decent chunk of sp on infantry things *as they are required to play the game in meaningful manners* and then we are also able to invest in vehicles and expect reasonable survivability, utility and life expectancy for our non infantry skill choices and large monetary investments. If we have to put away our 'toys' to play the game in meaningful manners our level of sp investment goes up dramatically as unlike core skills & equipment & weapons which carry over when the fotm changes our vehicle skillpoints are useless on a map like research lab. "I get to spend at most 15m sp into my one role (if that's all I've done) to negate your >18m sp investment... And you don't get to play unless you've also spent 10-15m on top of that for a dropsuit". Understand where this is going? Dear CCP, Please show us the average life expectancy of a vehicle driver compared to the average life expectancy of a player running an AV primary weapon so we can see who gets more out of their investment in in-game play time. Thank you. 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 6836	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:45:00 - [150] - Quote Baal: I can tell you that answer. If AV gunner has been playing more than two years AS an AV gunner? Odds are good he can break that power curve. Anyone else is dogchow. AV

Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2144	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:52:00 - [151] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Baal: I can tell you that answer. If AV gunner has been playing more than two years AS an AV gunner? Odds are good he can break that power curve. Anyone else is dogchow. I still want my Amarr anti-shield AV turret I can strap to my LAV...... 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.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1990	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:07:00 - [152] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^No, as there is a disproportionate level of investment required by the vehicle user. read: "I spent some isk and SP, thus I want to be immune to everything and be able to do everything" you are supposed to die just like everyone else especially against something that counters you. you are not supposed to be able to do everything on your own. beside that, your SP carry over to all other vehicles. you get huge mobility and immunity to majority of weapons. I have proven several times it is possible to survive against specialized max skill AV. deal with it and git gud or continue to be a whiny wimp. your choice.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2039	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:10:00 - [153] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I haven't actually encountered the need to drop infantry skills on my HAV alt. I do all my infantry scutwork on this character. As in haven't needed to skill into infantry? Or you have a mix? I myself find it hard to play with Mina's tanks and dropships while I'm using my minlogi/minscout alt (zero way for me to have those on Mina without dumping tons of money into boosters & grinding to cap out every week.) and I find it exceptionally hard to make good use of Mina's vehicles on research lab domination, where I'd much rather have the minlogi. I find it to be in very poor taste to believe that a vehicle user should have to have what, 20m dropped into their role in order to have a 'chance' at surviving against individuals with first mover advantage. Before I'm jumped on for this or have my words twisted [b]this is nothing even close to expressing a desire to flit about in an invincible death machine[b]. I want my investments into vehicles to feel meaningful, not to lead to frustration because I was blindsided and instant murdered by things I can see. There is an equal desire on av side to want their investments to feel meaningful (and currently some vehicles really make it not feel that way), but if you're taking the lazy mans option of 'point in general direction and let go of trigger' I do not believe your investment should be hyper-effective compared to mine, you should have to work a bit harder than plcs or forges. Av vs V balance has been something that has had problems for forever and a day (lai dai packed spam, instant kill breach forges, 400m lock range swarms). Antagonism on the part of whichever side has the upper hand is never a step towards balance. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2039	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:15:00 - [154] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^No, as there is a disproportionate level of investment required by the vehicle user. read: "I spent some isk and SP, thus I want to be immune to everything and be able to do everything" you are supposed to die just like everyone else especially against something that counters you. you are not supposed to be able to do everything on your own. beside that, your SP carry over to all other vehicles. you get huge mobility and immunity to majority of weapons. I have proven several times it is possible to survive against specialized max skill AV. deal with it and git gud or continue to be a whiny wimp. your choice. Pissy ad-hominem attacks are not why I've participated in this thread, if this is all I'm going to get for attempting to be productive and helpful when bringing to light actual concerns on either side of this issue and actively speaking out against things I feel will harm infantry gameplay experience I have little desire or incentive to continue to be helpful or productive. You can **ing talk to spkr instead and go around in your little counterproductive hate circle jerk until the sun dies out. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1990	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:18:00 - [155] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I find it to be in very poor taste to believe that a vehicle user should have to have what, 20m dropped into their role in order to have a 'chance' at surviving against individuals with first mover advantage. Before I'm jumped on for this or have my words twisted [b]this is nothing even close to expressing a desire to flit about in an invincible death machine[b]. I want my investments into vehicles to feel meaningful, not to lead to frustration because I was blindsided and instant murdered by things I can see.. so, just because you use vehicles you are special and should get better treatmeant? what you are complaining about is true for anyone ingame. you already get massive advantages, yet it is not enough... I have already busted this "instant murdered" myths on several occassion now. a single person cannot ever kill a properly tanked dropship or HAV under 19 seconds. if you cant react in 9 seconds accordingly then maybe a FPS is not for you. if you overextend and get alphad by several AV specialist you failed and deserved to get rekt. MINA Longstrike wrote: Pissy ad-hominem attacks are not why I've participated in this thread. except this is what you wrote, stretched over several sentences...
