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 [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3014	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:21:00 - [571] - Quote And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7424	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:26:00 - [572] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4064	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:32:00 - [573] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I dunno, does the tank magically get more protection from having two blueberries in the dump seats? party tanks are a lot harder to kill than standard one-seaters. Not because the small turrets are amazing. But because one of the passengers jumps out and rips the AV gunner's head off casually. So I'd say it's a pretty damn viable protective measure. we will, of course laugh like madmen at the thought of a three man tank in PC. We all know no one EVER does that sh*t there. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen. having the extra seats bring something to the table defensively has never been an objection I have. Even if it's a built-in booster or mini-hardener that the second/third seat can trigger or something. If the defenses take three people to operate then yes, it should absolutely improve the survival of the HAV versus solo AV. 1 player = 1 player HAS to mean something. And no, it can't be a one-way street. However, the "jump out and shoot the AV" is stupid. it's just as cheesy as JLAVs, which I use whenever I have an HMG jump out to pop my AV fatsuit. If an HAV takes three people to operate at max capacity, then the three AV to kill ratio becomes reasonable. But as long as it only requires one player to run at max defensive capacity? Then no. it's still really one player versus one player. because the two smalls are rarely useful due to hit detection stupidity, and they'll just jump out and shoot the AV player with a rail rifle or whatever. The JLAV can cause over 10k of damage, the 'jump out and shoot someone' requires at least some aim so for me it is chalk and cheese because the JLAV is complete no skill and no risk being able to kill something that takes a lot of SP to skill into and alot of ISK to field but the 'jump out' can be killed or you kill the LAV and it is done with. There is 3people in a HAV so it should take 3 to kill it. The general argument is for AV is that it is only 1 person in a HAV and it is unfair and should only take 1 to kill it no matter the SP or ISK invested for the pilot so likewise 3 for 3 with no other additions in SP or ISK for the 2nd & 3rd gunners. If it is 1 AV to 3 man HAV then why run the 3man HAV? What advanatage does it carry? They cannot defend from AV because small turrets and jumping out offers nothing if AV is not in CQC/short run range? It is just more people in a HAV which gives more points to AV who can solo it. In fact im also finding it hard to justify the existance of a HAV with 3 gunners in it, like the DHAV it has massive shortcomings with next to no advantages. As much as i would like to run with 2 extra gunners the HAV overall gets no extra game changing benefits or even a stronger tank let alone the simple ability to defend itself from AV. Maybe if pilot suits could stack with each other and the vehicle then possibly it would be worth it but that is looking unlikely since infantry had a heart attack with pilot suits placeholders so i doubt they would even agree to something like this.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3015	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:32:00 - [574] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' LOL ambush. there's a lot of whining about OMS and vehicles. It's pure magic. suck up the pain and spawn AV. And the gunnlogi is OP. Pure and simple. It's only effectively stopped by another gunnlogi, which has been the developer definition of OP> A thing that can only effectively be countered by itself. Well, a blaster gunnlogi won't last against a madrudger blaster. But blasters are kinda crap atm due to being trapped in limbo between AV and AI, so that's not saying much. And yeah, the gunnlogi is OP right now. Though I can't say I would go so far as saying it takes another gunnlogi to destroy. A maddie does stand a chance, but given all the anti armor AV out there, you don't often see many. And if you do they are usually too busy fighting AV off or dying to it. So it's hard to judge how a gunnlogi and maddie match up nowadays. Well, I guess that kinda means the best counter is another gunnlogi huh, as they won't get insta popped by the AV lol. This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi. The Gunnlogi is not OP. It's the one hull that can survive AV long enough to escape. I'm considering multiple AV in this. It's always more than one against me;the only time it's a single person is when it's MLT suits. I like and prefer armor over shield. Problem is, it gets annihilated far too fast. This has nothing to do with all you lemmings believing the lie that I'm a bad pilot. It has to do with armor being paper weak, and AV being akin to an asteroid strike. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3015	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:36:00 - [575] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17410	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:58:00 - [576] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' LOL ambush. there's a lot of whining about OMS and vehicles. It's pure magic. suck up the pain and spawn AV. And the gunnlogi is OP. Pure and simple. It's only effectively stopped by another gunnlogi, which has been the developer definition of OP> A thing that can only effectively be countered by itself. The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs. The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times. I have words for tank drivers who hang around long enough for breach forges to fire three times. they rhyme with Boron, crabgrass, cupid and shrub And bluntly, nothing should be balanced to survive 3 v 1. that's stupid as hell. Exactly. I get that you want to tank AV fire and you can...... but you shouldn't be sitting around waiting for it to hit you.... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17410	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:59:00 - [577] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I dunno, does the tank magically get more protection from having two blueberries in the dump seats? party tanks are a lot harder to kill than standard one-seaters. Not because the small turrets are amazing. But because one of the passengers jumps out and rips the AV gunner's head off casually. So I'd say it's a pretty damn viable protective measure. we will, of course laugh like madmen at the thought of a three man tank in PC. We all know no one EVER does that sht there. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen. having the extra seats bring something to the table defensively has never been an objection I have. Even if it's a built-in booster or mini-hardener that the second/third seat can trigger or something. If the defenses take three people to operate then yes, it should absolutely improve the survival of the HAV versus solo AV. 1 player = 1 player HAS to mean something. And no, it can't be a one-way street. However, the "jump out and shoot the AV" is stupid. it's just as cheesy as JLAVs, which I use whenever I have an HMG jump out to pop my AV fatsuit. If an HAV takes three people to operate at max capacity, then the three AV to kill ratio becomes reasonable. But as long as it only requires one player to run at max defensive capacity? Then no. it's still really one player versus one player. because the two smalls are rarely useful due to hit detection stupidity, and they'll just jump out and shoot the AV player with a rail rifle or whatever. The JLAV can cause over 10k of damage, the 'jump out and shoot someone' requires at least some aim so for me it is chalk and cheese because the JLAV is complete no skill and no risk being able to kill something that takes a lot of SP to skill into and alot of ISK to field but the 'jump out' can be killed or you kill the LAV and it is done with. There is 3people in a HAV so it should take 3 to kill it. The general argument is for AV is that it is only 1 person in a HAV and it is unfair and should only take 1 to kill it no matter the SP or ISK invested for the pilot so likewise 3 for 3 with no other additions in SP or ISK for the 2nd & 3rd gunners. If it is 1 AV to 3 man HAV then why run the 3man HAV? What advanatage does it carry? They cannot defend from AV because small turrets and jumping out offers nothing if AV is not in CQC/short run range? It is just more people in a HAV which gives more points to AV who can solo it. In fact im also finding it hard to justify the existance of a HAV with 3 gunners in it, like the DHAV it has massive shortcomings with next to no advantages. As much as i would like to run with 2 extra gunners the HAV overall gets no extra game changing benefits or even a stronger tank let alone the simple ability to defend itself from AV. Maybe if pilot suits could stack with each other and the vehicle then possibly it would be worth it but that is looking unlikely since infantry had a heart attack with pilot suits placeholders so i doubt they would even agree to something like this. Except an epic almost 1000 DPS increase depending on your turret and two pairs of eyes to communicate the locations of HAV, DS, LAV as you drive...... that's can and does make you much more powerful than you would normally be. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4065	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:12:00 - [578] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Except an epic almost 1000 DPS increase depending on your turret and two pairs of eyes to communicate the locations of HAV, DS, LAV as you drive...... that's can and does make you much more powerful than you would normally be. Front turret is damn poor in general and the pilot generally faces that way anyways. Second turret is far better but still overall not great. Together a bit more damage because if they dont attack the front the front turret does 0 damage and against AV generally useless unless they happen to be up close or reachable but that is rare If i want eyes on the map have a sniper who can see everything up high, doesn't need to be in the vehicle and much much more powerful no because it will still take the same number of hits to kill the vehicle.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7426	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:50:00 - [579] - Quote I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile. But some people want the option. I could care less if a tank had one person or ten. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7426	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:52:00 - [580] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. AV

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4067	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:05:00 - [581] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile. But some people want the option. I could care less if a tank had one person or ten. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5119	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:09:00 - [582] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. Pretty much. I mean with a similar logic one could say "Well infantry weapons should be the primary means of killing infantry, and Turrets damage should just be supplementary damage to infantry" It has to flow both ways, if you want vehicles to be lethal to infantry, then infantry need to be lethal to vehicles. Similarly if you want infantry to simply be supplementary damage to vehicles, then vehicles should be supplementary damage to infantry. I don't think anyone particularly wants the latter option. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3017	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:09:00 - [583] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17412	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:39:00 - [584] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3017	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:48:00 - [585] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17413	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:54:00 - [586] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Well I meant ideally. I mean currently AV is arguably just better than tank turrets and significantly better in terms of representing high power ordinance. If we could just get rid of the Assault Turrets we have now a replace them with more conventional main battle cannon tanks would be a real threat on the field. I'm sure you know what I mean when I say the 120mm Smoothbore style guns from Battlefield are just plain superior to use as a tank driver. Range Power Explosive Charge Longer Reload Times Etc "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5119	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:56:00 - [587] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Citing a glitch as a downside is not a valid argument. Obviously glitches happen in the turrets and should be fixed, but they shouldn't be considered a "downside" to an asset as they are to be fixed eventually. Additionally you're leaving out many of the advantages that turrets (and the vehicles they are attached to) have over infantry in an attempt to make it look more one sided than it really is. For example the TTK of an infantry with a large turret is far shorter than an AV weapon attacking a vehicle in a direct confrontation. The AV's ability to readily use elevation and cover is a means to offset this advantage. Additionally as you stated, vehicles are very large and easy to hit compared to an infantryman, this is why they are capable of much higher movement speeds to help offset their larger target. Even if the AV chases the enemy HAV down in an LAV, they're incapable of doing appreciable damage before the HAV is out of weapon range again. I'm not saying the balance is quite right, but you're really only presenting half of the argument. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 213	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:55:00 - [588] - Quote Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17416	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:59:00 - [589] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4068	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:11:00 - [590] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. They were before, they were in EVE. If it ain't broke don't touch it, a rule CCP ignores on a daily basis.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5120	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:13:00 - [591] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17416	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:17:00 - [592] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? Yes and no. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7429	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:20:00 - [593] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile. But some people want the option. I could care less if a tank had one person or ten. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7429	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:21:00 - [594] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Nerd is a term of endearment with me, a sign that I may actually like you. Notice I never refer to certain parties in this conversation as such. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5122	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:59:00 - [595] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? Yes and no. I just rather enjoy the dynamic of Active Highs vs Passive Lows, that's largely what we've had in the past and the move away from it left our low slots largely starved for things to put in them. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 372	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:16:00 - [596] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Citing a glitch as a downside is not a valid argument. Obviously glitches happen in the turrets and should be fixed, but they shouldn't be considered a "downside" to an asset as they are to be fixed eventually. Additionally you're leaving out many of the advantages that turrets (and the vehicles they are attached to) have over infantry in an attempt to make it look more one sided than it really is. For example the TTK of an infantry with a large turret is far shorter than an AV weapon attacking a vehicle in a direct confrontation. The AV's ability to readily use elevation and cover is a means to offset this advantage. Additionally as you stated, vehicles are very large and easy to hit compared to an infantryman, this is why they are capable of much higher movement speeds to help offset their larger target. Even if the AV chases the enemy HAV down in an LAV, they're incapable of doing appreciable damage before the HAV is out of weapon range again. I'm not saying the balance is quite right, but you're really only presenting half of the argument. Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3028	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:00 - [597] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile. But some people want the option. I could care less if a tank had one person or ten. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. You'd cry OP trying to destroy it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5123	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:59:00 - [598] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages. Fair point, but I suppose what I was getting at is that if Turrets are to be lethal the infantry, then AV should be more than "supplementary damage". Obviously there are a number of factors to consider aside from simply aside from damage and defense, which is why this is such a difficult problem. However these are topics best left for other threads, lest be continue to derail the kitten out of this one. I believe it safe to say that AV will be seeing a balance pass of some sort, so it's more or less pointless to argue values at this stage, at least in this thread. So lets try to get back to the topic at hand, which is address the fittings of the vehicle, and not so much how it stacks against current AV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 373	Posted - 2015.03.03 00:15:00 - [599] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages. Fair point, but I suppose what I was getting at is that if Turrets are to be lethal the infantry, then AV should be more than "supplementary damage". Obviously there are a number of factors to consider aside from simply aside from damage and defense, which is why this is such a difficult problem. However these are topics best left for other threads, lest be continue to derail the kitten out of this one. I believe it safe to say that AV will be seeing a balance pass of some sort, so it's more or less pointless to argue values at this stage, at least in this thread. So lets try to get back to the topic at hand, which is address the fittings of the vehicle, and not so much how it stacks against current AV. I understand what you are saying, I guess the issue I am having is when I build fits using proto fits for these new frames, I am always skeptical regarding any build that doesnt max ehp given what tanks will have to face from AV. While i would like to think AV will get a balance pass, there had not been any real discussion on this, no threads that haven't beenderailed by av users, and for that reason AV becomes a huge factor when trying out the new hulls in proto fits.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 373	Posted - 2015.03.03 00:38:00 - [600] - Quote For example, I am making some rediculous marduk fits with shield extenders and shield hardeners with a nitro, 2 complex light armor repairers and 2 basic plates... proto blaster with 2 small basic rails... What inventive shield fits are there going to be? Extender Extender Extender Extender Hardener ammo expansion plate



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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