DUST Search - pilot suits the right way

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

pilot suits the right way

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2999	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:19:00 - [1] - Quote I'm not going to bother with Amarr and Minmatar, since we don't have the hulls or turrets. Gallente 3% rep rate per level 2% armor hardener efficacy per level 3% recharge rate per level 3% active module cooldown rate per level Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2999	Posted - 2015.02.25 18:07:00 - [2] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: OP I know, right? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2999	Posted - 2015.02.25 18:51:00 - [3] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Should it come with the Scout's fitting reduction to cloak? Thinking in terms of sneaking off to somewhere safe before calling in a bird or tank. I don't care about slots, as long as it doesn't have some insanely useless bonus like adding CPU and PG, or allowing us to get in a vehicle. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 01:36:00 - [4] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I'm not going to bother with Amarr and Minmatar, since we don't have the hulls or turrets. Gallente 3% rep rate per level 2% armor hardener efficacy per level 3% recharge rate per level 3% active module cooldown rate per level Those seem bit too high and in my mind the only way to apply those bonuses at those per level values is by reducing the efficiency of the standard modules so it doesn't push those attributes way out of whack. I see the Pilot drop-suits a supplementary to your choice of vehicles not wholly determining or supporting of one specific play style. Infantry gets 5% shield, armor, CPU and shield per level; 5% to armor plate, armor rep, shield extender, shield regulator and shield recharger efficacy per level for each individual module. If infantry can get that, surely we can get something from a pilot suit. The word you're looking for is complementary, not supplementary. The Amarr logi suit is complementary to the uplinks. You can use the suit without the links, but don't get a bonus to any other equipment. You can use uplinks with any other suit that has an equipment slot, but won't get the extra spawns or spawn time reduction. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:01:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok so those are your bonuses. Is there any incentive to use ADV or PRO? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:02:00 - [6] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: ... or allowing us to get in a vehicle. What if a pilot suit were required to pilot vehicles (perhaps excluding LAVs)? Do you think that'd be unreasonable? Yes, that is entirely unreasonable. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:03:00 - [7] - Quote Mad Syringe wrote: I hope pilot suits become mandatory for all closed vehicle seats. Absolutely not Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:04:00 - [8] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: We should have vehicle modifiers in the slots. Shield modifiers in the highs, armor modifiers in the lows. Why else would anyone want to use higher than militia Yknow? And! Damage Modifiers will have penalties relating to the slot (high or low / shield or armor). Nothing big! Like maybe a complex damage control will be 7 to 10% reduction to damage received (slot based) at the cost of EHP or maneuverability etc. Damage (nothing over 5%, can only fit one), turret rotation, round velocity, torque, etc, regulators, etc. modifiers on a pilot suit only. Fit suits accordingly annnd boom boom diverse vehicles No downside. There's no downside with regular infantry suits, why should their be a downside with a pilot suit? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:05:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: We should have vehicle modifiers in the slots. Shield modifiers in the highs, armor modifiers in the lows. Why else would anyone want to use higher than militia Yknow? And! Damage Modifiers will have penalties relating to the slot (high or low / shield or armor). Nothing big! Like maybe a complex damage control will be 7 to 10% reduction to damage received (slot based) at the cost of EHP or maneuverability etc. Damage (nothing over 5%, can only fit one), turret rotation, round velocity, torque, etc, regulators, etc. modifiers on a pilot suit only. Fit suits accordingly annnd boom boom diverse vehicles Or perhaps RIG's. Basically rigs are secondary modules that can be fitted to ships in EVE. The offer one positive and one negative stat alteration to your ship. E.G- A Small Locus Co-Ordinator increases a Laser Turrets Optimal Range but means that all fitted turrets of that type suffer from increased PG costs. Lets see how long it takes for Spkr to freak out about this idea... I was talking to Taka about that a while ago, but didn't know how to put it in the right words. Question is, can I put all complex rep mods on a pilot suit at level 5, with rep at level 5 for infantry, and get an insane rep rate on a vehicle with just one mod? Oh wait, that's OP. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:07:00 - [10] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Made a suggestion about pilot suits a while back Phase 1) Vehicles get 'Equipment' Slots that you can fit stuff like active scanners / mcrus / other stuff into. Allows for further equipment iteration. Phase 2) Pilot suits modify the effect of these pieces of equipment (amarr has faster MCRU spawn & secondary effect etc etc etc) This makes pilot suits highly desireable for dedicated pilots, but it doesn't make them overpowered vs people who are simply dabbling in vehicles. In short, pilot suits become a highly desireable sidegrade based on how much time you spend in a vehicle. It also makes things a bit more similar to dropsuit function. Highly desirable? To who? Nobody, that's who. Who wants to dump 3mil SP into a suit that offers no bonus to the hull, or no bonus to a module that will actually enable the vehicle to survive? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:14:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: There we go! Now we vehicle pilots gotta work some numbers here. to diversity! The only issue that I see is that the Rigs have to go on the hull if they ever affect specific attributes like PG/CPU, Shields, and Armour. It's silly being able to deploy something and then modify it in the field simply by hopping in. E.G- You fit Rigs that cause you to go over CPU allotment. What Happens in battle? You are in your tank with X eHP remaining after AV attack and hop out taking you below your modified HP threshold... Any link modules that go on the suit shouldn't affect PG/CPU at all. As for rigs on the hull, that's an entirely different matter. So what negatives/positives/ effects should pilot modules have? Well I could see it as a means to push tanking style into a particular direction. So for example boosting natural shield recharge while decreasing booster amount (More passive for less active). There are also utility options, such as scanning, mCRU, ect. Overall I think it should be more positive than negative, but not necessarily a direct buff without some downside. We could also explore options where there is a smaller benefit without a downside, and then a larger benefit with a downside....Shield Rechargers vs Energizers is a prime example of this. 1. No negatives 2. No negatives 3. No negatives Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:20:00 - [12] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: [ Infantry gets 5% shield, armor, CPU and shield per level; 5% to armor plate, armor rep, shield extender, shield regulator and shield recharger efficacy per level for each individual module. If infantry can get that, surely we can get something from a pilot suit. True but it's not quite a direct translation. For example, Armor Repairers on vehicles rep %eHP quite a bit faster than they do on dropsuits. No s** they do. It's a vehicle vs. a dropsuit. Amarr sentinel has 1344 at the absolute max, while an armor tank has 4000 minimum. That's a Captain Obvious on an insane level.* Additionally we already have a skill which increases armor repair rate, just like infantry. However you're proposing a secondary bonus on top of the existing skill bonus. Cal assault - faster reload time (albeit useless) (already a skill for reload). Gal assault - reduced dispersion (already a skill for that). Amarr assault - reduced heat buildup for scrambler/laser rifles (operation does that). All commando suits - 5% reload bonus per level, making all weapons reload extremely fast. Not necessarily disagreeing with the idea, but you also can't make a direct comparison to dropsuits either. Of course a direct comparison can't be made, it's dropsuits and vehicles. Of course they're different. What I'm saying is, if infantry has a bonus that's good for them, why can't vehicles have the same thing? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:22:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: We should have vehicle modifiers in the slots. Shield modifiers in the highs, armor modifiers in the lows. Why else would anyone want to use higher than militia Yknow? And! Damage Modifiers will have penalties relating to the slot (high or low / shield or armor). Nothing big! Like maybe a complex damage control will be 7 to 10% reduction to damage received (slot based) at the cost of EHP or maneuverability etc. Damage (nothing over 5%, can only fit one), turret rotation, round velocity, torque, etc, regulators, etc. modifiers on a pilot suit only. Fit suits accordingly annnd boom boom diverse vehicles No downside. There's no downside with regular infantry suits, why should their be a downside with a pilot suit? Does the answer "Because we are better than them" satisfy you. What downside is there to any infantry skill in the game? Answer: not a single one. Dropsuits complement weapons or equipment. Why should a pilot suit have a negative impact on the hull? Again, not a single person would use those suits if there was a downside. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:25:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: The word you're looking for is complementary, not supplementary. The Amarr logi suit is complementary to the uplinks. You can use the suit without the links, but don't get a bonus to any other equipment. You can use uplinks with any other suit that has an equipment slot, but won't get the extra spawns or spawn time reduction. You have me on that one. Complements the play style. For example and Amarrian Pilot suit might confer the following. 