DUST Search - [Discussion/Theorycrafting] Swarm Launchers and Variants

All Channels

General Discussions

[Discussion/Theorycrafting] Swarm Launchers and Variants

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 497	Posted - 2015.10.13 00:15:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: @Stefan: I also think the turning changes are a step in the right direction, they let you artificially increase the distance Swarms have to travel, which helps you actually leave the fight. I do think Swarms need the variants looked at: having the base SL function like a 'Breach' with high damage but longish lock-on times (for HAV work) and the Assault having lower damage (probably a little lower than the current SL) but with longer lock range, faster lock-on and more shots in the clip. That would go a long way towards solving SL balance by making them actually balance-capable, instead of OP vs one and UP vs the other. I'm receptive to the idea of separating SLs into long and short range versions. However I advise against separating them too far for several reasons. Most importantly, once we get into a territory where the two variants are separated into "anti-DS SL" and "anti-HAV SL" the utility of each individual SL will be greatly reduced. It's a good idea to have one SL that does long range supressive damage to both DS and HAV and a short range SL that can kill HAVs and forces DS to immediately flee out of range. But the long range SL needs to be able to deter an HAV that is rolling up to your face and the short range SL needs to be able to keep a DS away. Otherwise people won't use either of them unless they perform so well at their respective jobs that it'll be an unfair fight for the HAV or DS pilots. would love to have these thoughts spelled out in actual before and after numbers per each swarm variant. Question for theorycrafting...can missile speed and/or flight range be adjusted between variants? or just lock range? consider everything to be adjustable. I just need to create a different projectile type if we would do a faster one. It is also possible to do one missile per swarm, if that's something interesting. Here we have the conversation tree that started it. So let's get a discussion of the swarm launcher stats going...with any/all variables apparently up for debate/change for different variations. How do you feel about: The Job that Vanilla Swarm Launchers should be doing, and how well they are doing that job? How Swarms are doing vs Dropships How Swarms are doing vs ADS How Swarms are doing vs HAVs How Swarms are doing vs LAVs? (Lol) Does anyone actually use the Assault Variant(s) (Or ISK 'Specialist' variant), and/or be adversely affected by their current functionality being changed? What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should a General Purpose Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS? And should a variant in this style exist? What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Aircraft Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist? What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Tank Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 497	Posted - 2015.10.13 00:17:00 - [2] - Quote I've done some intitial theorycrafting on my own. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Radiant Pancake3 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 00:34:00 - [3] - Quote .... I've seen more assault swarm launchers in the kill feed lately... It weirds me out... Learned the ways of N4g from Alcina's mom Deemed the most Kinkiest Corp Mate. Min Loyalist.
ReViRaX 20	Posted - 2015.10.13 00:51:00 - [4] - Quote /YODA TALK OFF Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: How do you feel about: The Job that Vanilla Swarm Launchers should be doing, and how well they are doing that job? How Swarms are doing vs Dropships Quit fine. Swarms vs regular dropships are fine IMO. I fly quite regularly, and even militia dropships can survive 2-3 rounds before going down without mods. Besides, killing in a dropship takes 2 people. How Swarms are doing vs ADS Still bad. The maps are half the reason (one-socket maps with NO COVER). I can barely tell the difference with swarms, some I have encountered STILL travel around buildings. Why can't my missiles do that?!?!? Invisible swarms SMH....don't even get me started on redline railtanks. How Swarms are doing vs HAVs HAV's (madrugars) are fine. Lai Dais can still kill tanks very well. Why aren't specialist AV grenades costing more CPU/PG and you can carry 3?? Gunnlogi's vs swarms are fine. Swarms barely dent an 8k shield tank but that's all shield tanks are good for. They suck right now. How Swarms are doing vs LAVs? (Lol) vs Saga-II's with the built-in hardener, quite good! But if you want to use an LAV like an assault vehicle, they are really weak. HOW can a sentinel (infantry suit) have MORE ARMOUR THAN A CAR?!?!? Does anyone actually use the Assault Variant(s) (Or ISK 'Specialist' variant), and/or be adversely affected by their current functionality being changed? nope. I tried them with their faster lock-on time but they have a slower firing rate so....yeah What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should a General Purpose Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS? And should a variant in this style exist? variants should exist for different vehicles. Breach should be slow and cannot move along the y-axis...so it should be for HAV's. Assault should be the ONLY variant should ADS and it should be able to travel along y-axis. As for general variants, they should be able to travel along y-axis BUT have twice the lock-on time of breach (HAV) and assault (ADS/dropship) variants. Keep speed the same for general & assault SL but half the speed for the breach. What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Aircraft Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist? Lots of damage, normal firing rate, slow travel speed. see above What initial speed/acceleration/top speed should an Anti-Tank Swarm Launcher have? and what Damage/DPS/Lock-Range? And should a variant in this style exist? Little damage, normal firing rate, fast travel speed. see above Yoda in da-skies
Malleus Malificorum Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 211	Posted - 2015.10.13 02:02:00 - [5] - Quote I want to be able to at least have a single shot dumbfire variant so that the caldari com has at least an option to have the versatility of a plasma cannon type thing. Weep not poor children, For life is this way, Murdering beauty and passion. I bring the light.
