DUST Search - Vehicle Capacitor Compromise

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Vehicle Capacitor Compromise

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 952	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:07:00 - [1] - Quote Posting this on behalf of someone, I also think it's a great idea and a potentially less difficult implementation compared to full blown EVE style vehicle capacitor. CONTEXT: For awhile now, many vehicle users have wanted to have a capacitor on vehicles to manage active modules and balance them a bit better. Balance itself could be made easier with capacitor as very strong active modules do not need be nerfed into the ground or limited in other ways that may render them un-fun to use. Capacitor is an arguably complex system that DOES NOT cater well to the average FPS player. It's something that is very important in Eve but potentially just an unnecessary level of complexity in Dust. IDEA: What we are proposing is a compromise. Something simple, effective and different that can achieve the desired goal. This idea requires no change in the functionality of current active_duration modules. Every vehicle has a certain number of Battery Cells. This is a number based on the hull. Some vehicles can have less others can have more. Every active module "occupies" a certain number of battery cells when it is turned on. When the module's active duration has run out, or when the active module is manually turned off, those battery cells are liberated for use. This is akin to bandwidth for equipment or even RAM for computer applications. If there are not enough available battery cells to activate a given module, it cannot be turned on. EXAMPLE: Tank with 8 battery cells rolls out onto the field. It is equipped with: Heat Sink (2 cells) FuelInjector (3 cells) Armor HardenerA (5 cells) Armor HardenerB (5 cells) Passive Armor Repair (null) Tank activates Armor Hardener A and drops from 8 cells to 3. Tank activates Heat Sink and drops from 3 to 1 Armor Hardener A active duration runs out, battery cells go from 1 up to 6 Tank activates Armor Hardener B, going from 6 back to 1 Tank manually de-activates Heat Sink after ending engagement with hostile armor, going from 1 to 3 Tank activates Fuel Injector to escape hostile AV with hardener B still on, going from 3 to 0 cells left available for other modules. After escaping into redline and all active modules turn off, all 8 cells are available for use again. The important thing here is that it does not change the active_time and cooldown_time of current modules, meaning less overhead. ______________________________________________________ In the future, I would like to see weapons that can disable X number of battery cells on vehicles, forcing their modules to deactivate if they cannot be sustained. I would also like to see more active modules, the likes of which we cannot implement right now because they would be OP. With this battery cell system, we could easily see the co-existence of active and passive armor repair, as well as shield boosting. THANK YOU FOR READING Know what cannot be known.
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 661	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:27:00 - [2] - Quote This sounds like a good balancing mechanic but I'll leave it up to the experts. By the way, how much more complex are EVE capacitor systems than what you are proposing?
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 957	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:33:00 - [3] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: This sounds like a good balancing mechanic but I'll leave it up to the experts. By the way, how much more complex are EVE capacitor systems than what you are proposing? Capacitor is a constantly regening pool from which active modules constantly drain power from. There are no cool downs for active modules, as long as you can supply them with power, they will keep running. This creates meta-terms like being "cap-stable" meaning your capacitor regen and depletion are equal, so you can run all your active modules forever (or until someone attacks your capacitor). Alternatively you can create "burst regen" fits that deplete your capacitor but can get you back up to full in moments. Then you'd have to wait a long time to be able to regen again, not because of module cooldown, but because your capacitor would take while to slowly climb back up. I also think capacitor regens at different speeds depending on what level it's at. I think the first 20% is the worst, adding an extra level of sacrifice for depleting it that far. I don't want to misinform you though, I could be wrong and it's been a very long time since I played Eve. Know what cannot be known.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5882	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:58:00 - [4] - Quote Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 662	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:13:00 - [5] - Quote Thanks for the info, Kaeru. The EVE capacitor sounds a little too complex for DUST. Your proposal is a good compromise and I think I just thought of something a little extra for it. There should be skillbooks to increase a vehicle's capacity, just like there are skillbooks to increase bandwidth for equipment.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:14:00 - [6] - Quote I don't see the point in adding caps into the system, especially since the timers does just that, having their own caps. Also, under your system, you wouldn't be able to turn on all of your modules at once. **** that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 3013	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:36:00 - [7] - Quote Capacitor isn't hard to understand. Capacitor is basically your mana pool. It regenerates constantly, even when you're using modules. As it gets more empty, it regens faster. Boom, that's how capacitor works. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 664	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:59:00 - [8] - Quote That's not what Kaeru is trying to say, Alena. He's saying that the EVE capacitor would demand too many resources to fit into the game.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 959	Posted - 2015.04.16 20:03:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. Why not have both? This is a means to address Rattati's multiple hardener issue. Know what cannot be known.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18284	Posted - 2015.04.16 20:47:00 - [10] - Quote Calculating the number of cells in use mid combat is never going to be a popular method especially when cool downs or actual capacitor wheels might better and more clearly state your actual ability to use modules. However more to the point what needs be understood about any capacitor system is that in both EVE and hopefully in Dust player can or should be able to make Cap Stable fits. What this means is that is modules required low cap consumption to the point where you could keep them, and your weapons active without constraint. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City

Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 964	Posted - 2015.04.16 20:56:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Calculating the number of cells in use mid combat is never going to be a popular method especially when cool downs or actual capacitor wheels might better and more clearly state your actual ability to use modules. [...] If there are between 5 to 10 cells for any given hull, it would be easy to know well in advance things like: "I can't use both hardeners at the same time" or, "If my hardener and active repair module are both online, I can't use my heatsink" or simply "I have only 2 active modules and I have enough cells for both so I don't need to think about it" I am not meaning to suggest any form of large numbers of cells that would be difficult to handle. Does that make sense? Or am I misunderstanding your argument? Also, Adamance, how do you feel about the current context that Capacitor is simply not for Dust ? Which seems to be the conclusion arrived at everytime we ask for capacitor? Wouldn't this be better than nothing at all? Know what cannot be known.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5883	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:09:00 - [12] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. Why not have both? This is a means to address Rattati's multiple hardener issue. Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18285	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:17:00 - [13] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. Why not have both? This is a means to address Rattati's multiple hardener issue. Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. Also an increase of 50% efficiency or greater on the hardeners...... GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5885	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:20:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Also an increase of 50% efficiency or greater on the hardeners...... Sorta. We also lost the passive 10% resistant bonus from skills which roughly translates into the increase resistance on the hardeners. If they want to bring back the 10% from skills and reduce the hardeners back down to 25% and 30% I would not complain. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8124	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:21:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. Why not have both? This is a means to address Rattati's multiple hardener issue. Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. Also an increase of 50% efficiency or greater on the hardeners...... yeah no. AV
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 265	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:21:00 - [16] - Quote This sounds good. It would definitely be helpful to "nerf" the madrugars. 48th Special Operations Force. Twitter- @48SOF
