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)
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 327	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:28:00 - [211] - Quote So don't pay attention. It speaks volumes. That doesn't change the fact that shield tanks are being double nerfed at the same time armor tanks are being buffed. Both sides of the equation are being altered simultaneously. Meanwhile shield boosters are still broken. Shield tank fitting diversity will suffer, cookie cutter extender stacking becoming the norm or just switching over to armor tanking so you can get out of the redline and nitro back if you haven't popped.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 327	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:42:00 - [212] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline. Actually most people asked for requiring the Gunnlogi to fit a module to get it regen as high as it was, since its natural regen would outclass even the best armor repairer. the added effect at the time was shield pilots would need to swap a hardener for a recharger if they wanted to enjoy regen around 200hp/s. Obviously things are a bit different given the fact that there are more slots. Now I know some others have asked for it, but I've always been against the 1 Hardener limit, and instead advocated for a more uniform resistance model (ie both armor and shields closer to the 30%-35% range with an increase to shield base HP to compensate for the loss in resistance % per hardener. so that stacking them causes a less extreme jump in eHP. Passive Regen still needs to die in a fire, it's too hard to balance. Passive Regen should be slow to take light damage, active regen to temporarily rep through incoming DPS. Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:02:00 - [213] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously. Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts. Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact. And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:16:00 - [214] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously. Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts. Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact. And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated. How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Molestia approved
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2203	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:18:00 - [215] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Passive Regen still needs to die in a fire, it's too hard to balance. Passive Regen should be slow to take light damage, active regen to temporarily rep through incoming DPS. I feel about the same and largely it translates into feeling like you're constantly engaging a really fast sentinel that has scout level hp regeneration - if it gets out of your sight for a little bit has all of its hp back. You never encounter a tank that isn't dead or isn't at full hp. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:19:00 - [216] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 206	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:20:00 - [217] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously. Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts. Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact. And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated. I think the issue has to do with total fitted regen capability of the Shield HAVs (What with boosters being both...Temperamental (Possibly Flat out Broken) and extremely expensive to fit). To where, with modules as-is it takes the Shield HAVs longer to regen than it would for them to withdraw from to the redline, recall, and then call in another vehicle...(dependent on fits ofc...but holds true for most MBT-style fits) I agree that base regen needs to be lower than what it was, but the shield HAVs need fitting options to support that change Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:28:00 - [218] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously. Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts. Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact. And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated. I think the issue has to do with total fitted regen capability of the Shield HAVs (What with boosters being both...Temperamental (Possibly Flat out Broken) and extremely expensive to fit). To where, with modules as-is it takes the Shield HAVs longer to regen than it would for them to withdraw from to the redline, recall, and then call in another vehicle...(dependent on fits ofc...but holds true for most MBT-style fits) I agree that base regen needs to be lower than what it was, but the shield HAVs need fitting options to support that change Call in, then recall right after you press on your vehicle, so you call it in and recall at the same time... Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:30:00 - [219] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. But thej blueberries will steal my vehicles and I can't move...and I don't really trust most blues to do anything. Small blaster still needs a range and accuracy buff, and more damage to vehicles. Molestia approved
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:32:00 - [220] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously. Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts. Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact. And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated. I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. The proposed changes force 'caldari' shield tanks into the redline unless they fit a damage modded missile turret to beeline towards an armor tank and pop it in one clip, then beeline back to the redline while reloading. Leaving 'caldari' shield railtanks patroling the redline. Thus Caldari = sits in redline Gallente = nitro all over map