Celus Ivara DUST University Ivy League 421	Posted - 2015.10.13 03:16:00 - [6] - Quote One thing I'd like to throw into the mix is the idea that SL variants should be identifiable from each other for the pilot on the receiving end. A different number of fired missiles (as Rattati suggested) would help. Another tool could be different colors. Imagine flying to a point when suddenly a brilliant-blue, single missile pops off a roof and arcs toward you. Knowing your opponent let's you make interesting choices; otherwise you'd be flailing in the dark. #PortDust514
IceShifter Childhaspawn Rebels New Republic The Ditanian Alliance 799	Posted - 2015.10.13 03:38:00 - [7] - Quote I ran swarms on my logi fits to keep armor (vehicles) off my squad but dropped them because they just suck. The only time you can reliably drop armor is if you catch them off guard and before they take assault position. I have respect for the DS pilots and tankers but it is impossible to take them down with swarms as a utility weapon. You wont ever balance swarms with DS on the field. Anything designed for a four thousand hp tank will shred a DS. Just remove them and make something better. It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 09:05:00 - [8] - Quote I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 27	Posted - 2015.10.13 09:53:00 - [9] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

FireBirdStar Dead Man's Game 53	Posted - 2015.10.13 09:57:00 - [10] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Give Havs bonus like SL resistance (little bit only) something like that . To balance them Born Gallente, Pure Caldari

Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 983	Posted - 2015.10.13 10:20:00 - [11] - Quote lower the damage of swarms instead of making it harder to hit things, that way it isn't dealing 2000 dmg per volley against armour. The damage plus how quickly they lock and fire is an issue, so either lower damage or increase lock times, I would prefer a damage reduction. Wanna play eve?
Lost Apollo Moose Knuckle Pros 118	Posted - 2015.10.13 10:31:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" I use the assault variant. Locking on to multiple targets is fun. Run out of ammo pretty quick. Swarms aren't really in a bad place. However, unless you have two swarmers, taking down anything more than a LAV is quite difficult. Most pilots are smart enough to move once the first volly hits. Maybe a Breach Swarm Launcher could be done. One less in the clip in exchange for higher damage per shot? My armor is weak, but my shields are relentless. State "Kampo" Logistics Born - April 1, 2013
Sanchez Rivera Wolf Pack Special Forces Rise Of Legion. 79	Posted - 2015.10.13 10:55:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Is It A Bad Idea To Make Specific Swarm Launchers To Specific Vehicles...? Like For Example: ADS Swarm Launcher: Will Have More Efficiency On ADS (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicles(75%) Tank Swarm Launchers: Will Be More Efficient On Tanks (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicle(75%) Numbers Could Be Different, But 2 Different Vehicle Types In Battle Would Be A Challenge For One AV User (As Always) And LAVs Would Feel A Bit Buffed Good Day People! I Want To Have All The BPOs :3
DiablosMajora 335	Posted - 2015.10.13 11:29:00 - [14] - Quote Is it possible to have variants that only lock onto one type of vehicle (DS/ADS, HAV, LAV)? Prepare your angus
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 7	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:09:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" You could start by reverting every change since 1.7 and work with the players from there since most of the community seems to identify that as the peak of vehicles before they were turned into passive aggressive sheet metal. I only deal in absolutes
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 500	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:12:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" I think it's that and Vice Versa..."how can you have a weapon that is good at killing tanks, that won't just obliterate a Dropship immediately, and how can you have a weapon good at killing dropships that an HAV operator has a chance to escape from?" That's why I'm in favor of a general purpose one that is OK vs both, but doesn't excel and than 2 specialty variants for each specific purpose. @Stefan Stahl: I'll go ahead and add your idea onto the spreadsheet. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution 13	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:23:00 - [17] - Quote I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. Re-Retired PC Scout. I miss the old days ;_; Wanna play EVE? 30 day trial here
Nirwanda Vaughns 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:25:00 - [18] - Quote I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields. When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG. as for SL varients, make the assault swarms longer lock range, perhaps back upto 300m but bring damage down and it should be balanced Please fix my C-II hitpoints!! Jesus and I love you :)
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 500	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:27:00 - [19] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. The assault swarm launcher is a swarm launcher that can lock onto two targets at once...for increased fitting and isk cost, and no increase in any other statistic...using its advantage eats your magazine too quickly, so it's only really useful vs unfit LAV spam as-is xD Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 12	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:29:00 - [20] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields. When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG. From a lore perspective, Gallente do not utilize missiles as a primary weapon system. The "Gallente swarm" is the PLC; a hybrid - blaster AV weapon. If we were to have an anti-shield AV weapon it would probably come from the Amarr. Or, considering that one of the advantages of missiles in Eve is they can load a missile of any damage type, perhaps we can just keep the swarms Caldari and say it has been loaded with an EM warhead. "I get to fist tanks in butt" - Jadek Menaheim