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18286	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:45:00 - [17] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: This sounds good. It would definitely be helpful to "nerf" the madrugars. However not in a health manner. What is model basically suggests placing an additional limitation on HAV module use rather than providing a frame work on which competitive builds can be constructed. The example given basically institutes a model under which dual module activation is simply not possible. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18286	Posted - 2015.04.16 21:47:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Interesting idea to say the least, like you said It's kind of like bandwidth. However I don't think this is exactly a low-hanging fruit so to speak. I'd much rather get rid of these damn passive reps first, see where things go from there, and reevaluate if entirely new systems are needed. Why not have both? This is a means to address Rattati's multiple hardener issue. Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. Also an increase of 50% efficiency or greater on the hardeners...... yeah no. Rough numbers...whatevs 25% -> 40% -> 25% -> 40% Armour 30% -> 60% -> 40% Shield GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 966	Posted - 2015.04.16 22:45:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: This sounds good. It would definitely be helpful to "nerf" the madrugars. However not in a health manner. What is model basically suggests placing an additional limitation on HAV module use rather than providing a frame work on which competitive builds can be constructed. The example given basically institutes a model under which dual module activation is simply not possible. dual activation isew definitely possible with this model. I only gave an example. Don't be closed minded to the idea of DIFFERENT kinds of hardeners. No reason for basic, enhanced and prototype to use the same number of battery cells. Different hulls can also have MORE cells. There can and SHOULD be configurations that can dual harden. This is not about limiting the HAV fitting possibilties, it's adding depth to them. Also, the question I asked in my previous post, do I extract my answer to it as "I'd rather have nothing akin to capacitor at all" ? If that's really the case, I am ready to give up on this idea. Know what cannot be known.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 966	Posted - 2015.04.16 22:47:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. I don't want to see hardeners nerfed. I want to seem them buffed. In my view there is an 80% resistance hardener at 8 cell use. There are 10% passive hardeners There are active and passive Armor repairers. Try not to use my single example close your mind. Perhaps I shouldn't have given an example at all. :( Know what cannot be known.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5887	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:10:00 - [21] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Here is my point....we've had multiple hardeners for literally the entire existence of Dust. There has never been a limit, and it has never been a problem until recently. What changed? A move from Active Regen modules to Passive Regen modules. People seem so very set on killing hardeners and restricting them, yet they have never been an issue prior to the original vehicle mass-rework. Much of which happened then was a mistake, and should be reversed. I think that's the key to making things right again, not trying to place arbitrary restrictions on hardeners which have never been an issue until they were paired with passive regen modules. I don't want to see hardeners nerfed. I want to seem them buffed. In my view there is an 80% resistance hardener at 8 cell use. There are 10% passive hardeners There are active and passive Armor repairers. Try not to use my single example close your mind. Perhaps I shouldn't have given an example at all. I think you will see massive issues with resistances that high. And I'm not against your idea, don't get me wrong. I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:13:00 - [22] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: This sounds good. It would definitely be helpful to "nerf" the madrugars. However not in a health manner. What is model basically suggests placing an additional limitation on HAV module use rather than providing a frame work on which competitive builds can be constructed. The example given basically institutes a model under which dual module activation is simply not possible. dual activation isew definitely possible with this model. I only gave an example. Don't be closed minded to the idea of DIFFERENT kinds of hardeners. No reason for basic, enhanced and prototype to use the same number of battery cells. Different hulls can also have MORE cells. There can and SHOULD be configurations that can dual harden. This is not about limiting the HAV fitting possibilties, it's adding depth to them. Also, the question I asked in my previous post, do I extract my answer to it as "I'd rather have nothing akin to capacitor at all" ? If that's really the case, I am ready to give up on this idea. This is just adding unnecessary complexity (or simplicity, if you want to say that active times are simpler) for no reason is the main point. You're seriously trying to shape this silly idea around everything because you want it. Problem is, there's no point in it being here, seeing as we already have cooldowns and active timers. How about we just fix what's broken instead of adding unnecessary ****? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 966	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:18:00 - [23] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: [...] I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. Agreed 100% ! Know what cannot be known.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5889	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:34:00 - [24] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: [...] I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. Agreed 100% ! Sorta off topic question for you, since you know dropships well. Would Dropships suffer if Light Armor Repairers moved back to an active style? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2953	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:39:00 - [25] - Quote We need real capacitors. Vehicles and dropsuits (dropouts would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." Best PvE idea ever!
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 968	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:41:00 - [26] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: [...] I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. Agreed 100% ! Sorta off topic question for you, since you know dropships well. Would Dropships suffer if Light Armor Repairers moved back to an active style? Not at all ! it would actually be great. Right noww shield dropships have more stayingpower than armor ones, which is backwards. With active armor repping, we could finally see that fixed. Turn on reps -> I am tanking this AV for 10 seconds, and not, i'm going to use my passive reps to barely escape. Know what cannot be known.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5890	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:47:00 - [27] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: [...] I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. Agreed 100% ! Sorta off topic question for you, since you know dropships well. Would Dropships suffer if Light Armor Repairers moved back to an active style? Not at all ! it would actually be great. Right noww shield dropships have more stayingpower than armor ones, which is backwards. With active armor repping, we could finally see that fixed. Turn on reps -> I am tanking this AV for 10 seconds, and not, i'm going to use my passive reps to barely escape. I'd like to move to a model where passive regen is quite low with primary HP regen being focused around active model. Armor having a longer duration than shield boosters, but boosters having a higher HP/minute than armor. I was considering leaving Light Armor Repairers as passive as not to screw dropships, but if actives wouldn't be problematic then it may be better to just do that for the sake of continuity. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10137	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:50:00 - [28] - Quote A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5890	Posted - 2015.04.16 23:52:00 - [29] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:07:00 - [30] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. Well if we keep on him, maybe he can see that it's important and try to push it higher in the list of priorities. Perhaps when CCP AquarHEAD finishes up his work with the matchmaker and they get PC figured out. Best PvE idea ever!

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5891	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:09:00 - [31] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. Well if we keep on him, maybe he can see that it's important and try to push it higher in the list of priorities. Maybe when CCP AquarHEAD finishes up his work with the matchmaker. Again it comes to a the "Low Hanging Fruit" concept. There are a lot of other things which require less effort with more benefit, which will always come first on the list of priorities. Not saying to not suggest it, but he knows its a desired feature and nagging him will likely get the opposite of the desired result. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10138	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:11:00 - [32] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. Well if we keep on him, maybe he can see that it's important and try to push it higher in the list of priorities. Perhaps when CCP AquarHEAD finishes up his work with the matchmaker and they get PC figured out. Apparently CCP the current DUST team only has enough resources to tune things already in game. Pretty much all they can do is ** with colors and numbers. As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP**
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5891	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:13:00 - [33] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. Well if we keep on him, maybe he can see that it's important and try to push it higher in the list of priorities. Perhaps when CCP AquarHEAD finishes up his work with the matchmaker and they get PC figured out. Apparently CCP the current DUST team only has enough resources to tune things already in game. Pretty much all they can do is ** with colors and numbers. Pretty much. I mean small new features are not out of the question, but something like a Cap system is pretty 'deep-code' so to speak and would take a lot of effort and change to get working properly. I just don't think it's economical for them to dedicate so many resources to it at this time when there is a lot of other things that could be more readily changed. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:26:00 - [34] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: [...] I just think we should be revert back to an active system that we know worked in the past before we start exploring options to limit functionality of module use. Agreed 100% ! Sorta off topic question for you, since you know dropships well. Would Dropships suffer if Light Armor Repairers moved back to an active style? Not really, they'd be better off imo, especially for dropoffs. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:26:00 - [35] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. And sadly there just isn't the manpower to implement it now. Rattati has said himself that there are no current plans to implement capacitors. Well if we keep on him, maybe he can see that it's important and try to push it higher in the list of priorities. Perhaps when CCP AquarHEAD finishes up his work with the matchmaker and they get PC figured out. Apparently CCP the current DUST team only has enough resources to tune things already in game. Pretty much all they can do is **** with colors and numbers. Pretty much. I mean small new features are not out of the question, but something like a Cap system is pretty 'deep-code' so to speak and would take a lot of effort and change to get working properly. I just don't think it's economical for them to dedicate so many resources to it at this time when there is a lot of other things that could be more readily changed. I'm not saying we should be obnoxious about it, but persistent and try to provide suggestions for how it could be done and make the case for why it's so crucial. They have the resources to do warbarges, trading, matchmaking, etc. so there are guys who can dig into the code, get their hands dirty and make changes. I'm looking at DUST as a low-res beta for the x86 version. I think it's important to have as much stuff balanced and figured out in DUST so that the relaunch can have the best possible initial release to the public. The game will live or die by how those first few months go. 1. Vehicles can't ever be properly balanced without capacitors. They're either very weak and feel cheap and pathetic. or they're too strong and they ruin the experience for everyone. It's pretty impossible to get that right unless vehicles have to fear being tackled. 