1-2% per level reduction to the heat build up of energy weapons on the hull. 1-2% per level tracking bonus for energy weapon on the hull (though this only really benefits tanks, lav, and DS gunners, not the DS pilots themselves) Those should be turret skills, not pilot suit skills. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:35:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: The word you're looking for is complementary, not supplementary. The Amarr logi suit is complementary to the uplinks. You can use the suit without the links, but don't get a bonus to any other equipment. You can use uplinks with any other suit that has an equipment slot, but won't get the extra spawns or spawn time reduction. You have me on that one. Complements the play style. For example and Amarrian Pilot suit might confer the following. 1-2% per level reduction to the heat build up of energy weapons on the hull. 1-2% per level tracking bonus for energy weapon on the hull (though this only really benefits tanks, lav, and DS gunners, not the DS pilots themselves) Those should be turret skills, not pilot suit skills. Those very much so are a part of the Amarrian skill set. I see no reason a suit designed to support the pilots own operation capacity would not be able to improve these specific aspects. I want blaster proficiency to lower the heat, and a Gallente pilot suit to improve the rep rate. I want railgun proficiency to do the same thing, and a Caldari pilot suit to either improve the regen, or max shield. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 06:02:00 - [16] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: We should have vehicle modifiers in the slots. Shield modifiers in the highs, armor modifiers in the lows. Why else would anyone want to use higher than militia Yknow? And! Damage Modifiers will have penalties relating to the slot (high or low / shield or armor). Nothing big! Like maybe a complex damage control will be 7 to 10% reduction to damage received (slot based) at the cost of EHP or maneuverability etc. Damage (nothing over 5%, can only fit one), turret rotation, round velocity, torque, etc, regulators, etc. modifiers on a pilot suit only. Fit suits accordingly annnd boom boom diverse vehicles No downside. There's no downside with regular infantry suits, why should their be a downside with a pilot suit? Plates: movement penalty Extends: recharge delay Energizers: max hp. Plus, it could make you think hard and well about What you fit. Or we'll just have damage control/modifiers stacked all over the place and it'll become bland :/ Imagine... 5 complex shield damage control (only 2 damage types in the sense of vehicles so... Might as well keep it shield and armor) then a hardener on top of that? Shield recharge isn't breaking at all any time soon. Well... If you want to be as basic as infantry suits? Or wouldn't you rather become a fitting master that manages to make the superior all round vehicle by balancing the pros and cons? No need for HUGE penalties, but tiny ones...let us all Vote on it later. Idea: pilot suit; 10% reduction to vehicle link module fitting per level. Then racial bonuses get looked at later. Bonuses Those are modules added. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 06:03:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead [i wrote: No s*** they do. It's a vehicle vs. a dropsuit. Amarr sentinel has 1344 at the absolute max, while an armor tank has 4000 minimum. That's a Captain Obvious on an insane level.[/i] I know you struggle with basic math, but do you need me to explain how percentages work? It's ok to admit if you're uneducated, I'm here to help and I want you to learn these basic skills. So do you mean to tell me that an Amarr has a different max armor value, and an armor tank has a different max armor value as well? I use both. I see the numbers all the time, I know what I'm talking about. That has nothing to do with math. If you're going to try to troll me in that way, go away. You have terrible ideas and need to stop spreading them like AIDS. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3000	Posted - 2015.02.27 06:04:00 - [18] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead [i wrote: No s*** they do. It's a vehicle vs. a dropsuit. Amarr sentinel has 1344 at the absolute max, while an armor tank has 4000 minimum. That's a Captain Obvious on an insane level.[/i] I know you struggle with basic math, but do you need me to explain how percentages work? It's ok to admit if you're uneducated, I'm here to help and I want you to learn these basic skills. Why do you find a need to provoke people on the forums? Superiority complex He doesn't play the game, doesn't use vehicles, yet fully believes he knows what's best. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3002	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:31:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: buttvomit Don't you goddamn dare treat me like a child. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3004	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:53:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey, it's a tank. I have no idea what you're trying to say. You're treating me like an invalid. Doc is exactly right when he calls you a spreadsheet warrior. You do all this talk here about numbers, but don't play the game. It's a tank, of course it has a much higher rep rate. Also, I don't know who uses just one rep on a tank, unless they're going for max armor. There's no reason to talk to me like I'm a piece of s*** of a person. Of course I'm angry at you, you don't listen to anything pilots say, preferring instead to point to your numbers without any play time. Numbers don't translate to gameplay. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:26:00 - [21] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey, it's a tank. I have no idea what you're trying to say. You're treating me like an invalid. Doc is exactly right when he calls you a spreadsheet warrior. You do all this talk here about numbers, but don't play the game. It's a tank, of course it has a much higher rep rate. Also, I don't know who uses just one rep on a tank, unless they're going for max armor. There's no reason to talk to me like I'm a piece of s*** of a person. Of course I'm angry at you, you don't listen to anything pilots say, preferring instead to point to your numbers without any play time. Numbers don't translate to gameplay. No, I just don't listen to you because you're a jerk. I don't know what metric you're looking at that leads you to believe that I don't play the game, I was even logged in yesterday doing missions for warbarge components. You've never seen me in match? Well I've never seen you in match either, so by that logic you don't play either...but I know that's a silly way to think. My frustration comes due to the fact that you act like the numerical data doesn't matter at all, in a game heavily depended on numerical data. I've never said that experience doesn't matter, and in fact I've cited in many cases "Well here's how the numbers work, but we wont be able to see for sure until it's field tested". You on the other hand will often say "I don't care if the numbers show massive imbalance, I have a personal experience where things worked out fine!" but the fact of the matter is that anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence, as it it represents only a small sample of the data. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal Experience is important, but the experience of a single, or even a couple players in a limited sample size, is not grounds for making design choices. One must first look at the quantitative evidence, fix any discrepancies, and then put it through a qualitative test (aka, field testing) to see if everything lines up. CCP Pre-Rattati largely skipped the quantitative step, and only fixed things based off of qualitative review....and as such things got more and more messed up as time went on. You seem to subscribe to a similar philosophy, and I'm sorry but my experience over the past 2 years of playing this game, tells me that that is the wrong course of action. Another point is that it's fine if you're not very good at math, lots of people struggle with the subject. But just because you don't understand what I'm talking about, doesn't mean that what I'm saying is incorrect. Both quantitative and qualitative evidence are important in the design process, yet you completely disregard one of them if it becomes too complicated for you to grasp. So in other words you're only interested in looking at half the picture, and do so in the most negative and abrasive way possible. That is why I don't listen to you. All it takes is adding someone to your friend's list, then looking at weekly and monthly kills. Last I checked, you had none for the month. It's easy to figure out, if you played the game. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3008	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:03:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: All it takes is adding someone to your friend's list, then looking at weekly and monthly kills. Last I checked, you had none for the month. It's easy to figure out, if you played the game. Here's a screenshot of my wallet transaction, I didn't have time to play yesterday because I was taking care of my sick brother, but you can see I was playing on the 25th. Now please get over yourself, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/leowen/2015-02-27_12-33-00_119_zpszibqzzbn.jpg EDIT: Just because I know you wont be satisfied with that much, here you go. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/leowen/2015-02-27_12-48-44_913_zpstredmviw.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/leowen/2015-02-27_12-49-01_85_zpsqrwkexcx.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/leowen/2015-02-27_12-49-18_203_zpstsn8hyh5.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/leowen/2015-02-27_12-49-29_218_zpsrpqzixdg.jpg As if I know your personal issues. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3008	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:08:00 - [23] - Quote It comes down to 1. Bad idea Rebuttal 2. Bad idea Rebuttal 3. Bad idea Rebuttal That doesn't make me a bad person, it doesn't make me stupid, it doesn't make me evil, it doesn't make me bad at math. I have a boatload of experience to back up my claims. I've been in a tank for a year and a half. When I joined RS, I had many hours of PC every single day for a month straight, every single one of those hours in a tank. I've made my own spreadsheets, which were half ignored. I make this thread, and it's poo-pooed on because I actually want to give the suits useful bonuses, rather that something worse than useless such as allowing a person to get into a vehicle. I can't think of a bonus more useless than that. I've also seen another bonus such as adding CPU and PG, without the idea of a rig, with my own reply to myself being more neurons dying. How could a suit you deploy in possibly improve a hull's fitting capability like that? Also, why can't we have 5% to PG, CPU, armor and shield? Why must* AV be so damn powerful that one unchecked infantryman with PRO AV can deny access to all vehicles in a 175m radius? Why can't tanks be their own best counter? When I say AV should be a deterrent, that does not mean or imply that I want it to be useless. It implies supplemental damage, not next to no damage. Why does a metal slug traveling at hypersonic speed do less damage than a forge gun? A forge is modified mining equipment, a railgun has a range measured in miles. Pilots point out bad ideas, and offer our own, yet we're the ones being unreasonable, when the bad ideas we counter are the unreasonable ones in the first place. Like the spreadsheet about pilot suits you made a while ago. Direct disadvantages to the advantages you get with the suit? Every single one of them a bad idea. What disadvantages are there to the skills for infantry suits? If I get Amarr logi to 5, does that mean a Core Focused rep tool only reps 50 a second to infantry? No, it does its base rep rate. If I get Gallente assault to level 5, that doesn't mean an SMG does less damage, or have less ammo, or suffer longer reload time, or becomes less accurate. We already have shield recharge delay with the addition of extenders. Why should there be a longer delay with the addition of a pilot suit? It's supposed to make a vehicle better, not add more of a penalty to something. You say you cannot have a rational argument with any of us, well, we cannot have a rational argument with you. When bad ideas are countered with experience and history, and you don't counter with anything logical, that's not a rational argument. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:59:00 - [24] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I think what Simon is getting at is that you could have rigs on the vehicle which affect performance at the cost/gain or PG or CPU. Additionally pilot suits could be fit with link modules that also offer a large benefit with a small downside, but specifically avoiding PG/CPU changes as not to make vehicle fits invalid without the pilot suit. Rigs in EVE generally change the CPU/PG of turrets at least and maybe a couple of other things so on a vehicle it wouldn't change much just like a rig on a ship. The pilot suit itself may have link modules but if it contained link modules that alter the amount of CPU/PG (CPU/PG extenders) on a vehicle and i wanted to use that extra PG/CPU on the vehicle (upgrade a module or add another modules) how can i effectively use it if the vehicle fit is invalid and cannot be called in? The only answer i can think is that with the correct pilot suit on you can call in invalid fits because the game recognizes that you are wearing a pilot suit that will make the vehicle fit valid or you spawn in the vehicle with the pilot suit on. Nothing alters vehicle CPU/PG. That makes it too complicated firstly (ensuring valid fits, balancing etc), secondly everyone will just PG/CPU there suits. Why should I fit a regulator when I can just CPU/PG my way to a comp heavy booster? The idea I have is universal, doesn't modify vehicle fitting, doesn't offset pilot suit vs non pilot suit greatly, and can be balanced suit side Like I said I would avoid having anything on the pilot suit that alters the PG/CPU cost/capacity of anything on the vehicle. If you want to have a rig on the vehicle itself which does that....sure, but the link modules would be something else entirely. Bear in mind I just yanked rig bonuses from EVE for inspiration, obviously if you have link modules with upsides/downsides (much like Armor Plates, Shield Energizers, ect have) that went on the pilot suit but didn't affect the PG/CPU at all...I think that would work out nicely. You could also have link modules that offer a lesser benefit with no downside. And example of this for normal modules would be Ferroscale Plates offering less HP than an armor plate, but without the speed penalty. Pokey we definitely are on the same page. Just saying. Annnyways! Back on topic you guys... Let's try and work on our common goal hmm? Spkr, pokey; what you think of the suit bonuses? Also, turret stacking? That doesn't seem like such a bad idea... As long as the pros and cons stack. Helps out dedicated gunners. But then there's a chance of stacking damage mods... (make 1 fitable only) Which bonus? My bonuses? I made the thread, didn't I? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:03:00 - [25] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Pokey we definitely are on the same page. Just saying. Annnyways! Back on topic you guys... Let's try and work on our common goal hmm? Spkr, pokey; what you think of the suit bonuses? Also, turret stacking? That doesn't seem like such a bad idea... As long as the pros and cons stack. Helps out dedicated gunners. But then there's a chance of stacking damage mods... (make 1 fitable only) Turret stacking is tricky. You obviously want the turret to be useful with a single gunner, but not overpowered with 3. I mean if you ever experienced a triple stacked Assault dropship back when they had the 50% DPS bonus on missiles...you understand what overpowered looks like. Maybe if there was a stacking penalty or something? I mean I'm all for encouraging people to have support gunners but you don't want to make solo vehicles nonviable, or make fully manned vehicles unkillable. As for bonuses I have a document I wrote a while ago, it needs to be revised but you can see some of my general thoughts on page 8: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16DwpratAsrJ1zbxry8VFqoeAMdFGuc-IsHNSPULZK6M/edit?usp=sharing I saw that a while ago. Like I've said before, they're all bad bonuses. Every single "bonus" has a direct disadvantage, making the pilot suit not worth it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:35:00 - [26] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You say you cannot have a rational argument with any of us, well, we cannot have a rational argument with you. When bad ideas are countered with experience and history, and you don't counter with anything logical, that's not a rational argument. And I never said I couldn't have a rational argument with any of you. I actually said that. In another thread, referencing him, Takahiro and the rest of Red Star. Apparently he can't tell the difference between you and me. Which is hilarious and will give me ammo for months. Snugglz doesn't post often on here. Other than that, barely anybody from R*S posts. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:02:00 - [27] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: You say you cannot have a rational argument with any of us, well, we cannot have a rational argument with you. When bad ideas are countered with experience and history, and you don't counter with anything logical, that's not a rational argument. And I never said I couldn't have a rational argument with any of you. I actually said that. In another thread, referencing him, Takahiro and the rest of Red Star. Apparently he can't tell the difference between you and me. Which is hilarious and will give me ammo for months. Snugglz doesn't post often on here. Other than that, barely anybody from RS posts. Which colors my general opinion when the only representation from RS is consistantly and univerally hostile, arrogant and utterly bereft of a willingness to do anything but try and ram minority opinion down everyone's throats. So because it's a "minority opinion," that means it's hostile? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:11:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So because it's a "minority opinion," that means it's hostile? Really spkr? I've seen better attempts to twist words from third graders. If you're going to play that game at least try not to be inexcusably lazy and unimaginative about it. I'm not twisting words. I'm trying to confirm your statement. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3010	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:47:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So because it's a "minority opinion," that means it's hostile? Really spkr? I've seen better attempts to twist words from third graders. If you're going to play that game at least try not to be inexcusably lazy and unimaginative about it. I'm not twisting words. I'm trying to confirm your statement. Then quit trying to reword what I said. If I intended to say what you're trying to interpret I wouldn't bother trying to be subtle, I would have simply said it. Quit trying to be clever, you're anything but. I'm not rewording anything. You still haven't confirmed anything, either. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3014	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:40:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Nor am I going to. The onus is upon you to learn to read. Figured you weren't going to confirm anything. Doesn't surprise me. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3014	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:34:00 - [31] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: DaemonVok wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Should it come with the Scout's fitting reduction to cloak? Thinking in terms of sneaking off to somewhere safe before calling in a bird or tank. I don't care about slots, as long as it doesn't have some insanely useless bonus like adding CPU and PG, or allowing us to get in a vehicle. WOW. You Derp. Extra PG/CPU would be the FURTHEST thing from useless. Stay out of vehicles. You have no brain... Useless because it will cause many complications... How will the vehicle be deployed if not in suit, etc. Suit for select vehicle is simply not a "suit" if you understand what i mean. It can also create some broken fits. Don't insult him. He's right that it IS useless. You're welcome to share an idea/your thoughts on bonuses/modules though :D Yeah anything modifying PG/CPU for vehicles attached to a dropsuit is just going to get messy on the technical side. I would avoid that like the plague. Now bonuses for PG/CPU for the vehicle attached to the vehicle itself? Legit. Like the 5% per level to CPU and PG that we used to have. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

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.