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6836	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:27:00 - [156] - Quote No nerd Mina is saying she should get equivalent payout from 25 million SP in HAVs as I get from 25 million in SP dumped into my fatsuits. It's a valid complaint given that half the problem is that at any given time half the vehicle lineup is urutter trash and the other half borders or is OP combined with limited utility maps that are nothing more than killboxes that eat vehicle drivers. I know this because I use those killboxes. Mina is absolutely correct when she says that building maps torch HAV utility. However on my fatsuits if I'm stuck on an open ground map I can swap yo a forge fit and play Zeus, god of lightning and act as area denial to anything that moves. AND be good at making vehicles **** their pants. If you drop an HAV in the gallente lab there is a countdown timer effectively. You WILL lose your HAV unless you engage in skirmish attacks that accomplish nothing but picking off stragglers. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2039	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:27:00 - [157] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: I find it to be in very poor taste to believe that a vehicle user should have to have what, 20m dropped into their role in order to have a 'chance' at surviving against individuals with first mover advantage. Before I'm jumped on for this or have my words twisted [b]this is nothing even close to expressing a desire to flit about in an invincible death machine[b]. I want my investments into vehicles to feel meaningful, not to lead to frustration because I was blindsided and instant murdered by things I can see.. so, just because you use vehicles you are special and should get better treatmeant? what you are complaining about is true for anyone ingame. you already get massive advantages, yet it is not enough... I have already busted this "instant murdered" myths on several occassion now. a single person cannot ever kill a properly tanked dropship or HAV under 9 seconds. if you cant react in 9 seconds accordingly then maybe a FPS is not for you. if you overextend and get alphad by several AV specialists then it was a mistake on your part. MINA Longstrike wrote: Pissy ad-hominem attacks are not why I've participated in this thread. it is not my fault that this is the content of your post stretched over several sentences. it is too late for you to play the innocent. So you're going to continue attacking me for no reason then? Other than "YOU USE VEHICLES YOU'RE THE ENEMY!!!". Cool, probably done with this thread, there is no actual discussion to be had here, you're trying to drum up a witchhunt. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1994	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:48:00 - [158] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: stuff well, does your zeus fatsuit have great mobility, escape button and is immune to majority of weapons? vehicles always were force multipliers, thats how they were implemented into the game and I dont see how you can actually fix that in a reasonable fashion. maps are too small. dev cycles take too long. and most pilots just cry about how they die
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2146	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:06:00 - [159] - Quote I think adding the swarm-that's-looking-at-you's locking sounds to the vehicle pilot's audio input would be all that's needed to make the swarm easily balanceable, no matter what variants come out for it. We have to get close to lock, really close to lock all 3 before you are able to get behind cover or out range our lock. Many times I've been virtually standing on top of a shield tank and had it out range my lock before I could get my 3rd lock, and it takes far more than a single clip to kill any shield tank with even a MLT hardner and no skills into them. 2 MLT hardners is enough to keep maxed swarms (not necessarily on a minmando, haven't used one at max level yet so I don't know) from even breaking a MLT shield tank's rep cycle. Adding a warning that you are targeted would of course have to be balanced out by swarm tweaks, but