2. Having balanced vehicles is a critical component of a relaunch. 3. Therefore capacitors need to be a priority at some point this year. It's easy to always pick the low hanging-fruit, but sometimes you need to roll up your sleeves and tackle the hard problems, like CCP Rattati is doing with PC right now. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:27:00 - [36] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: We need real "EVE-style" capacitors for vehicles and dropsuits (dropsuits would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." That's what's been missing from vehicle/anti-vehicle gameplay and it can't ever be balanced without it. And for what reason do we "need" them? This has never been told to me. It seems utterly pointless to have them. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:28:00 - [37] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:33:00 - [38] - Quote blub click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:34:00 - [39] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: I'm not saying we should be obnoxious about it, but persistent and try to provide suggestions for how it could be done and make the case for why it's so crucial. They have the resources to do warbarges, trading, matchmaking, etc. so there are guys who can dig into the code, get their hands dirty and make changes. I'm looking at DUST as a low-res beta for the x86 version. I think it's important to have as much stuff balanced and figured out in DUST so that the relaunch can have the best possible initial release to the public. The game will live or die by how those first few months go. 1. Vehicles can't ever be properly balanced without capacitors. They're either very weak and feel cheap and pathetic. or they're too strong and they ruin the experience for everyone. It's pretty impossible to get that right unless vehicles have to fear being tackled. 2. Having balanced vehicles is a critical component of a relaunch. 3. Therefore capacitors need to be a priority at some point this year. It's easy to always pick the low hanging-fruit, but sometimes you need to roll up your sleeves and tackle the hard problems, like CCP Rattati is doing with PC right now. Vehicles were almost balanced in 1.6 against each other. Squid HAV's and missile were a little too weak, and Rail/blaster variation needed adjusting among other small things. That's about it. Balance therefore isn't a valid argument. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18296	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:38:00 - [40] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. It would bring actually less balance than the current timer system we have in place now. I don't see how. It's like looking at one combined module cool down. If its going down you might need to turn some modules off if you get to <25%. If it's going up you are in the clear and probably should turn some mods on. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5893	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:55:00 - [41] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: 1. Vehicles can't ever be properly balanced without capacitors. They're either very weak and feel cheap and pathetic. or they're too strong and they ruin the experience for everyone. It's pretty impossible to get that right unless vehicles have to fear being tackled. Actually vehicles have been in a nearly balanced state in the past, even without capacitors. I see capacitor as a nice feature, but not necessary to achieve workable balance. Additionally, you don't need a capacitor to tackle/incapacitate the enemy. I could see this being achieved with active modules/infantry equipment. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:00:00 - [42] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. It would bring actually less balance than the current timer system we have in place now. I don't see how. It's like looking at one combined module cool down. If its going down you might need to turn some modules off if you get to <25%. If it's going up you are in the clear and probably should turn some mods on. This is a problem when you realize that you will have to manage this one wheel, but while you are moving around and/or fighting back, and have to figure out what and what not to turn off. It works for ship combat because aiming isn't even a thing, and moving around takes much less to do, as well as being able to set modules on and off to a button. it would work well on larger platforms, like say a MCC, but on smaller platforms, it simply won't work well. EDIT: Look, the only thing I can see caps actually adding doing positively is making it to where you can control how long you run a module better, vs. having just a straight timer. This has been done however through the cloak. Having the timer mechanics of the cloak on active modules would effectively do just that, but still allows the current timers a thing. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5894	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:09:00 - [43] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. It would bring actually less balance than the current timer system we have in place now. I don't see how. It's like looking at one combined module cool down. If its going down you might need to turn some modules off if you get to <25%. If it's going up you are in the clear and probably should turn some mods on. This is a problem when you realize that you will have to manage this one wheel, but while you are moving around and/or fighting back, and have to figure out what and what not to turn off. It works for ship combat because aiming isn't even a thing, and moving around takes much less to do, as well as being able to set modules on and off to a button. it would work well on larger platforms, like say a MCC, but on smaller platforms, it simply won't work well. EDIT: Look, the only thing I can see caps actually adding doing positively is making it to where you can control how long you run a module better, vs. having just a straight timer. This has been done however through the cloak. Having the timer mechanics of the cloak on active modules would effectively do just that, but still allows the current timers a thing. Except this is basically what you already do, is it not? Just shorter cycles, I mean typically you're not going to be turning hardeners on and off mid-fight, you do it once and let it run until you need to disengage. I guess I don't personally feel like it would be difficult to manage modules. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:13:00 - [44] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: We need real "EVE-style" capacitors for vehicles and dropsuits (dropsuits would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." That's what's been missing from vehicle/anti-vehicle gameplay and it can't ever be balanced without it. And for what reason do we "need" them? This has never been told to me. It seems utterly pointless to have them. I've been working on a long post about this for a while now, but haven't gotten around to finishing it. For one thing there is a fundamental difference between vehicle play and infantry play. A huge part of what makes infantry vs. infantry fun is the simple act of trying to hit a target thats actively evading your fire. Imagine how little fun would be had in an FPS with players the size of buildings. It would be a matter of who started shooting first. Vehicles are huge and rather simplistic. Capacitors help add a ton of depth to fittings and strategy, so vehicle play becomes as much about tactics and fits as it is about positioning. Fights can last much longer and be more interesting instead of quickly blaping each other off the field. In most cases capacitors would actually free up a lot of the obnoxious module-management that the current system uses, since you could create cap-stable fits, if that's your preferred play style. You call in your vehicle, activate your stuff and then don't worry about cap for the rest of the battle (aside from perhaps pulsing some reps after a fight). Another problem with the current system is that adding active modules actually INCREASES the size of your "virtual capacitor," since each one basically has it's own independent capacitor. This creates a lot of weird imbalances that a single shared capacitor would solve. In EVE if you fit all active mods, your cap would only last a few seconds, in DUST each one lasts as long as its active timer. You're essentially getting capacitor batteries, and rechargers for "free" since you don't need to sacrifice a slot or the PG/CPU to fit it. As for things being balanced in the past, I respectfully disagree. There has always been QQ about vehicles vs. AV. It was better in 1.6 than after CCP Blam ruined things, but if you search back, you'll find a lot of rage back then too (it's what motivated the rebalance in the first place). It always comes down to the central question of can one AV take out one HAV. With capacitors, one player can always tackle an HAV, but they may need help to kill it. That's a reasonable balance. HAVs can ride around feeling like gods, but they will always have that tingle in their balls that someone's going to get tackle on them. Best PvE idea ever!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18298	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:17:00 - [45] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. It would bring actually less balance than the current timer system we have in place now. I don't see how. It's like looking at one combined module cool down. If its going down you might need to turn some modules off if you get to <25%. If it's going up you are in the clear and probably should turn some mods on. This is a problem when you realize that you will have to manage this one wheel, but while you are moving around and/or fighting back, and have to figure out what and what not to turn off. It works for ship combat because aiming isn't even a thing, and moving around takes much less to do, as well as being able to set modules on and off to a button. it would work well on larger platforms, like say a MCC, but on smaller platforms, it simply won't work well. EDIT: Look, the only thing I can see caps actually adding doing positively is making it to where you can control how long you run a module better, vs. having just a straight timer. This has been done however through the cloak. Having the timer mechanics of the cloak on active modules would effectively do just that, but still allows the current timers a thing. Godin I may not be aiming in EVE but I am trying to process a lot more information when I fly an EVE ship than I drive a tank in Dust. Speed, Distance, Transversal (multiple ships) drones, targeting, orbits, d-scanner, fleet broad casts, DPS values, capacitor,etc. Honestly if we were looking at on decreasing orange wheel/meter it would be easier to process cap consumption and hardener/module life than doing the same on half a dozen smaller such metres. But to each their own. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5894	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:18:00 - [46] - Quote Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18299	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:21:00 - [47] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: We need real "EVE-style" capacitors for vehicles and dropsuits (dropsuits would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." That's what's been missing from vehicle/anti-vehicle gameplay and it can't ever be balanced without it. And for what reason do we "need" them? This has never been told to me. It seems utterly pointless to have them. I've been working on a long post about this for a while now, but haven't gotten around to finishing it. For one thing there is a fundamental difference between vehicle play and infantry play. A huge part of what makes infantry vs. infantry fun is the simple act of trying to hit a target thats actively evading your fire. Imagine how little fun would be had in an FPS with players the size of buildings. It would be a matter of who started shooting first. Vehicles are huge and rather simplistic. Capacitors help add a ton of depth to fittings and strategy, so vehicle play becomes as much about tactics and fits as it is about positioning. Fights can last much longer and be more interesting instead of quickly blaping each other off the field. In most cases capacitors would actually free up a lot of the obnoxious module-management that the current system uses, since you could create cap-stable fits, if that's your preferred play style. You call in your vehicle, activate your stuff and then don't worry about cap for the rest of the battle (aside from perhaps pulsing some reps after a fight). Another problem with the current system is that adding active modules actually INCREASES the size of your "virtual capacitor," since each one basically has it's own independent capacitor. This creates a lot of weird imbalances that a single shared capacitor would solve. In EVE if you fit all active mods, your cap would only last a few seconds, in DUST each one lasts as long as its active timer. You're essentially getting capacitor batteries, and rechargers for "free" since you don't need to sacrifice a slot or the PG/CPU to fit it. As for things being balanced in the past, I respectfully disagree. There has always been QQ about vehicles vs. AV. It was better in 1.6 than after CCP Blam ruined things, but if you search back, you'll find a lot of rage back then too (it's what motivated the rebalance in the first place). It always comes down to the central question of can one AV take out one HAV. With capacitors, one player can always tackle an HAV, but they may need help to kill it. That's a reasonable balance. HAVs can ride around feeling like gods, but they will always have that tingle in their balls that someone's going to get tackle on them. Tackling and Neuting are two different things. One slows the vehicle down the other reduced the capacitor of a vessel over time (even then Neuts and Nosferatu's do require their fair share of cap to activate and maintain so if they were hand held infantry tools they could not possibly be eternally active, nor would they instantly drain or prevent an HAV from simply driving off). GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3095	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:35:00 - [48] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: A lot of things in this game could easily be balanced by capacitors. We said this in the beginning but Blam thought we were too stupid to understand the concept of capacitors. To manage caps, especially during a fight would be hell. Especially for other vehicles. It would bring actually less balance than the current timer system we have in place now. I don't see how. It's like looking at one combined module cool down. If its going down you might need to turn some modules off if you get to <25%. If it's going up you are in the clear and probably should turn some mods on. This is a problem when you realize that you will have to manage this one wheel, but while you are moving around and/or fighting back, and have to figure out what and what not to turn off. It works for ship combat because aiming isn't even a thing, and moving around takes much less to do, as well as being able to set modules on and off to a button. it would work well on larger platforms, like say a MCC, but on smaller platforms, it simply won't work well. EDIT: Look, the only thing I can see caps actually adding doing positively is making it to where you can control how long you run a module better, vs. having just a straight timer. This has been done however through the cloak. Having the timer mechanics of the cloak on active modules would effectively do just that, but still allows the current timers a thing. Godin I may not be aiming in EVE but I am trying to process a lot more information when I fly an EVE ship than I drive a tank in Dust. Speed, Distance, Transversal (multiple ships) drones, targeting, orbits, d-scanner, fleet broad casts, DPS values, capacitor,etc. Honestly if we were looking at on decreasing orange wheel/meter it would be easier to process cap consumption and hardener/module life than doing the same on half a dozen smaller such metres. But to each their own. Mostly none of that is done at once in most cases, and even when they are, multitasking for it is much easier than in Dust, because even if you momentarily stop doing a function, it doesn't completely stop; but rather it keeps on going by itself. A lot of that stuff can even be automated as well. Also, managing modules is much easier in EVE vs. Dust, because they can all have their own button, or you can easily select them with the mouse. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3096	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:40:00 - [49] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: We need real "EVE-style" capacitors for vehicles and dropsuits (dropsuits would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." That's what's been missing from vehicle/anti-vehicle gameplay and it can't ever be balanced without it. And for what reason do we "need" them? This has never been told to me. It seems utterly pointless to have them. I've been working on a long post about this for a while now, but haven't gotten around to finishing it. For one thing there is a fundamental difference between vehicle play and infantry play. A huge part of what makes infantry vs. infantry fun is the simple act of trying to hit a target thats actively evading your fire. Imagine how little fun would be had in an FPS with players the size of buildings. It would be a matter of who started shooting first. Vehicles are huge and rather simplistic. Capacitors help add a ton of depth to fittings and strategy, so vehicle play becomes as much about tactics and fits as it is about positioning. Fights can last much longer and be more interesting instead of quickly blaping each other off the field. In most cases capacitors would actually free up a lot of the obnoxious module-management that the current system uses, since you could create cap-stable fits, if that's your preferred play style. You call in your vehicle, activate your stuff and then don't worry about cap for the rest of the battle (aside from perhaps pulsing some reps after a fight). Another problem with the current system is that adding active modules actually INCREASES the size of your "virtual capacitor," since each one basically has it's own independent capacitor. This creates a lot of weird imbalances that a single shared capacitor would solve. In EVE if you fit all active mods, your cap would only last a few seconds, in DUST each one lasts as long as its active timer. You're essentially getting capacitor batteries, and rechargers for "free" since you don't need to sacrifice a slot or the PG/CPU to fit it. As for things being balanced in the past, I respectfully disagree. There has always been QQ about vehicles vs. AV. It was better in 1.6 than after CCP Blam ruined things, but if you search back, you'll find a lot of rage back then too (it's what motivated the rebalance in the first place). It always comes down to the central question of can one AV take out one HAV. With capacitors, one player can always tackle an HAV, but they may need help to kill it. That's a reasonable balance. HAVs can ride around feeling like gods, but they will always have that tingle in their balls that someone's going to get tackle on them. 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY **!!!!!!"? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18301	Posted - 2015.04.17 01:54:00 - [50] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: We need real "EVE-style" capacitors for vehicles and dropsuits (dropsuits would use this for active equipment). It's really not very complicated, and simpler than trying to manage multiple batteries. There is one pool that regenerates. All active mods use the pool. There are a few nuances in how it regenerates, but they aren't that critical to understand, just don't let it get too low and you're good. It's nearly identical to stamina and people seem to understand that just fine. With capacitors, neutralizers and webs we would finally be able to achieve vehicle balance. Vehicles would be durable, powerful and expensive, but always vulnerable to being "tackled." That's what's been missing from vehicle/anti-vehicle gameplay and it can't ever be balanced without it. And for what reason do we "need" them? This has never been told to me. It seems utterly pointless to have them. I've been working on a long post about this for a while now, but haven't gotten around to finishing it. For one thing there is a fundamental difference between vehicle play and infantry play. A huge part of what makes infantry vs. infantry fun is the simple act of trying to hit a target thats actively evading your fire. Imagine how little fun would be had in an FPS with players the size of buildings. It would be a matter of who started shooting first. Vehicles are huge and rather simplistic. Capacitors help add a ton of depth to fittings and strategy, so vehicle play becomes as much about tactics and fits as it is about positioning. Fights can last much longer and be more interesting instead of quickly blaping each other off the field. In most cases capacitors would actually free up a lot of the obnoxious module-management that the current system uses, since you could create cap-stable fits, if that's your preferred play style. You call in your vehicle, activate your stuff and then don't worry about cap for the rest of the battle (aside from perhaps pulsing some reps after a fight). Another problem with the current system is that adding active modules actually INCREASES the size of your "virtual capacitor," since each one basically has it's own independent capacitor. This creates a lot of weird imbalances that a single shared capacitor would solve. In EVE if you fit all active mods, your cap would only last a few seconds, in DUST each one lasts as long as its active timer. You're essentially getting capacitor batteries, and rechargers for "free" since you don't need to sacrifice a slot or the PG/CPU to fit it. As for things being balanced in the past, I respectfully disagree. There has always been QQ about vehicles vs. AV. It was better in 1.6 than after CCP Blam ruined things, but if you search back, you'll find a lot of rage back then too (it's what motivated the rebalance in the first place). It always comes down to the central question of can one AV take out one HAV. With capacitors, one player can always tackle an HAV, but they may need help to kill it. That's a reasonable balance. HAVs can ride around feeling like gods, but they will always have that tingle in their balls that someone's going to get tackle on them. 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? Cap stable stuff is the **! GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City

Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:25:00 - [51] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. Best PvE idea ever!