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 500	Posted - 2015.10.13 12:35:00 - [21] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields. When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG. as for SL varients, make the assault swarms longer lock range, perhaps back upto 300m but bring damage down and it should be balanced While I agree with the sentiment here...considering our problem(s) with V/AV right now are primarily being expressed on Armor Vehicles...I mean...you realize that, until FoxFour, Gunnlogis have been out of luck for some time...still going to wait for an oppurtunity to try them out again now that they have a bit of a buff...but I don't think it'll help them much where they really need it. But...in regards to Anti-Shield AV...Why not a swarm launcher made by Khanid Innovations, and give it a +20/-20 profile...call it Mjolnir Swarm Launchers... Although...in Eve one line of Gallente ships did have launcher hardpoints...but that was abandoned a few years ago (I think they where the Roden Shipyards line of ships). Although...the lack of AV Laser would make someone very unhappy xD Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 13:05:00 - [22] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: I think it's that and Vice Versa..."how can you have a weapon that is good at killing tanks, that won't just obliterate a Dropship immediately, and how can you have a weapon good at killing dropships that an HAV operator has a chance to escape from?" That's why I'm in favor of a general purpose one that is OK vs both, but doesn't excel and than 2 specialty variants for each specific purpose. @Stefan Stahl: I'll go ahead and add your idea onto the spreadsheet. Fully agreed. CCP Rattati wrote: cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV. Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution: - A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later. - A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed. Some more general arguments: Right now, in any situation that doesn't involve buildings, the resolution of a fight between a DS and SL is determined only by the distance between the two. If distance is x then y volleys connect before the DS escapes, delivering z damage within w seconds and the DS either pops or it doesn't. That means I can design a SL that destroys any DS of a given ehp if caught within an arbitrary distance to the SL. In fact I came up with a couple possible variants during a train ride yesterday. However I fail to see the gameplay here. Neither the SL operator nor the DS pilot are doing anything interesting - they're both not enjoying their time, which is terrible gameplay. I know that isn't what you asked for, but I'd like to put some effort into creating a more interesting SL-DS interplay before creating such variants. Tweaking turn-rate and missile speed as well as implementing directional swarm launching (I'm going to keep banging that drum) creates a much more interesting gameplay where we can involve both the DS pilot and the SL operator in more interesting activities. However the design is much more complicated - more analysis to come... By the way, if an update is underway and not yet feature-complete: Beside directional swarm launching (#directionalswarmlaunching - trending now!), we could very much use a profile-parameter for all vehicles that is hotfixable and is used to determine the speed at which a SL (or other guided weapon) locks on. I imagine it's fairly simple to implement and gives us a very easy to use design parameter. Something of the sort: Lock-on-duration = base-value(from weapon) * skill-modifier(from character) * profile(from lock-on-target) Profile is a float with a default of 1.0 and ranges from more than 0 to less than Inf. An HAV may have a profile of 1.0, a DS of 1.05, an LAV of 1.1, something like that. It's not an elegant solution, but it'd be good to have it should the need arise. If technical reasons stop it from happening, that's no big problem.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Four Horseman Tactical Agency 2	Posted - 2015.10.13 13:59:00 - [23] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: lower the damage of swarms instead of making it harder to hit things, that way it isn't dealing 2000 dmg per volley against armour. The damage plus how quickly they lock and fire is an issue, so either lower damage or increase lock times, I would prefer a damage reduction. Or like some have suggested , give assault swarms the ability to be better against dropships so to speak because they can target two different vehicles at one time , allow vanilla to be vanilla and the go to for all vehicles but not specialized in taking out any specific vehicle target and allow specialist swarms to be more efficient against HAV's given the longer lock on times and just differentiate the swarms with their missile count when in use also , Vanilla given the usual 4 . Assault given 5 . Specialist given 5 or 6 swarms per volley . If you also want to change the projectile / missile color as well you could do so to help the swarms stand out as well . Most of the issues of this game are easy to deal with given a consolidated effort and brainstorming instead of finger pointing and bias that normally happens . We need to learn to come together so that we can fix what can be and begin to enjoy the game for what it's worth instead of letting issues that plague it linger because of in-house bickering . Edit : Maybe give the vanilla the least amount of lock on time but also , the least amount of swarms in a clip . Teamwork is really important - said the Tyrannosarus Rex from Kung Fury .