at the very least it would help make up for swarm rendering issues and visibility due to draw distance. And then the other voice in my head says 'I get no indicator when a Thales is targeting my 265,000 ISK AV suit, or when a forge sniper across the map is eyeballing me, or when someone is lining up an OB above my head, or when a squad of scouts is sneaking up on me from behind with a shotgun...' ...but I'm trying to ignore him for now. The point is that there are issues with the swarm launcher, and the easiest way of dealing with them appears to be adding a locking indicator, even if there is a bit of a delay in hearing it, any indicator is better than the current state of things. That said, there are issues against the swarm launcher that need to be addressed as well and with the inclusion of the locking indicator there will need to be a rework of ranges and perhaps even how they fire. My favored method would be to make it so that up to 150m, all 4 swarms fire, 3 swarms fire up to 200, 2 swarms up to 250 and one swarm for anything beyond 250. This lets swarms AV from further away with reduced damage, but also makes them better for closer engagements than at range while letting swarms chip off health from vehicles trying to speed away or support other AVers from afar. Maybe make this the assault variant, better for chasing faster vehicles. Possibly faster missiles with less kickback when hitting dropships just to keep things a bit more balanced. Possibly make the specialist variant into a breach with only 100m range, both lock and flight, but way more damage, faster lock and only one missile, or alternatively make it one missile dumbfire, massive damage, miniscule blast radius, no different than the PLC technically except it shoots straight and the missile is a bit faster, perhaps with a slight spiral instead of an ar that can be calculated for. Maybe even one shot clip like the PLC..... ....but that's just the other voice trying to force his way out.... think I should go feed him soon, his posting gets snarky when he's hungry. 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.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1500	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:11:00 - [160] - Quote Tanks have issues, including lack of utility if the skill tree, but those are not AV balance issues. Using terms like "lazy man's way" "instakilled" and "blindsided" are is not being helpful, constructive or accurate. Because, that's why.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2039	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:12:00 - [161] - Quote ^honestly Baal, I'd be against the 'less missiles fired' simply because it would screw with using a swarm optimally. And it turns swarms back into things that cover multiple objectives, even if they don't do it well. I'm not fond of the thought of returning to 1.6 where no matter where I am on the map, swarms will constantly be flying after me from rooftops. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6836	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:17:00 - [162] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^honestly Baal, I'd be against the 'less missiles fired' simply because it would screw with using a swarm optimally. And it turns swarms back into things that cover multiple objectives, even if they don't do it well. I'm not fond of the thought of returning to 1.6 where no matter where I am on the map, swarms will constantly be flying after me from rooftops. There needs to be a reliable way to flush rats off rooftops. I prefer my AV brawling, bloody and risky. Forge snipers on towers are entirely too difficult to dislodge in my opinion. Even a one shot hybrid OB drop on their heads. Same with swarms. It's a pain in the ass to do the setup to get up there but you can effectively dig in like a tick once you do. Forcing more ground fights or having LADDERS to campable rooftops would be amazing. AV
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1994	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:18:00 - [163] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Forcing more ground fights or having LADDERS to campable rooftops would be amazing. +1 I want ladders!
