DUST Search - Normalization of Vehicle Module Progression

Avallo Kantor wrote:

Pokey, these are very good numbers, and I like your progression quite a bit.

One other concern, that seems to have been brought up from Aeon on GD, is the issue of fitting on lower level tanks without max skills.

Basically the issue boils down to: If you have max tanking skills for fitting bonuses, you will have no issues fitting at all levels. However at basic / advanced levels, if you only have the skills to just be at those tiers than it becomes difficult to impossible to fit all basic modules.

In short to make basic tanks more viable to non-skilled pilots, or more specifically pilots who's skills are at a point where they can only reach up to basic, to allow them to more easily fit said modules. (In short, a player with all level 1 skills in vehicles, should be able to fit all basic to a basic tank with little issue)

Would you be able to also look at the CPU / PG costs of the modules per tier and see that they follow some coherent progression as well?

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

The difference between light and heavy needs to be fixed, there is no middle ground modules which i do think need to be put in, same with adding the 180mm plates back also.

Your 90% numbers now mean that the difference between a basic 120mm plate and a proto 120mm plate is 358 HP but yet the pro plate would require far more CPU and PG to fit for next to no difference. Uprising had 180mm pro plate at 3200HP with other variations being around 2700/2400 for the 180mm plates i think with 120mm pro plate being half of the 180mm. Base HP has been gutted to begin with and you need more HP now more than ever but also there does have to be an incentive to use a PRO plate and if the difference is minimal then what happens is players use the basic plate and take the PG/CPU savings and apply them to somewhere else. And yes, you don't want the difference between STD and PRO to be TOO small, but I think currently it's not very fair, particularly on the lower end of the tier ladder.

The hardeners i use PRO anyways but a difference between 10% can be too much even though in the past i may have proposed this, 5% could be more fairer starting with militia at 25% and PRO staying at 40%