Lost Apollo Moose Knuckle Pros 118	Posted - 2015.10.13 14:21:00 - [24] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. Agreed! My armor is weak, but my shields are relentless. State "Kampo" Logistics Born - April 1, 2013
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution 13	Posted - 2015.10.13 14:41:00 - [25] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. The assault swarm launcher is a swarm launcher that can lock onto two targets at once...for increased fitting and isk cost, and no increase in any other statistic...using its advantage eats your magazine too quickly, so it's only really useful vs unfit LAV spam as-is xD Exactly. We've had recent issues in PC vs corps that try to hold high ground by spamming armor fit transport dropships nonstop. Two forgers can't handle that many dropships at once. I'd like to see swarms have some power in that scenario, able to quickly take down multiple targets at once. Perhaps full damage applied to multiple targets, but greatly increased lock on time? Or perhaps limited so that it can only lock when multiple targets are present? Re-Retired PC Scout. I miss the old days ;_; Wanna play EVE? 30 day trial here
catsrule D3ATH CARD RUST415 24	Posted - 2015.10.13 14:48:00 - [26] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. The assault swarm launcher is a swarm launcher that can lock onto two targets at once...for increased fitting and isk cost, and no increase in any other statistic...using its advantage eats your magazine too quickly, so it's only really useful vs unfit LAV spam as-is xD Exactly. We've had recent issues in PC vs corps that try to hold high ground by spamming armor fit transport dropships nonstop. Two forgers can't handle that many dropships at once. I'd like to see swarms have some power in that scenario, able to quickly take down multiple targets at once. Perhaps full damage applied to multiple targets, but greatly increased lock on time? Or perhaps limited so that it can only lock when multiple targets are present? able to take down multiple targets at once? are you serious? CCP nerfed swarms for a reason, adding this will make the swarms worse than what they already were before. also, in PC an alldin can absolutely obliterate anything it encounters anyway, if those two forgers cant take down a DS spam than they just have bad aim.
shanatak Prima Gallicus 32	Posted - 2015.10.13 15:01:00 - [27] - Quote You should not forget in the game players are not alone. If hav or ads starting to kill too much people , sure around 2 or 3 infantry will come with swarms . That s make the sky not a good place. Many times I ve seen between 3 or 6 players focused on tank or ads with swarms and just destroy them in few seconds. Killing an ads or tank should be a team work . Buff the swarms and hav or ads will become a joke.