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2147	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:40:00 - [164] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^honestly Baal, I'd be against the 'less missiles fired' simply because it would screw with using a swarm optimally. And it turns swarms back into things that cover multiple objectives, even if they don't do it well. I'm not fond of the thought of returning to 1.6 where no matter where I am on the map, swarms will constantly be flying after me from rooftops. There needs to be a reliable way to flush rats off rooftops. I prefer my AV brawling, bloody and risky. Forge snipers on towers are entirely too difficult to dislodge in my opinion. Even a one shot hybrid OB drop on their heads. Same with swarms. It's a pain in the ass to do the setup to get up there but you can effectively dig in like a tick once you do. Forcing more ground fights or having LADDERS to campable rooftops would be amazing. In a perfect world there would be ladders everywhere, equipment wouldn't be glitchable into objects, rooftop camping would be easily delt with and there would be no draw distance or rendering issues for AV projectiles. As things stand, and considering the constraints under which we have to work, adding a sound prompt and adjusting the swarms make a the most sense in my view. Sure, you can get pecked at by swarms from across the map again, but at 1/4 damage, meaning they are accomplishing nothing more than a guy shooting an infantry player with an SMG from 80m would be. That wouldn't even break the shield repair cycle on a soma, but it WOULD allow the swarmer to engage with a vehicle it has already begun to fight but is escaping. Flight distance wouldn't change, so you could lock and not even be able to get a hit, but being able to lock as a fatty in a LAV barrels towards you would be VERY satisfying sisince as it is if you can lock, you're too late. At work now, will respond more later 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.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2040	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:48:00 - [165] - Quote It's note 1/4 dmg when enemy has been beaten back from [objective] and 3-8 players with nothing to shoot switch over to swarms. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 67	Posted - 2015.02.01 00:14:00 - [166] - Quote Took a little break from dust... ANYWAYS! Into the matters. Firstly, any arguments, deal with it personally (queue sync a factional or something...) please? Secondly, a lock on warning is not a bad thing... HOWEVER, it could lead to people adapting (i.e: AB away asap). Now this will come down to one thing, the time it takes before you hear the warning klaxon. Will it be half way in the lock? Once fired? Thridly, someone in 1st airborne had a great idea: "shoot at swarms," he said. Knowing hitting them will be a miracle, i understand that it's not that bad of an idea. Fourthly, anywhere a dropship can reach, 2/3 ladders should reach there. Hell maybe a hackable elevator. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:06:00 - [167] - Quote Haven't read the full thread, I will eventually but have to add: PLC is best AV. But if you want to buff it's damage profile I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with not buffing the damage but buffing the knockaround instead, vs HAVs too. That'd be awesome. Grenade throwing mechanics stifle AV nades from their full potential, there's no reason my super-soldier-suit throws like a kindergartener. Range, reliable bouncing/rebounding mechanics and maybe an aiming arc would help. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 67	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:26:00 - [168] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Haven't read the full thread, I will eventually but have to add: PLC is best AV i do agree PLC is the best AV for close range engagements. Would you say a 100-250 buff to damage is good/too much? Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6905	Posted - 2015.02.01 02:49:00 - [169] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: It's not 1/4 dmg when enemy has been beaten back from [objective] and 3-8 players with nothing to shoot switch over to swarms. That still ends up being a lethal threat albeit a technically inefficient one. I hate autocorrect. Any argument predicated on multiple people focusing fire being a balance concern isn't one I take seriously. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 68	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:13:00 - [170] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: It's not 1/4 dmg when enemy has been beaten back from [objective] and 3-8 players with nothing to shoot switch over to swarms. That still ends up being a lethal threat albeit a technically inefficient one. I hate autocorrect. Any argument predicated on multiple people focusing fire being a balance concern isn't one I take seriously. I understand what MINA is saying though, but it's something that cannot be "balanced" per se. I think MINA is saying this: "OH a vehicle passed a supply depot, so lets all switch to AV to get some damage points. Oh, the vehicle left? Okay lets all switch back now." ^ rinse and repeat. The way i realized how this is how some think is in dom. My squad is rushing the depot, i fly near by (rail incubus, so i'm in a position looking for any vehicles approaching my squad/team) the enemies first begin defending the depot, but then switched to AV. It was suicidal yes (the entire kill feed just turned green), but why did they switch to AV while they are being attacked? Easy warpoints (damage points). As in supporting MINA's point, rarely there is NOT dedicated AV players... It's just "oh you killed me?" "oh you came near the depot?" and other things of the ilk. But now multiply that by the lock distance change. RedRails? RedSwarms too. Camping the depot? No vehicle ever coming close. (I hope I understood you MINA) But that's something that cannot change... lots of people switch, fire two rounds, switch back. Changing that changes infantry, which is too much of a change just for AV balance nevertheless. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6908	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:15:00 - [171] - Quote Casually swapping out instantly at a depot is a thing I feel needs to change. I am that guy who will actually suicide a clone to load AV RIGHT NOW. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1376	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:17:00 - [172] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Casually swapping out instantly at a depot is a thing I feel needs to change. I am that guy who will actually suicide a clone to load AV RIGHT NOW. This is why supply depots get primaried by tanks that know their team won't hold it. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 68	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:22:00 - [173] - Quote I definitely take out the depots first -- even when my squad tries to hack it. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.

Moody come back