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5468	Posted - 2015.03.17 01:29:00 - [1] - Quote So in light of working more with LAVs, specifically fitting, I've noticed that there seem to be some odd discrepancies in the benefit Standard and Advanced modules offer between tiers, as compared to proto. So I decided to plug in plates, extenders, and repairers of all types into a spreadsheet and see what it looked like. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Iihs6-JsnVvgnazJgdHUk4OpHHnEO12sVinnQNm4fOQ/edit?usp=sharing So I just went with the 0.75 to begin with since armor plates were already fairly close to it, but I'm not set on using that exact coefficient. Prototype levels were used as the baseline so those remained unchanged. The biggest differences (assuming that .75 coefficient) are mostly in Light Shield Extenders, and Light Armor repairers, which both see a pretty significant increase at Standard and Advanced levels, which I think is needed. Armor Plates see no change for 60mm and a marginal decrease at 120mm for advanced and a marginal increase for standard. Heavy Shield extenders see a marginal decrease at Advanced, and a slightly larger increase at Standard level. Heavy Armor Repairers would see a decrease at both Standard and Advanced. Only oddity I see in this is that the Standard Heavy Repair would end up being lower than the Complex Light Repairer, so perhaps a different coefficient may be wanted for that one. --- So what do you guys think? Do you support a normalization to give progression through the tiers a more linear progression? And if so, what coefficient do you think would be appropriate? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5469	Posted - 2015.03.17 01:47:00 - [2] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: This looks a lot better, especially for light repairers. Currently, it not worth using anything below proto. It is a bit of a shame about the STD heavy rep, though I think either a change in coefficient would help or a decrease in CPU usage (it's main draw over the cplx light). Overall, nothing seems to get screwed and most stuff gets a buff, I'm ok with this. Yeah the Heavy rep is an odd one. You get more HP/s out of a Light Complex Rep than a Heavy Basic rep, but the Light Complex would cost more CPU and less PG. If I up that percentage from 75% to 85% you get a 79/94/110 progression for Heavy Armor reps, which could just easily be rounded to 80/95/110 which isn't all that different from what we currently have, just a small buff to Advanced. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5480	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:32:00 - [3] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Looks good to me. Closes some gaps to stop it being PRO or go home. Indeed. Fitting my LAV I saw the Basic Light Shield extender and thought it was a bug because "pffft it can't really only be 180 HP can it?" "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5495	Posted - 2015.03.18 17:47:00 - [4] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Go fit up a basic vehicle with basic modules and watch it get whacked by proto in less than a clip. Precisely why I wanted to take a look at the progression and brings things to a more linear fashion, which ultimately ended up as mostly a buff to lower tiered modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5499	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:31:00 - [5] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Pokey, these are very good numbers, and I like your progression quite a bit. One other concern, that seems to have been brought up from Aeon on GD, is the issue of fitting on lower level tanks without max skills. Basically the issue boils down to: If you have max tanking skills for fitting bonuses, you will have no issues fitting at all levels. However at basic / advanced levels, if you only have the skills to just be at those tiers than it becomes difficult to impossible to fit all basic modules. In short to make basic tanks more viable to non-skilled pilots, or more specifically pilots who's skills are at a point where they can only reach up to basic, to allow them to more easily fit said modules. (In short, a player with all level 1 skills in vehicles, should be able to fit all basic to a basic tank with little issue) Would you be able to also look at the CPU / PG costs of the modules per tier and see that they follow some coherent progression as well? Well keep in mind that the DPS numbers for the AV assumes max skills, and there are a number of factors that affect max skill such as charge time, lock time, reload speed, proficiency, ect. So those numbers assume it's a vet with a large investment of SP to get those values at all tiers. If you remove that SP and look at it from the perspective of someone with very little investment, Standard performs quite a bit lower. Obviously in terms of at least HP modules, vehicles don't work that way. There's very little that can be done to increase the HP of your modules or even total HP with skills on a vehicle. I think those need to be added, such that a tanker with very little SP investment will perform quite a bit worse than one with heavy SP investment, much like how AV works. So If anything the values listed on the spreasheet should show "Tiers of Vehicle Modules assuming max skills" and actually having skills that make a difference to those modules. Give me some time, Id like to do a DPS comparison of what a heavily SP invested AVer can do vs a fresh AVer. I think that might be a good baseline to look at what sort of skills and how important they should be in terms of vehicle module performance. As for PG/CPU cost that's certainly something that needs to be looked at and I have it on my list of things to do. However I want to at least get the HP of these modules in the proper place and then use that as the baseline to figure out where the PG/CPU costs just be. Takahiro Kashuken wrote: The difference between light and heavy needs to be fixed, there is no middle ground modules which i do think need to be put in, same with adding the 180mm plates back also. Your 90% numbers now mean that the difference between a basic 120mm plate and a proto 120mm plate is 358 HP but yet the pro plate would require far more CPU and PG to fit for next to no difference. Uprising had 180mm pro plate at 3200HP with other variations being around 2700/2400 for the 180mm plates i think with 120mm pro plate being half of the 180mm. Base HP has been gutted to begin with and you need more HP now more than ever but also there does have to be an incentive to use a PRO plate and if the difference is minimal then what happens is players use the basic plate and take the PG/CPU savings and apply them to somewhere else. And yes, you don't want the difference between STD and PRO to be TOO small, but I think currently it's not very fair, particularly on the lower end of the tier ladder. The hardeners i use PRO anyways but a difference between 10% can be too much even though in the past i may have proposed this, 5% could be more fairer starting with militia at 25% and PRO staying at 40% I do miss my 180mm plates...and yeah medium modules would be very appropriate since the difference between light and heavy is substantial. As for the 90%, I think that may be too aggressive. The reason being that even if it matches the AV tier for tier, you also have to consider that a chunk (albeit smaller than it used to be) of the HAVs HP is built into the hull, and that doesn't change between tiers. So I think going 90% between tiers will actually end up making the STD hulls stronger than they should be. So perhaps 80-85% would be more appropriate? It also helps make the CPU/PG differences more appropriate. But yes as I said before I think some of the fitting needs to be looked at. Rattati had mentioned resource skills a while ago, so that goes with what I talked about above with the whole "Heavy SP Investment vs Low SP Investment" difference. So again resources do need to be looked at but I think we also really need to know what sort of skills we're going to have as well before we really dive into that. Plus balancing resource cost is a pain the ass and kinda falls into my "That's the Dev's job" category. I'd also be a fan of adding at least a small difference in tiers of hardeners, 30/35/40 seems reasonable to me. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5504	Posted - 2015.03.19 07:53:00 - [6] - Quote Updated the spreadsheet with a new tab "Work in Progress" I went with the .8 ratio for HP modules and .85 for Armor Repairers. I also rounded them to the nearest 5 HP because I'm OCD, but they still fall within +80% between tiers. Also tried to bridge the gap with some 'medium' modules so there are no gaping holes in HP progression. Thoughts? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net