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:30:00 - [52] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY **!!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Best PvE idea ever!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18304	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:30:00 - [53] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. Depends on what the velocity reduction is. If the thing reduces the tap something equivalent to dropsuit walk speeds then the prop mod won't do a great deal for the tanker. However combining Neuts and Webs into one would have to see neither attribute particularly effective. As I see it.... it should be a matter of one or the other, cap drained or velocity reduced, not both. Especially depending on ranges for these tools. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3096	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:35:00 - [54] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:37:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tackling and Neuting are two different things. One slows the vehicle down the other reduced the capacitor of a vessel over time (even then Neuts and Nosferatu's do require their fair share of cap to activate and maintain so if they were hand held infantry tools they could not possibly be eternally active, nor would they instantly drain or prevent an HAV from simply driving off). That's true. I'm thinking we could have lots of options for both: We could have webbing grenades, mines, handheld active tools like a re-purposed reptool, and possibly ewar small turrets (could add a lot of value to LAVs). We could have equivalent stuff for neuts. So a scout could conceivably place down a neut mine, wait for the HAV to roll through and set it off, follow that up with a few neut grenades and then switch to his handheld webifier to lock it down for his squad. You could picture dozens of different scenarios that could play out in different ways. Best PvE idea ever!
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:41:00 - [56] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. The point is that you've been saying it would be impossible to manage all of the modules with a capacitor because it would make driving/flying/shooting too difficult. I'm saying, if that's the case then cap-stable fits would have the advantage since they can focus 100% on driving/flying/shooting. In all likelihood the best fits will probably have a small amount of management, but not so much that it's obnoxious (i.e. because if it's obnoxious than it's probably going to cause you to loose fights). Best PvE idea ever!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18304	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:43:00 - [57] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tackling and Neuting are two different things. One slows the vehicle down the other reduced the capacitor of a vessel over time (even then Neuts and Nosferatu's do require their fair share of cap to activate and maintain so if they were hand held infantry tools they could not possibly be eternally active, nor would they instantly drain or prevent an HAV from simply driving off). That's true. I'm thinking we could have lots of options for both: We could have webbing grenades, mines, handheld active tools like a re-purposed reptool, and possibly ewar small turrets (could add a lot of value to LAVs). We could have equivalent stuff for neuts. So a scout could conceivably place down a neut mine, wait for the HAV to roll through and set it off, follow that up with a few neut grenades and then switch to his handheld webifier to lock it down for his squad. You could picture dozens of different scenarios that could play out in different ways. I like some of those ideas and absolutely loath others. Grenades and Mines are a no go for me. Tools that can seen and identified by a pilot as a threat yet yield a more tactical application than "Spam Here X" certainly seem more fair. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18304	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:45:00 - [58] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. The point is that you've been saying it would be impossible to manage all of the modules with a capacitor because it would make driving/flying/shooting too difficult. I'm saying, if that's the case then cap-stable fits would have the advantage since they can focus 100% on driving/flying/shooting. In all likelihood the best fits will probably have a small amount of management, but not so much that it's obnoxious (i.e. because if it's obnoxious than it's probably going to cause you to loose fights). I have to admit currently tanks (Armour) need very little imput from their pilot to function properly. Activate everything and drive away 3-5 seconds before modules go on cool down. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:56:00 - [59] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Vell0cet wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tackling and Neuting are two different things. One slows the vehicle down the other reduced the capacitor of a vessel over time (even then Neuts and Nosferatu's do require their fair share of cap to activate and maintain so if they were hand held infantry tools they could not possibly be eternally active, nor would they instantly drain or prevent an HAV from simply driving off). That's true. I'm thinking we could have lots of options for both: We could have webbing grenades, mines, handheld active tools like a re-purposed reptool, and possibly ewar small turrets (could add a lot of value to LAVs). We could have equivalent stuff for neuts. So a scout could conceivably place down a neut mine, wait for the HAV to roll through and set it off, follow that up with a few neut grenades and then switch to his handheld webifier to lock it down for his squad. You could picture dozens of different scenarios that could play out in different ways. I like some of those ideas and absolutely loath others. Grenades and Mines are a no go for me. Tools that can seen and identified by a pilot as a threat yet yield a more tactical application than "Spam Here X" certainly seem more fair. Well mines can be countered with scanners. You'd have to be aware/leery of possible ambush chokepoints. I think grenades would be fair as well. You can only carry a limited number. They could be balanced on how much cap they neut out. I think grenades would be particularly useful for knocking out the cap of logis running reptools on heavies before an assault on a fixed position. It creates new tactical opportunities and counter-tactical opportunities. That's what leads to fun, rich combat. Best PvE idea ever!
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2955	Posted - 2015.04.17 02:57:00 - [60] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I have to admit currently tanks (Armour) need very little imput from their pilot to function properly. Activate everything and drive away 3-5 seconds before modules go on cool down. ...And more than a few people are banging the drum to have them nerfed. Best PvE idea ever!