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 329	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:35:00 - [221] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. And when the range gap is eventually broken the tank sits in the redline behind a rock to sustain it's range advantage.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2914	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:56:00 - [222] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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? I already did my numbers. I think that counts as feedback. All pilots want the base core skills to be 5% for shield, armor, CPU and PG per level. Infantry CPU enhancers don't require any PG to use. Why are you going to introduce that, and at such a high fitting cost? And why increase the CPU cost of PG modules? These constitute more nerfs, which is what vehicles don't need. One hardener? The game is supposed to be a sandbox. If someone wants to use dual SMGs on a sentinel, there's nothing stopping them. Why can I not fit two hardeners on a vehicle? Because people complain that they have to reload to destroy a vehicle? That's too bad. Chrome was far better as far as hulls went. Uprising 1.0 turret damage was also superior to Chrome turret damage, as the TTK was extended, making for more exciting tank fights. What we have now is essentially what we had in Chrome, albeit slightly longer. Uprising required incredible module management to survive one battle after another, especially if you find yourself taking on two tanks. As far as PC goes, they're kinda useless, as it's better to have more infantry running around to drop links and hack objectives, rather than have someone sitting in a tank twiddling their thumbs, waiting for some action. An ADS is far more useful, actually able to rapidly fly two people where they're needed, along with attacking and defending objectives that don't have a roof over them. What passives can a solo tank have? If it's just HAV operation to have access to them, then there's no passive bonus. The DHAVs and UHAVs I'm unsure about, will absolutely have passive bonuses, likely two each; one role, one racial. If we had 5% to shield, armor, CPU and PG per level now, vehicles would be in a much, much better place. Armor tanks wouldn't be next to useless, though they would still certainly be outclassed by shield tanks. Instead of nerfing shield tanks to the level armor tanks are at, buff armor tanks to the level shield tanks are at. They should be their own best counters, rather than AV being so much damn better at destroying tanks than another tank is. You could avoid so much unnecessary work by just copying and pasting a lot of the Chrome stats, reworking the turret skills, adding in the old core skills, as well as keeping core grid management and calibration, and giving the destroyers decent hulls and good damage. The Sagaris and Surya must be really hard to kill. There's also no way that someone on any given team will have 0 SP into vehicles at all. I recently saw a Sica with a Gomorrah cannon, taking out other vehicles. That's large turret operation and large rail to 3. Vehicles shouldn't be balanced around one person being able to solo them. Ask any old pilot that's been here for a long time. Vehicle play was far more fun when we were actually able to take out other vehicles without having to worry about AV. Why bother taking out your own vehicle when AV is far more effective for less than 1/3 the price? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Banjo Robertson Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 460	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:00:00 - [223] - Quote I just wanted to say, in the large blaster turret changes, maybe dispersion can be tweaked so that they are less effective against infantry? Or a slight RoF decrease with a compensation of that-much-more damage to keep the DPS to the higher level you want it to be. I feel like, yes, large blasters should be better at blasting tanks, because you've stated thats the main purpose of large turrets, but they are also running around mowing down infantry. Small blasters should also have their dispersion reduced to help them against infantry, I just wanted to say and remind you of this in case it hasnt been written down. Or to at least hear back that it hasnt been forgotten.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2914	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:05:00 - [224] - Quote Nearly forgot about the shield mods. Why make them much harder to fit? Again, this is supposed to be sandbox, not pigeonholing us into only a few viable fits, which is what we have now. We want variety, not a total of 5 or 7 accepted fits. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 329	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:56:00 - [225] - Quote UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ). How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV hardened with 3 people inside? What about 3 forgers? 3 DHAVS? With the proposed tank nerfs, three organized players would put themselves at a disadvantage if they bring thier tank out of the redline without some sort of damage mitigation buff.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:06:00 - [226] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that *** up and wear it. Doc DDD wrote: shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. So you just want to buff both hardeners but maintain the fact that shield hardeners still have a massive difference in percentage, thus maintaining the issue we currently have? Also, why exactly do we have a huge difference between armor and shield hardeners? They're nearly identical in EVE for a reason. And yeah........no vehicle should be passively repping at 200 hp/s constantly, armor or shield, especially with resistances. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2915	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:08:00 - [227] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ). How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV hardened with 3 people inside? What about 3 forgers? 