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution 13	Posted - 2015.10.13 15:52:00 - [28] - Quote catsrule wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: I think everyone forgets about the assault swarm launcher. That thing could really use a buff. The assault swarm launcher is a swarm launcher that can lock onto two targets at once...for increased fitting and isk cost, and no increase in any other statistic...using its advantage eats your magazine too quickly, so it's only really useful vs unfit LAV spam as-is xD Exactly. We've had recent issues in PC vs corps that try to hold high ground by spamming armor fit transport dropships nonstop. Two forgers can't handle that many dropships at once. I'd like to see swarms have some power in that scenario, able to quickly take down multiple targets at once. Perhaps full damage applied to multiple targets, but greatly increased lock on time? Or perhaps limited so that it can only lock when multiple targets are present? able to take down multiple targets at once? are you serious? CCP nerfed swarms for a reason, adding this will make the swarms worse than what they already were before. also, in PC an alldin can absolutely obliterate anything it encounters anyway, if those two forgers cant take down a DS spam than they just have bad aim. Or it could be the 4x Gorgons with nothing but resist and tank all heading to the same tower at once. You just don't have the DPS to take them all down. You can easily fit a Grimsnes with 2x Basic Hardeners, 1x Basic 120mm plate, an AB, and basic missile launcher for almost no SP investment. Whole thing costs less than 76k. 1200 shield, 4400 armor with dual hardeners. Hardeners give it roughly 50% resist, increasing its armor HP just shy of 2x. Shield HP is 1200 with resist, with roughly 8500 armor to boot. Lets assume 2x Aldins forges with 3x damage mods. Per shot, they deal 1460 to shields and 2056 to armor. If they sweet spot it, they deal 120% damage, totaling to 1752 and 2467. Now, one shot wipes shields, ignore em. You still have to burn through 8500 armor. Lets be real generous and say that the extra shot did 500 armor damage. You have to burn through 8000 armor. Second forger hits, dealing 2500. Both hit for another 5000. Two volleys later, that thing is JUST hanging on. Lets be REALLY generous and say it dies. Okay, so two volleys per forger, with perfect accuracy in the sweet spot. Tall order, but lets say they're exceptional forgers. What about charge time and travel time? Ah hell, lets assume perfect charges and zero travel time. Lets just line those dropships up on the ground and let the forgers have a field day. Well, even then it will take ~3 seconds to charge and fire. So, it takes 2 forgers with officer forges and 3 damage mods 12 seconds to destroy 4 dropships like this. More than enough time right? Remember that Afterburner? Even with plates they move at 120m/s. And the forge has a limited range of 400m. So uh, tell me again about how they're terrible shots and can't deal with the threat. Re-Retired PC Scout. I miss the old days ;_; Wanna play EVE? 30 day trial here
jett it Ancient Exiles. Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 447	Posted - 2015.10.13 15:57:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" I gotta say rattati you are right on that. Theres a weapon for everything. I hear so much about swarms and dropships. Try this pull out that ishokune assault forge gun on the derpships and use your swarms or plc's on tanks. I guarantee you will kill 5x more dropships with a forge compared to a swarm. o7 jettGaming - Youtube
JIMvc2 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 16:04:00 - [30] - Quote Give the tanks the HP they had before 1.7 uprising. Its embarrassing how today's tanks are weak as paper. That nerf was completely no just no. When are we getting the Enforcer tank!!?? Judge my muscle content then I'll judge you by your Half Marathon time. Never underestimate runners - "Jim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 505	Posted - 2015.10.13 22:31:00 - [31] - Quote JIMvc2 wrote: Give the tanks the HP they had before 1.7 uprising. Its embarrassing how today's tanks are weak as paper. That nerf was completely no just no. When are we getting the Enforcer tank!!?? While I tend to agree with you...that wouldn't do much to help with balance between swarms/HAVs with respect to swarms/dropships, which is part of what this thread is about. Also, as far as I know the answer to when we are getting Tech II Havs back (Marauders and/or Enforcers...BlOps?) would be after the racial reskins are in and all the HAVs are playing nice with respect to each-other and V/AV. @Jett It: So, how would you change swarms or make a swarm variant to make them more effective against dropships? or do you feel that Swarm Launchers should only be able to do anti-tank anti-LAV effectively? @Ghost Kaisar: That situation is certainly annoying...haven't really thought about specific kind of situation myself...however, consider that one of the main phrases when balancing vehicles is that 1 player should always equal 1 player, an issue that has plagued HAVs (and DS/ADSs to some extent) in many past and in some respects current iterations. In other words, it should be taking an equal number of forge gunners or Swarmers to effectively neutralize 4 transport dropships...(as keep in mind, all it takes to destroy 1 HAV worth 1.5 million ISK is one very determined, skilled, and lucky 32k ISK suit, and that's OK...even if I don't like HAVs being so expensive) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Lightning35 Delta514 The Warlords Legion 2	Posted - 2015.10.13 22:35:00 - [32] - Quote Radiant Pancake3 wrote: .... I've seen more assault swarm launchers in the kill feed lately... It weirds me out... My last tank death was (unfortunately) from an assault swarm. And I was like wuuu????? CEO of T-W-L YouTube- Lightning35 Delta514 Twitter- @LD3514