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3098	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:16:00 - [61] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. The point is that you've been saying it would be impossible to manage all of the modules with a capacitor because it would make driving/flying/shooting too difficult. I'm saying, if that's the case then cap-stable fits would have the advantage since they can focus 100% on driving/flying/shooting. In all likelihood the best fits will probably have a small amount of management, but not so much that it's obnoxious (i.e. because if it's obnoxious than it's probably going to cause you to loose fights). I never said impossible, I said it will be hell. Two very different things. My point is that it's unnecessary, and it's counter productive. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3098	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:18:00 - [62] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. The point is that you've been saying it would be impossible to manage all of the modules with a capacitor because it would make driving/flying/shooting too difficult. I'm saying, if that's the case then cap-stable fits would have the advantage since they can focus 100% on driving/flying/shooting. In all likelihood the best fits will probably have a small amount of management, but not so much that it's obnoxious (i.e. because if it's obnoxious than it's probably going to cause you to loose fights). I have to admit currently tanks (Armour) need very little imput from their pilot to function properly. Activate everything and drive away 3-5 seconds before modules go on cool down. When reps were active, there was more method to moving around. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2956	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:20:00 - [63] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: If cap stable fits are anything like they are in EVE, they won't be viable for actual combat, unless it's against a idiot, or it's mostly passive stuff. 2: lel. I said nothing about AV in that, I specifically pointed out that VEHICLES were mostly balanced against each other. Also, even if AV wasn't balanced, how in the ** does that reason "HERP DERP LET'S ADD UNNECESSARY !!!!!!"? 1. So what's your point, that you should run fits that require lots of micromanagement? I thought you said that would be difficult to use. How would using a difficult-to-use fit be more advantageous in a fight? Maybe you could eek out a bit higher EHP or DPS, but then if you're fumbling around with your module wheel and not DPSing then it's probably not going to be a good fit. The point is that cap stable fits would be an option for some, that would be easier than we have now, and people that want to try to micro manage stuff can give it a go, but it's probably not going to work well. People will find a balance that works well for their play style. Having that kind of fitting flexibility would make vehicles a lot more interesting than they are now with cookie-cutter builds. Pure passive fits are always ** against their active counterpart for the most part. That is the norm in both EVE and Dust, for like ever. I don't get your point. The point is that you've been saying it would be impossible to manage all of the modules with a capacitor because it would make driving/flying/shooting too difficult. I'm saying, if that's the case then cap-stable fits would have the advantage since they can focus 100% on driving/flying/shooting. In all likelihood the best fits will probably have a small amount of management, but not so much that it's obnoxious (i.e. because if it's obnoxious than it's probably going to cause you to loose fights). I never said impossible, I said it will be hell. Two very different things. My point is that it's unnecessary, and it's counter productive. The current system is hell, trying to manage 5 different modules with long cooldowns that won't auto-cycle. Vehicles that become nearly invincible and can absorb insane amounts of focused fire, retreat for a few seconds only to return and be at full strength again. Capacitors would solve all of those issues. Best PvE idea ever!
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 968	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:22:00 - [64] - Quote I feel like the purpose behind this thread is being lost. Vehicle users want capacitor for depth. It's not "low hanging fruit". It's complicated for the average dust player. I propose more simple alternative that would functionally be similar, right down to having neuts in the distant future. But we want real capacitors, except the're too complex. Hence the compromise. I don't want this idea to be implemented right away. I agree that many other things should come first. But changes happen WAAAY in advance, and once theyre in QA it's too late for any player input. If and when we ever need a cap system, this idea will be here. Until then, it's fine if we focus on other things. try to understand this is a compromise, not an ideal. Know what cannot be known.
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2956	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:31:00 - [65] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: I feel like the purpose behind this thread is being lost. Vehicle users want capacitor for depth. It's not "low hanging fruit". It's complicated for the average dust player. I propose more simple alternative that would functionally be similar, right down to having neuts in the distant future. But we want real capacitors, except the're too complex. Hence the compromise. I don't want this idea to be implemented right away. I agree that many other things should come first. But changes happen WAAAY in advance, and once theyre in QA it's too late for any player input. If and when we ever need a cap system, this idea will be here. Until then, it's fine if we focus on other things. try to understand this is a compromise, not an ideal. I think it's an unnecessary compromise. I disagree that EVE-style capacitors are too hard for the average Merc to figure out. It's like a stamina bar that goes down when you sprint, jump or melee, or like a mana bar in other games. Hell I remember very old-school FPS games had flashlights with a battery that recharges, people seemed to understand that pretty quickly. Your solution doesn't address many of the reasons why a capacitor is a good thing (such as basically giving all active modules free batteries and rechargers) and doesn't diminish the hassles of trying to manage lots of independent cooldowns. And it adds the complexity of having a "bandwitdth" for active modules. I don't want to be disrespectful but it's much worse (and more complex) than just adding EVE capacitors. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3098	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:37:00 - [66] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: The current system is hell, trying to manage 5 different modules with long cooldowns that won't auto-cycle. Vehicles that become nearly invincible and can absorb insane amounts of focused fire, retreat for a few seconds only to return and be at full strength again. Capacitors would solve all of those issues. Well, if it's simple to use, which you seem to agree with, I call bullshit. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18306	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:47:00 - [67] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: I feel like the purpose behind this thread is being lost. Vehicle users want capacitor for depth. It's not "low hanging fruit". It's complicated for the average dust player. I propose more simple alternative that would functionally be similar, right down to having neuts in the distant future. But we want real capacitors, except the're too complex. Hence the compromise. I don't want this idea to be implemented right away. I agree that many other things should come first. But changes happen WAAAY in advance, and once theyre in QA it's too late for any player input. If and when we ever need a cap system, this idea will be here. Until then, it's fine if we focus on other things. try to understand this is a compromise, not an ideal. I like your suggestion very much but honestly I would not want it on vehicles because I don't believe its a step forwards. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2956	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:53:00 - [68] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: The current system is hell, trying to manage 5 different modules with long cooldowns that won't auto-cycle. Vehicles that become nearly invincible and can absorb insane amounts of focused fire, retreat for a few seconds only to return and be at full strength again. Capacitors would solve all of those issues. Well, if it's simple to use, which you seem to agree with, I call bullshit. I agreed that armor tanks are currently very simple to use. The whole system is clunky and awkward. It would be much easier to say toggle on a couple active modules and have them auto-cycle as cap stable and manage a couple of others (maybe a prop mod or a rapper) during the fight as cap allows. That's more flexible, more interesting, more fun, and less management that what we currently have. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3100	Posted - 2015.04.17 03:59:00 - [69] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: The current system is hell, trying to manage 5 different modules with long cooldowns that won't auto-cycle. Vehicles that become nearly invincible and can absorb insane amounts of focused fire, retreat for a few seconds only to return and be at full strength again. Capacitors would solve all of those issues. Well, if it's simple to use, which you seem to agree with, I call bullshit. I agreed that armor tanks are currently very simple to use. The whole system is clunky and awkward. It would be much easier to say toggle on a couple active modules and have them auto-cycle as cap stable and manage a couple of others (maybe a prop mod or a rapper) during the fight as cap allows. That's more flexible, more interesting, more fun, and less management that what we currently have. Yet that exact same fit is would be stomped by a unstable fit, and said unstable fit (probably a fit made just like one we have now) would be hell to manage period. ALso, what makes you think it won't be any less clunky? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2956	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:07:00 - [70] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: The current system is hell, trying to manage 5 different modules with long cooldowns that won't auto-cycle. Vehicles that become nearly invincible and can absorb insane amounts of focused fire, retreat for a few seconds only to return and be at full strength again. Capacitors would solve all of those issues. Well, if it's simple to use, which you seem to agree with, I call bullshit. I agreed that armor tanks are currently very simple to use. The whole system is clunky and awkward. It would be much easier to say toggle on a couple active modules and have them auto-cycle as cap stable and manage a couple of others (maybe a prop mod or a rapper) during the fight as cap allows. That's more flexible, more interesting, more fun, and less management that what we currently have. Yet that exact same fit is would be stomped by a unstable fit, and said unstable fit (probably a fit made just like one we have now) would be hell to manage period. ALso, what makes you think it won't be any less clunky? Because modules would auto-cycle. If I'm only actively managing a couple of modules (e.g. prop mod and reps), and allowing my hardeners to auto-cycle while you're distracted trying to micro your hardeners and everything else there's a good chance I can out maneuver/gun you and take you out. That's the point. There will be a natural balance in how much mico managing modules gives you an advantage vs. distracts you from the fight. I suspect there will be an equilibrium with just a few modules being actively managed while the rest auto-cycle for most players. This would be a significant improvement over the current level of management with having to constantly toggle all modules. Best PvE idea ever!