3 DHAVS? With the proposed tank nerfs, three organized players would put themselves at a disadvantage if they bring thier tank out of the redline without some sort of damage mitigation buff. Don't you understand? If one Minmando can't make mincemeat out of that ultimate super glorious most extreme of heavy tanks to the max tank, then that's unfair and it needs to be nerfed. I'm a fan of both of them having at least 12,000 base HP, largely modifiable with HP mods. If they don't have that as a starting point, then they may as well be scrapped completely, as anything less is not an "ultra heavy vehicle." Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 331	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:16:00 - [228] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that *** up and wear it. Doc DDD wrote:** shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. So you just want to buff both hardeners but maintain the fact that shield hardeners still have a massive difference in percentage, thus maintaining the issue we currently have? Also, why exactly do we have a huge difference between armor and shield hardeners? They're nearly identical in EVE for a reason. And yeah........no vehicle should be passively repping at 200 hp/s constantly, armor or shield, especially with resistances. Difference = Massive Duration Difference Difference = Slot module variations Difference = Immediate high armor reps vs shield recharge delay/damage threshold/depleted recharge delay This is not eve.... ---- 'Because Eve' is not an excuse. Try pushing right on the Dad, that's how you call in vehicles.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:24:00 - [229] - Quote Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:31:00 - [230] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. Nevermind time posting, they need to actually play often enough to know what they're talking about. Numbers on a page mean little when it comes to battle conditions. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:32:00 - [231] - Quote Pokey: So when you are done advocating all the vehicles being nerfed to behave like those in EVE, will you move on to nerfing all the infantry to behave like the ships in eve? Get rid of passive infantry armor and shield reps because Eve? Rebalanced suits once again so Ehp of all the races suits are exactly the same because Eve? Make sure a shield modules are required to have reps anywhere near armor levels because Eve? I don't even play Eve yet I am fairly certain armor reps are lower than shield reps in Eve yet you never bring that point up. Shouldn't armor levels be much much higher and armor reps much much lower because Eve? Or is it that you prefer the high reps in this completely different game. This is not Eve and we need to work with what we have so that people actually want to play.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:33:00 - [232] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. He at least plays the game, in a tank. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:36:00 - [233] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust. Give me a compelling answer to WHY there should be so many large differences. Convince me why the current system is better than how it works in EVE, I can be reasoned with. It's not working right because everybody else wants to ignore lore. If we had active reps for armor, it would be a lot better. If shield had constant recharge, and the old booster, but better, shield would be in a good position. But no, throw it all away in favor of destroying a playstyle that some want, because the rage of the many outweighs the desire of the few. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:04:00 - [234] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust. Give me a compelling answer to WHY there should be so many large differences. Convince me why the current system is better than how it works in EVE, I can be reasoned with. You... realize this isn't Eve right ?? Short of taking place in the same universe the game play has nothing in common. Can you jump out of a blaster tank in Eve, flux a point to clear remotes, start hacking, switch to a forge to shoot at the dropship hovering overhead, jump back in you blaster tank, drive to a supply depot, swap into a link outfit and scatter them around the point, recall your blaster tank and call in a rail tank to counter the rail that the recently downed dropship pilot just called in, blow his tank up, then recall, drop an Orbital on the other side of the map and call your blaster tank in to try and supress the influx of infantry trying to counter hack the point you just flipped? I am guessing you don't do that in Eve which is why ' because Eve' doesn't work And if I have to explain shield delays and lower recharge limits affecting only shield tanks in a negative way then I am afraid we just can't see eye toeye.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:23:00 - [235] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey: So when you are done advocating all the vehicles being nerfed to behave like those in EVE, will you move on to nerfing all the infantry to behave like the ships in eve? Get rid of passive infantry armor and shield reps because Eve? Rebalanced suits once again so Ehp of all the races suits are exactly the same because Eve? Make sure a shield modules are required to have reps anywhere near armor levels because Eve? I don't even play Eve yet I am fairly certain armor reps are lower than shield reps in Eve yet you never bring that point up. Shouldn't armor levels be much much higher and armor reps much much lower because Eve? Or is it that you prefer the high reps in this completely different game. This is not Eve and we need to work with what we have so that people actually want to play. Doc, I'm not saying make the modules behave exactly like EVE, because you're right, it's not the same game. However, there IS a reason why they behave similarly in EVE, because large differences cause balance issues. My point is simply that I think they need to be more similar, but not necessarily identical. Also, as for how armor and shields work in EVE I'll try to give you a really simply explanation as not to get into the nitty gritty of it all. Shields do indeed regen