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution 13	Posted - 2015.10.13 22:39:00 - [33] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: @Ghost Kaisar: That situation is certainly annoying...haven't really thought about specific kind of situation myself...however, consider that one of the main phrases when balancing vehicles is that 1 player should always equal 1 player, an issue that has plagued HAVs (and DS/ADSs to some extent) in many past and in some respects current iterations. In other words, it should be taking an equal number of forge gunners or Swarmers to effectively neutralize 4 transport dropships...(as keep in mind, all it takes to destroy 1 HAV worth 1.5 million ISK is one very determined, skilled, and lucky 32k ISK suit, and that's OK...even if I don't like HAVs being so expensive) I am aware of the n+1 theory. I was simply defending my corp mates after that guy said they were bad shots. If they got 4 dropships coming in, they can't defend it. I would still like some way of combating spam like that though. Too many infantry in one area get a mass driver, but what about AV? The assault swarm seems like the appropriate answer, but it just deals far too little damage. Re-Retired PC Scout. I miss the old days ;_; Wanna play EVE? 30 day trial here
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 505	Posted - 2015.10.13 22:44:00 - [34] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: @Ghost Kaisar: That situation is certainly annoying...haven't really thought about specific kind of situation myself...however, consider that one of the main phrases when balancing vehicles is that 1 player should always equal 1 player, an issue that has plagued HAVs (and DS/ADSs to some extent) in many past and in some respects current iterations. In other words, it should be taking an equal number of forge gunners or Swarmers to effectively neutralize 4 transport dropships...(as keep in mind, all it takes to destroy 1 HAV worth 1.5 million ISK is one very determined, skilled, and lucky 32k ISK suit, and that's OK...even if I don't like HAVs being so expensive) I am aware of the n+1 theory. I was simply defending my corp mates after that guy said they were bad shots. If they got 4 dropships coming in, they can't defend it. I would still like some way of combating spam like that though. Too many infantry in one area get a mass driver, but what about AV? The assault swarm seems like the appropriate answer, but it just deals far too little damage. combating spam, on the list it goes (although my personal opinion is that combating vehicle spam is/should be one of the roles filled by the HAV) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Aidualc LATINOS KILLERS CORP RUST415 626	Posted - 2015.10.14 04:40:00 - [35] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Normal Swarm Launcher (vs Derpships), Clip = 4, range 175m, damage per missile 65 X 4... damage per swarm 260, total damage 1040hp Lock Timer = 1 seg. Assault Swarm Launcher (vs HAVS), Clip = 3, Range 120m, damage per missile 120 X 4... damage per swarm 480, Total Damage 1440hp lock timer = 1.7 seg. With that derpships are "safe" vs Assault Swarm Launcher and assault is more efective vs HAVS. -- Ecce Initio -- Tomate Pote -- *Respectu, Honorem, Value, Unionem*******
catsrule D3ATH CARD RUST415 26	Posted - 2015.10.14 14:34:00 - [36] - Quote shanatak wrote: You should not forget in the game players are not alone. If hav or ads starting to kill too much people , sure around 2 or 3 infantry will come with swarms . That s make the sky not a good place. Many times I ve seen between 3 or 6 players focused on tank or ads with swarms and just destroy them in few seconds. Killing an ads or tank should be a team work . Buff the swarms and hav or ads will become a joke. The ads got an indirect buff, and the ads are just standard, there is no adv or proto ads, So dont complain, unless you want to see proto dropships that are unkillable. they would be like flying tanks......
shanatak Prima Gallicus 35	Posted - 2015.10.14 15:04:00 - [37] - Quote catsrule wrote: shanatak wrote: You should not forget in the game players are not alone. If hav or ads starting to kill too much people , sure around 2 or 3 infantry will come with swarms . That s make the sky not a good place. Many times I ve seen between 3 or 6 players focused on tank or ads with swarms and just destroy them in few seconds. Killing an ads or tank should be a team work . Buff the swarms and hav or ads will become a joke. The ads got an indirect buff, and the ads are just standard, there is no adv or proto ads, So dont complain, unless you want to see proto dropships that are unkillable. they would be like flying tanks...... I m sad about this but maybe we ll never seen proto ads
ANON Cerberus TerranProtossZerg 847	Posted - 2015.10.14 17:57:00 - [38] - Quote If you truly want to "fix" swarm launchers then the lock on mechanic must go in my opinion. Turn it back into a dumb fired weapon so that skilled shots become a necessity again. You could also adjust damage values to suit as well as keep splash damage low so that they are not an IWIN button against infantry. (That's not to say that a dumb fire swarm shouldn't do some damage to infantry) Besides as it is right now, this is the only game I think I have ever played where vehicles, (especially air vehicles) do not display or announce with sound or buzzers that a missile has been locked onto the craft. That alone would make a huge difference. And you could even look past the issues of swarms not rendering at a distance as we would know by default with lock on warnings.