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5896	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:08:00 - [71] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. True, but with the sake of manpower in mind, I think it may be better to go with a simply webifier before we go into something as intensive as a full cap system. I think that in of itself would be awesome. Remote Webifier Mines? Awww yeah. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2958	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:12:00 - [72] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. True, but with the sake of manpower in mind, I think it may be better to go with a simply webifier before we go into something as intensive as a full cap system. I think that in of itself would be awesome. Remote Webifier Mines? Awww yeah. I agree that there are some more immediate pressing concerns (like trading, and PC, and webs) but I think trying to add capacitors and get them balanced before a relaunch is important (hopefully before December). DUST is the perfect "laboratory" to work this stuff out and get it all balanced. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5896	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:13:00 - [73] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. True, but with the sake of manpower in mind, I think it may be better to go with a simply webifier before we go into something as intensive as a full cap system. I think that in of itself would be awesome. Remote Webifier Mines? Awww yeah. I agree that there are some more immediate pressing concerns (like trading, and PC, and webs) but I think trying to add capacitors and get them balanced before a relaunch is important (hopefully before December). DUST is the perfect "laboratory" to work this stuff out and get it all balanced. You speak as if a relaunch is a guaranteed thing right now. Was there something I missed on this topic? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18309	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:19:00 - [74] - Quote To qualify my earlier statement more given the example in the OP I just simply find it strange that the model would keep the same cool down timers, etc but only limit the effectiveness of those modules to the value of one primary tanking module and one utility module active at a time. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2958	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:22:00 - [75] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Again I have to ask, why do you need capacitors to tackle vehicles? Can you not use Webifiers to slow vehicles and open up opportunities for AV to break through a vehicles tank before it escapes? It would be a start, but a vehicle could still activate it's prop mod if webbed and probably get away. With cap, and neuts, you could shut down the prop mod and kill their ability to run hardeners/reppers. The whole thing becomes a lot more deep and fun. True, but with the sake of manpower in mind, I think it may be better to go with a simply webifier before we go into something as intensive as a full cap system. I think that in of itself would be awesome. Remote Webifier Mines? Awww yeah. I agree that there are some more immediate pressing concerns (like trading, and PC, and webs) but I think trying to add capacitors and get them balanced before a relaunch is important (hopefully before December). DUST is the perfect "laboratory" to work this stuff out and get it all balanced. You speak as if a relaunch is a guaranteed thing right now. Was there something I missed on this topic? Well either we have one and we should get ready for it, or we don't, in which case none of this really matters much at all. Either way I'd like to give feedback under the assumption that the game will have a future. If it won't than nothing I write (or you or anyone else for that matter) really means anything. CCP Hilmar hinted that he's happy with the direction of the game, I have to think we're going to have some kind of future. Best PvE idea ever!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5896	Posted - 2015.04.17 04:32:00 - [76] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Well either we have one and we should get ready for it, or we don't, in which case none of this really matters much at all. Either way I'd like to give feedback under the assumption that the game will have a future. If it won't than nothing I write (or you or anyone else for that matter) really means anything. CCP Hilmar hinted that he's happy with the direction of the game, I have to think we're going to have some kind of future. Fair enough. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 968	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:12:00 - [77] - Quote True Adamance wrote: To qualify my earlier statement more given the example in the OP I just simply find it strange that the model would keep the same cool down timers, etc but only limit the effectiveness of those modules to the value of one primary tanking module and one utility module active at a time. you're assuming my example is the only possibility with the proposition. I actually regret giving an example at all, now. Have an 80% hardener that lasts 10 seconds and takes many cells. Have passive resistance modules that require none. Have multiple smaller cycle active armor reps. etc.. Think BEYOND what we currently have. Compromise or true capacitor allows us to have better active modules because they can't be stacked ontop of one another for as many slots as the hull can allow. I'm fine with multiple hardeners being on at once in this model. The point is it would be deliberate and balanced instead of a by product. Another example: passive armor rep at 15 hp/s active armor rep at 75 hp/s (3 cells) armor hardener A (4 cells) armor hardener B (4 cells) again, 8 cells on the hull. Know what cannot be known.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 968	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:15:00 - [78] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I like your suggestion very much but honestly I would not want it on vehicles because I don't believe its a step forwards. I gladly and humbly can accept this. Both Vellocet and yourself want the absolute best capacitor system we can get. Know what cannot be known.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3100	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:22:00 - [79] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: True Adamance wrote: I like your suggestion very much but honestly I would not want it on vehicles because I don't believe its a step forwards. Vell0cet wrote: I think it's an unnecessary compromise [...] I gladly and humbly can accept this. Both Vellocet and yourself want the absolute best capacitor system we can get. I still feel like I have to ask, though, if they don't want to give you Eve's cap system, would you be satisfied with nothing at all? My question is why do we need one in the first place, when we can just as easily balance it out? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2960	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:32:00 - [80] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: True Adamance wrote: I like your suggestion very much but honestly I would not want it on vehicles because I don't believe its a step forwards. Vell0cet wrote: I think it's an unnecessary compromise [...] I gladly and humbly can accept this. Both Vellocet and yourself want the absolute best capacitor system we can get. I still feel like I have to ask, though, if they don't want to give you Eve's cap system, would you be satisfied with nothing at all? My question is why do we need one in the first place, when we can just as easily balance it out? How can you possibly balance out this power curve with the existing broken system? Best PvE idea ever!

