DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17502	Posted - 2015.02.17 05:46:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, This is the first step, which entails A) fixing the fitting of Gallente HAVs making them competitive B) introducing HAV progression C) tweaking fitting styles that are not intended D) making blasters competitive AV weapons E) adding slots to HAV's to make them more fun and versatile to fit. I am very happy to announce that ProtoFits.com has offered it's assistance in the final phase of HAV and SHAV progression analysis. They have added the proposed hulls to their site, for us to break The new hulls will be named G-1, G/1 and Gv.0 to clearly show progression, and allow targeting intel to assist with enemy capability recognition. 1) Two new hulls with placeholder names, but I like them, have been added in the Gallente Marduk and the Caldari Gladius. We therefore have HAV's and SHAV's, SHAV's are simply HAV's with no turret slots and less PG/CPU due to that, for those pilots that prefer solitude. 2) Please note that with this new progression, Hardeners will be limited to one per fitting, one of each. Triple hardening is not going to be an option any more. I would prefer that if hardeners are activated, the enemy tank has a way to bypass those, by using dmg mods to counter. More on that later. 3) We are also adding native repair rates, again so shield tanks aren't forced to fit repairers to have some form of rep rate, thereby reducing the chance of cookie cutter fits. 4) Blasters will be increasing in damage, so they can break through the shield regen of a hardened shield tank. 5) Furthermore, we will be adding a PG cost to CPU upgrades, and CPU cost to PG upgrades. The utility of using CPU mods to massively boost fitting capabilities of shield tanks will be severely reduced. The actual numbers will be posted on the forums when we are ready plus any skills. Right now we are leaning towards unlocking them at HAV operation 1,3 and 5, for simplicity's sake. Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17506	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:06:00 - [2] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17507	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:27:00 - [3] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Shouldn't that be left to that guy that breaks stuff? The one hardener limitation on proto fits doesn't seen to show for shields. My initial thoughts are that heavy shield boosters use way too much pg, but I'm not entirely certain how stuff came about. I also think that base armor rep might be just a little low, but once again just an initial impression. Will there be module re-introductions? I'd love to have pulsed shield boosters (3 boosts, 2 seconds apart each). I'm happy to see fittings go back to being more like assaults and less like sentinels. SHAVs are a happy compromise. I'll also poke you towards the taxonomy thread. Things have petered out a bit there, but I want to be driving a Komodo Cv.0 around and delivering nasty bites. I also have some concerns with the rail still being a hideous instagank weapon still, I feel it might be more balanced if it shot twice as fast but did half as much dmg (appropriate ammo/mag increases & heat reductions). Plz fix forums so I can stop posting from phone. We didn't change the hardeners, just use your imagination Any further new or re-introductions come after we balance these hulls and turrets. Rail dps will be considered in the turret proposals. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17509	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:51:00 - [4] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. They will all come with std turrets, even prototype and only get a fitting "bonus" equivalent to those. Good point though, but I had already "seen that coming" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17511	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:44:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. They will all come with std turrets, even prototype and only get a fitting "bonus" equivalent to those. Good point though, but I had already "seen that coming" Good to hear, just wanted to make sure it had been thought of. Also looking over some fits for the MBTs and SHAVs...have you decided on how to handle the UHAV's defensive bonus? The reason I ask is that if it ends up being a significant resistance bonus, you may run into some issues with the Passive Armor Repairers if they are left as is. The base 30HP/s + 137HP/s armor repairer puts the Madrugar at 167HP per second. Since Passive reps effectively negate portions of incoming DPS, putting a heavy resistance on top of that is going to push the effective regen rate....very high. I'm concerned that the UHAV bonus, + a hardener + heavy passive reps will lead to HAVs that can basically negate large portions of incoming DPS to a point where they're nearly unkillable in typical situations. I will be happy to entertain such theorycrafting, just like now, but in the future, when we have balanced HAV's and are trying to add UHAV's, using ProtoFits. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17514	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:00:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. I seem to be able to fit that quite comfortably. That looks like a pretty nice fit. I could probably tier up further. EDIT: Yes it seems currently on my Protofits that I can fit a Complex Shield Booster as well. Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17520	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:00:00 - [7] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. Nope, I expect a proposal from Dropship pilots for additional PG/CPU or EHP to make up for any such knock-on effects. For Upgrade mods these are numbers I was thinking of. Don't panic too much but they will be much more difficult to use as the current ones are terrible. PG GainCPU Cost 5%35 12%100 20%190 CPU GainPG Cost 7%150 10%220 15%400 Armor Hardeners can be upgraded if I get any simple proposals. What do they need to do to be "fittable" by expert pilots. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17522	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:14:00 - [8] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Well, I know that anything I reply with, will get me banned and the post will be deleted. Congratulations, infantry, those of you who don't use vehicles, you've won. I won't bother commenting if and unless Rattati gives me a go-ahead to start tearing everything apart. Point out the things that you feel should be changed, from what and to what. Also support it with sound arguments. Don't get into fights with your friends . It's fairly easy once you get the hang of it. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17522	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:15:00 - [9] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't see the point in the SHAV? There is no point, except that I don't want players that don't fit turrets to get free PG/CPU. I would completely skip it, but I am nice guy like that so pilots can drive solo, but they aren't getting the capacity on top. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17539	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:39:00 - [10] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A) fixing the fitting of Gallente HAVs making them competitive Can be done with the Chrome - Uprising 1.6 slot layout and restoring the CPU and PG skills to 5% per level. B) introducing HAV progression You could just give back the old Marauders, and much improved Enforcers, because the Enforcers of old were completely useless and were a huge SP and ISK sink. C) tweaking fitting styles that are not intended Could say the same for far too many infantry fits. HP tanks scouts, speed Min assault with shotguns, using REs as the primary weapon, other things I can't think of at the moment because work in a bit, but it's sandbox, so it's not like it's unfair. D) making blasters competitive AV weapons They're not that bad if you know how to use them. E) adding slots to HAV's to make them more fun and versatile to fit. They were fun and versatile to fit when we had the slots and variety. They were also far stronger than they are now. Gallente Marduk and the Caldari Gladius. This isn't directly related to the hulls so whatever. 2) Please note that with this new progression, Hardeners will be limited to one per fitting, one of each. Triple hardening is not going to be an option any more. I would prefer that if hardeners are activated, the enemy tank has a way to bypass those, by using dmg mods to counter. More on that later. Why not limit suits to one recharger/energizer each? This is supposed to be sandbox, where we can fit things the way we want, not be restricted because infantry can't wait for the right time to strike. The only limits infantry has are PG and CPU. Now we're getting a hard limit on more than one module. Nice 3) We are also adding native repair rates, again so shield tanks aren't forced to fit repairers to have some form of rep rate, thereby reducing the chance of cookie cutter fits. This was also done for dropsuits a little while back. I'll say it again, and I know you're going to get real angry: you're giving us literal cookie cutter fits. I don't care about native reps. Cal tanks fit plates, not armor. We need the armor as a last resort, because shield can't stand up to one lone PRO AV. 4) Blasters will be increasing in damage, so they can break through the shield regen of a hardened shield tank. They already can. 5) Furthermore, we will be adding a PG cost to CPU upgrades, and CPU cost to PG upgrades. The utility of using CPU mods to massively boost fitting capabilities of shield tanks will be severely reduced. I don't think there's any CPU cost to PG upgrades for infantry. Dunno why now that's being raised for vehicles, as well as the CPU upgrade now getting a PG fitting cost. You're essentially nerfing our ability to fit vehicles the way we want, despite it being sandbox. Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers. And yes, it really does come down to blaming infantry, because pilots have always been ignored and marginalized all to make infantry happy, while we wrack our brains to come up with the best compromise, actually achieve it, have fun for a bit, and then that gets nerfed, despite having figured out a workaround for the latest vehicle nerf. So no "useful" feedback, no numbers. I believe you wanted, 7 slots, you have them, you also wanted more fitting space and progression, and no extra skills for SHAVs. Where's the love? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17583	Posted - 2015.02.18 09:56:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. This is basically it as you describe. Active = High volume Passive = Low volume players should be progressing towards active as it rewards skill, but passive is easier to cope with as a new pilot. Shouldn't be forced to fit armor reps to be able to recuperate, so native reps, very low. An offensive action, should be countered with another action (hardening, boosting, active repping) and that in turn should be countered by maneuevering into the back (fuel injector or weak spot), or active dmg modding. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17584	Posted - 2015.02.18 13:01:00 - [12] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. This is basically it as you describe. Active = High volume Passive = Low volume players should be progressing towards active as it rewards skill, but passive is easier to cope with as a new pilot. Shouldn't be forced to fit armor reps to be able to recuperate, so native reps, very low. An offensive action, should be countered with another action (hardening, boosting, active repping) and that in turn should be countered by maneuevering into the back (fuel injector or weak spot), or active dmg modding. This is both directed towards rattati and Pokey, where do the Assault dropships fit into this? Are they going to have the same modifications as tanks, in regards to shield/armor reps? Could we see dropships being given the same treatment as tanks? the ADS is listed as advanced, perhaps we can have pro dropships as well with an slightly improved slot layout? Perhaps 5-1 version of the Python and a 2-3 version of the incubus 3-2 Minmatar and a 1-5 Amarr? Paint over the skins, use the tank fitting template downgraded for dropships? On shields: Pythons that don't use a shield booster rely on high regen to get them back into the action. Incubi could use high burst regen sure, yet after giving it some though i'm not sure that only a 5% increase to armor hardeners may be suffecient. Moslty because minandos have 10+ prof 5 15% damage bonus before damage mods, I have some doubts that a 5% damage resistance really going to be enough as a defensive measure. I know its not meant to completley nullify incoming damage, but since fitting a hardener means droping hp, its a question of can i tank shots better with a brick or better with a hardener? Can that 5% make hardners a better fitting option? Or will the 30% + Active high regen make incubus balanced? If making a HAV progression works, and it seems it's working overall, even with some slight issues that can be fixed, nothing is stopping us from doing more later. ADS's need to be able to kill these new ADV and PRO MBT's, so keep chiming in with what's necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17886	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:25:00 - [13] - Quote No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff stay posted "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17889	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:43:00 - [14] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG. At least that's what I hope it means. I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making. Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet. I hope they won't be "abused" so that one hull becomes much better than the other. That's why I wanted to give them fitting cost of the opposite capacity. Let's see what happens with the new hulls. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17896	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:16:00 - [15] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Abused in what way? Fitting them in such a way that when combined with experience, they become shockingly hard to kill? exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17943	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:55:00 - [16] - Quote I am closing this thread, and we can create a new one once new HAVs are in the game. Thanks everyone, I believe we collectively did a great job, and just look at what changes did and did not go through, just because of your fact-supported opinions. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"