constantly in EVE, but very VERY slowly, We're talking unmodded it takes upwards of 15 minutes for passive regen to completely recharge your shields. Even if you speed that time up for the sake of gameplay pace difference between Dust and EVE...you're looking at very long regen times in Dust. That being said, passive regen is very rarely used as the primary means of HP regeneration. The few cases where you do use passive regeneration, are typically on ships which have bonuses to push resistances very high, so you can focus most of your slots and modules on buffing the natural recharge very high. The high regen + high resists allows a 'Passive Shield Tank'. The typical sort of fit you'll seen for both armor and shield are active fits, which use either armor repairers or shield boosters to repair/recharge armor/shield quickly. Active modules. You then have two setups, Cap Stable, and Non-Cap Stable. Cap stable basically means that it can run constantly, and Non-Cap Stable means you have to pulse your repper/booster to deal with damage but are then forced to let your capacitor recharge before you can keep doing it.... So for Dust Passive Regen would be Cap Stable, and Active Regen would be Non-Cap Stable (I'm simplifying this greatly but thats the general idea.) Passive Regen is always slower than Active regen, typically by a fairly large margin. Truth be told, you'll rarely see viable Cap Stable (Passive) PvP fits because when you need HP, you need it NOW, not spread out over large periods of time. However, in Dust we have PASSIVE reps which perform at rates more similar to how ACTIVE reps should be behaving, because they need to be able to actually tank incoming DPS. The issue however is that because it's still repping even after the engagement at the same rate, which leads to a very frustrating gameplay of "If he gets away, he's going to be at full health and back here in 30 seconds" which is an understandable frustration from the AV perspective. As for how the Reppers perform against one another.... Shield Boosters use cap faster but also have higher regen rates. So in Dust terms, short duration, high regen/cycle Armor Repairers use cap slower but have slower regen rates. So in Dust terms, long duration, lower regen/cycle That being said I agree that shield vehicles with active modules should rep faster than armor repairers, but also be more moment to moment with spikes of regeneration, rather than the slower sustained burn of armor repairers. It is important to note however that the sustained HP per minute between the two does not differ that much, it's just a matter if you want it all in big chunks (shields) or more spread out (armor) As for how hardeners work..... Nearly identical in every way. They both offer 30% resistance typically and have very similar capacitor usage, so in Dust terms the duration/cooldown would be nearly identical. The reason for this is that eHP differences are tied to the modules with their respective downsides, but because hardeners are percentage based instead of absolute value, things quickly get ugly if they start to differ too much, even with stacking penalties. You begin to run into situations where the burst tank of the higher resist becomes so great that sustained tank of the other quickly becomes meaningless. In which we arrive at the issue we have in Dust right now...since one can simply burst tank through just about anything and then zip off to the redline to wait for cooldowns. I think the dichotomy of shields being slightly higher resist with shorter duration and longer cooldowns and armor being lower resist, longer duration, and shorter (relative) cooldown is a find concept....if not taken too far. The differences between the two are too great, and should be pushed closer to one another. Putting armor resist at 30% and maybe easing up on the Shield Hardeners duration/cooldown a bit would a good start....but I think maintaining a 15-20% difference between the two is going in the wrong direction. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:23:00 - [236] - Quote And another thing, what we should try to avoid is a game where shield and armor vehicles are completely equal in every way with either the shield bar being really big or the armor bar being really big with non existent secondary defenses. If it comes to that point you might as well have one type of tank and you just select different skins. That way it's fair for everyone, everyone has the exact same EHP, takes the exact same damage from every type of weapon, does the exact same damage to every other vehicle.. That's the direction you are pulling us in, not improving on whats not working (ie armor hardeners) to make them more balanced, but nerfing the benefits of what is working (shield hardeners) to the point that it makes more sense to run infantry AV then call a tank. The whole idea was to give HAVS something to do, to give them purpose, instead we get HAVS with lower base EHP, one race gets nerfed modules, nerfed hull functionality, while the other hull gets buffed in every way.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:34:00 - [237] - Quote 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.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 06:11:00 - [238] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17176	Posted - 2015.02.18 06:29:00 - [239] - 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 Honestly tanks in Dust should operate more like ships in EVE.... None of this arcade passive regeneration bullshit. None of these lame ass disparities between certain kinds of hardener, etc. I'm just horribly despondent that CCP Rattati is doing what he can without back up from his company. "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 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:11:00 - [240] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. He at least plays the game, in a tank. Are you capable of talking to someone without trying to browbeat them? Not impressed with you or Doc right now. There's almost nothing constructive between the two of you. AV



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.