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 984	Posted - 2015.10.14 18:25:00 - [39] - Quote ANON Cerberus wrote: If you truly want to "fix" swarm launchers then the lock on mechanic must go in my opinion. Turn it back into a dumb fired weapon so that skilled shots become a necessity again. You could also adjust damage values to suit as well as keep splash damage low so that they are not an IWIN button against infantry. (That's not to say that a dumb fire swarm shouldn't do some damage to infantry) Besides as it is right now, this is the only game I think I have ever played where vehicles, (especially air vehicles) do not display or announce with sound or buzzers that a missile has been locked onto the craft. That alone would make a huge difference. And you could even look past the issues of swarms not rendering at a distance as we would know by default with lock on warnings. Or, just lower the damage so it isn't doing 2K per volley with all the necessary skills at 5. It fires too quickly for the amount of damage it does. Wanna play eve?
Avallo Kantor 923	Posted - 2015.10.14 20:22:00 - [40] - Quote This sounds like a good time to borrow some ideas from EVE online on how missiles work. Very simply put, Missiles do more damage based on a few factors, but the one I want to focus on right now is it's signature radius. The larger the signature radius the more damage the weapon would do. This is why a Cruise Missile could do massive damage to a Battleship but do far less to a frigate ship. Why not have a similar damage application for Missiles in DUST, specifically that of the Swarm Missiles. Just have damage application based on a targets Scan Profile (how easy it is to pick up on scans) and then shift Profiles so that Dropships have that much more Scan Profile that the Swarm Launcher can do a significant difference in damage vs a HAV. The advantage of this system is that it's more easily tweak-able and scalable with later additions down the line. Furthermore it will give a reason to equip modules that could reduce Scan Profile (perhaps as an active module) that could allow ships to fit Swarm specific countermeasures. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati

IceShifter Childhaspawn Rebels New Republic The Ditanian Alliance 799	Posted - 2015.10.14 20:56:00 - [41] - Quote Thought that was why they reduced the explosive velocity (DUSTs sig rad counterpart) in the first place. Namely to make swarms less effective against fleeing dropships. It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
Avallo Kantor 923	Posted - 2015.10.14 21:29:00 - [42] - Quote IceShifter Childhaspawn wrote: Thought that was why they reduced the explosive velocity (DUSTs sig rad counterpart) in the first place. Namely to make swarms less effective against fleeing dropships. That's a different part of the EVE missile calculation. Quoted from Evelopedia: EVElopedia wrote: The important factor in this scenario is the speed of the target ship. When a missile hits a target, the speed of the target is compared to the Explosion Velocity of the missile. For example, if when a Scourge Heavy Missile - which has a base Explosion Velocity of 81m/s - is fired, the Explosion Velocity is much lower than the target's speed, then damage is significantly reduced as the target is outrunning most of the missile's damage. The other factor that will decrease missile damage is Signature Radius. The Scourge Missile previously used has a Explosion Radius of 125m - if this missile is fired against a target with a smaller Signature than its Explosion Radius, damage will again be reduced, as only a small portion of the explosion is affecting the target. Although if your missile hits a target whose signature radius is greater than the explosion radius of your missile then the explosion velocity of your missile is increased by the same multiple. As you can see we seem to be using half the damage formula for missile like weapons, but do not seem to be using the other half. The second half is important in this case as it allows us to create a situation where a Swarm Missile will ALWAYS do more damage against a same speed Dropship vs a same speed HAV. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
Demandred Moores Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 189	Posted - 2015.10.14 22:37:00 - [43] - Quote jett it wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" I gotta say rattati you are right on that. Theres a weapon for everything. I hear so much about swarms and dropships. Try this pull out that ishokune assault forge gun on the derpships and use your swarms or plc's on tanks. I guarantee you will kill 5x more dropships with a forge compared to a swarm. o7 I can always fight a forge with my ads. Fighting swarms is about timing and distance of engagement. Swarms are much better against an ads. I will almost never die to a forge. There's my off topic post of the day. Sorry just don't understand why people actually believe forges are better against ads they're actually at the bottom of av right now and are only used for their range to stop slow transport dropships and do overwatch. riseofancientFA.gs