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3100	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:35:00 - [81] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Kaeru Nayiri wrote: True Adamance wrote: I like your suggestion very much but honestly I would not want it on vehicles because I don't believe its a step forwards. Vell0cet wrote: I think it's an unnecessary compromise [...] I gladly and humbly can accept this. Both Vellocet and yourself want the absolute best capacitor system we can get. I still feel like I have to ask, though, if they don't want to give you Eve's cap system, would you be satisfied with nothing at all? My question is why do we need one in the first place, when we can just as easily balance it out? How can you possibly balance out this power curve with the existing broken system? That seriously doesn't mean **** when you realize that these two systems aren't in the same game. You are seriously saying since EVE does it, Dust should as well. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2960	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:47:00 - [82] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: That seriously doesn't mean **** when you realize that these two systems aren't in the same game. You are seriously saying since EVE does it, Dust should as well. No I'm saying that EVE's system is balanced, and ours is broken, and the graphs show exactly why we can't have balance with our current system. When we get Amarr tanks, and you can run an even more beastly armor tank, it will further highlight the problem. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3102	Posted - 2015.04.17 05:55:00 - [83] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That seriously doesn't mean **** when you realize that these two systems aren't in the same game. You are seriously saying since EVE does it, Dust should as well. No I'm saying that EVE's system is balanced, and ours is broken, and the graphs show exactly why we can't have balance with our current system. When we get Amarr tanks, and you can run an even more beastly armor tank, it will further highlight the problem. Yet there's been several points in which it was balanced in Dust. I guess those weren't for some reason? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2960	Posted - 2015.04.17 06:00:00 - [84] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That seriously doesn't mean **** when you realize that these two systems aren't in the same game. You are seriously saying since EVE does it, Dust should as well. No I'm saying that EVE's system is balanced, and ours is broken, and the graphs show exactly why we can't have balance with our current system. When we get Amarr tanks, and you can run an even more beastly armor tank, it will further highlight the problem. Yet there's been several points in which it was balanced in Dust. I guess those weren't for some reason? I can't remember a time when I would describe vehicles as being balanced. There have been times that were better than others, but there has always been issues, and now we have proto tanks, and will be getting Amarr tanks. The point stands, in EVE active modules are better than passives but come at the cost of your cap pool and the threat of cap warfare. In DUST there is no downside to fitting active mods. There is no counter-balance to the system. It's broken and will remain so. Best PvE idea ever!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3102	Posted - 2015.04.17 06:32:00 - [85] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Vell0cet wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: That seriously doesn't mean **** when you realize that these two systems aren't in the same game. You are seriously saying since EVE does it, Dust should as well. No I'm saying that EVE's system is balanced, and ours is broken, and the graphs show exactly why we can't have balance with our current system. When we get Amarr tanks, and you can run an even more beastly armor tank, it will further highlight the problem. Yet there's been several points in which it was balanced in Dust. I guess those weren't for some reason? I can't remember a time when I would describe vehicles as being balanced. There have been times that were better than others, but there has always been issues, and now we have proto tanks, and will be getting Amarr tanks. The point stands, in EVE active modules are better than passives but come at the cost of your cap pool and the threat of cap warfare. In DUST there is no downside to fitting active mods. There is no counter-balance to the system. It's broken and will remain so. Let's see: Codex before the rail buff and after the missile nerf Chromosome after the rail nerf Pretty much all of Uprising, minus Squid HAV's being too weak Explain those time periods, Because I quite remember those periods of time being quite balanced. Also, there's always little balance issues in EVERY game. Does that validate restructuring an entire system for no reason? Nope. nada. Hell no. You've yet to say any other reason by the way. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2960	Posted - 2015.04.17 07:14:00 - [86] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Let's see: Codex before the rail buff and after the missile nerf Chromosome after the rail nerf Pretty much all of Uprising, minus Squid HAV's being too weak Explain those time periods, Because I quite remember those periods of time being quite balanced. Also, there's always little balance issues in EVERY game. Does that validate restructuring an entire system for no reason? Nope. nada. Hell no. You've yet to say any other reason by the way. Maybe we're playing different games, because I recall years of vehicle fights being very short and dull, fits being cookie-cutter, an endless debate about vehicles vs. anti-vehicles. Redline Rail QQ. The rule for ambush being whoever can call in vehicles faster than the other team wins (ultimately resulting in them being removed from the mode entirely). Dropships being insanely OP, UP. Vehicles being too expensive, being much too cheap, and on and on. Now with pro tanks these problems are compounded, and with the intro of Amarr and Minmatar placeholders, the problems will likely get worse. If you think vehicles are great as they are, there's no convincing you of anything. I'm confident that EVEifying vehicles (modeling them after frigates) would allow for a wide range of fits, gameplay depth and tactics, fewer balancing issues (EVE has been balancing these for over a decade), while retaining the fast-paced feel of a frigate brawl. If we could bring that to DUST we would have the best vehicle experience of any multiplayer FPS. Incidentally when vehicles were much more EVE-like (pre 1.7) they were a lot more fun and interesting. I'm not saying we need an "orbit" button or crap like that, but brining in the diversity of modules, the ability to fit in many different ways for different play styles and tactics would be so much richer than what we have now. Best PvE idea ever!
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 968	Posted - 2015.04.17 17:05:00 - [87] - Quote Kindly answer my final question. Know what cannot be known.
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2962	Posted - 2015.04.17 17:14:00 - [88] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Kindly answer my final question. CCP are capable of implementing an EVE-style capacitor system. It's a matter of them choosing to make it a priority. I'd rather them stick with the existing sh*tty system than spend a lot of energy on a compromise solution. It would mean they can add capacitors that much faster when they do have the time. Best PvE idea ever!
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 333	Posted - 2015.04.17 18:07:00 - [89] - Quote Capacitor wouldn't be hard to introduce... In a programming sense. Say i Have a cap of Y, and gain X per second, or however it is in Eve (guesstimating) Get a thread that counts the seconds, or make it sleep every 1000 seconds. Then, simply subtract from Y, and then add X to the difference. So it's like this: Thread starts; Declare a variable in thread, restricts scope (tX) tX = X; [moving vehicle given X into a variable i can play with] tX -= Drain; [total energy drain from modules] tX += Y; [regeneration] Off = (tX < 0)? True:False; [turns off modules if no energy left] Thread sleeps; yu kinda feel? The ADS tourney! Join today!
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4338	Posted - 2015.04.17 21:42:00 - [90] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: Posting this on behalf of someone, I also think it's a great idea and a potentially less difficult implementation compared to full blown EVE style vehicle capacitor. CONTEXT: For awhile now, many vehicle users have wanted to have a capacitor on vehicles to manage active modules and balance them a bit better. Balance itself could be made easier with capacitor as very strong active modules do not need be nerfed into the ground or limited in other ways that may render them un-fun to use. Capacitor is an arguably complex system that DOES NOT cater well to the average FPS player. It's something that is very important in Eve but potentially just an unnecessary level of complexity in Dust. IDEA: What we are proposing is a compromise. Something simple, effective and different that can achieve the desired goal. This idea requires no change in the functionality of current active_duration modules. Every vehicle has a certain number of Battery Cells. This is a number based on the hull. Some vehicles can have less others can have more. Every active module "occupies" a certain number of battery cells when it is turned on. When the module's active duration has run out, or when the active module is manually turned off, those battery cells are liberated for use. This is akin to bandwidth for equipment or even RAM for computer applications. If there are not enough available battery cells to activate a given module, it cannot be turned on. EXAMPLE: Tank with 8 battery cells rolls out onto the field. It is equipped with: Heat Sink (2 cells) FuelInjector (3 cells) Armor HardenerA (5 cells) Armor HardenerB (5 cells) Passive Armor Repair (null) Tank activates Armor Hardener A and drops from 8 cells to 3. Tank activates Heat Sink and drops from 3 to 1 Armor Hardener A active duration runs out, battery cells go from 1 up to 6 Tank activates Armor Hardener B, going from 6 back to 1 Tank manually de-activates Heat Sink after ending engagement with hostile armor, going from 1 to 3 Tank activates Fuel Injector to escape hostile AV with hardener B still on, going from 3 to 0 cells left available for other modules. After escaping into redline and all active modules turn off, all 8 cells are available for use again. The important thing here is that it does not change the active_time and cooldown_time of current modules, meaning less overhead. ______________________________________________________ In the future, I would like to see weapons that can disable X number of battery cells on vehicles, forcing their modules to deactivate if they cannot be sustained. I would also like to see more active modules, the likes of which we cannot implement right now because they would be OP. With this battery cell system, we could easily see the co-existence of active and passive armor repair, as well as shield boosting. THANK YOU FOR READING Sounds like it would occupy less client run time to maintain this, and the option for additional weapons or tactical options later down the line is appealing. I'm also a fan of having more than one "nob" to twist as a method for tuning balance because I really dislike hardline solutions to problems if more dynamic ones can be offered. Could possibly even offer some more options for mods to be included in future. This seems like it could be a useful way to expand vehicle options when we've established a nice foundation. It may also provide options for addressing disparities between vehicle types as opportunity costs for mods could be scaled more fully. CPM 1 mail me your feedback and remember to have fun!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.