DDx77 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 408	Posted - 2015.10.14 23:36:00 - [44] - Quote " 1)The Job that Vanilla Swarm Launchers should be doing, and how well they are doing that job?" I am sorry but swarms are one of the the dumbest weapons in the game. (Not useless, just dumb) This is the ONLY AV weapon that cannot harm infantry and unless used by a commando, the player is almost completely defenseless. The role is somewhat frustrating and can be non-rewarding. It is actually safer/ more profitable/ less headaches - to AVOID - the tank or ADS rather than use Swarms. (Obviously not possible in every situation) 1) Anything other than Proto version is almost a waste of your time but they are doing what they are supposed to do - deter or destroy depending on the pilots skill level 2) Swarms are fine against regular dropships. 3) Against ADS they are a bit OP as 2- 3 unobstructed volleys can crush an ADS if the pilot is not careful. Each ADS should get an additional slot I think the ADS needs more roles than stupid uplink disposal and stupid hovering brick tank mass driver. We need Air to air battles With Continuous flight ( no hovering crap) setting up the possibility for bombing runs ....maybe even "Gasp" attacking or defending the MCC 4) Swarms are performing below average against almost impossible to kill Proto or high Skilled HAV's...but I feel this is somewhat fair given the amount of nerfs to their killing ability. 5) Thank murder taxi's for that nerf 6) Not that I know of. The Assault is a good idea and could use some love or other options - such as a "Dumbfire" possibility 7) I think swarms could benefit from a radius method similar to the way Ewar works. Have three ring within a sphere that determine the effective range with their speed and effectiveness decreasing as they travel towards the outer rings of the launch sphere. ( So faster more lethal up close but not so much as the swarms travel out or chase their target) 8) & 9) Are not a good idea IMO because it is redundant to the current version which in itself is already limited in scope ( ie: LIGHT WEAPON SLOT/CANNOT HARM INFANTRY) They only way it would work is if these variants allowed you to still target both vehicles, the benefit being it is far better at hurting one type over the other.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 508	Posted - 2015.10.15 03:12:00 - [45] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: IceShifter Childhaspawn wrote: Thought that was why they reduced the explosive velocity (DUSTs sig rad counterpart) in the first place. Namely to make swarms less effective against fleeing dropships. That's a different part of the EVE missile calculation. Quoted from Evelopedia: EVElopedia wrote: The important factor in this scenario is the speed of the target ship. When a missile hits a target, the speed of the target is compared to the Explosion Velocity of the missile. For example, if when a Scourge Heavy Missile - which has a base Explosion Velocity of 81m/s - is fired, the Explosion Velocity is much lower than the target's speed, then damage is significantly reduced as the target is outrunning most of the missile's damage. The other factor that will decrease missile damage is Signature Radius. The Scourge Missile previously used has a Explosion Radius of 125m - if this missile is fired against a target with a smaller Signature than its Explosion Radius, damage will again be reduced, as only a small portion of the explosion is affecting the target. Although if your missile hits a target whose signature radius is greater than the explosion radius of your missile then the explosion velocity of your missile is increased by the same multiple. As you can see we seem to be using half the damage formula for missile like weapons, but do not seem to be using the other half. The second half is important in this case as it allows us to create a situation where a Swarm Missile will ALWAYS do more damage against a same speed Dropship vs a same speed HAV. Eve-style missile calculations are fun...but I don't know/think we are using any part of the calculation(s) (Neither sig/velocity are taken into account for missile damage). As far as I know the factors that where recently changed where the knockback affects that swarm missiles have, to make it easier to regain/maintain flight control in a dropship...(although, if Rattati or another dev could weight in on this that would be greatly appreciated) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 508	Posted - 2015.10.15 03:22:00 - [46] - Quote Aidualc wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Normal Swarm Launcher (vs Derpships), Clip = 4, range 175m, damage per missile 65 X 4... damage per swarm 260, total damage 1040hp Lock Timer = 1 seg. Assault Swarm Launcher (vs HAVS), Clip = 3, Range 120m, damage per missile 120 X 4... damage per swarm 480, Total Damage 1440hp lock timer = 1.7 seg. With that derpships are "safe" vs Assault Swarm Launcher and assault is more efective vs HAVS. Added your numbers to the spreadsheet as I understand them (Numbers being at STD Tier)...and I'm noticing something: The proposed numbers don't have the DPS to actually destroy much of anything, let alone for most vehicles to care much about them...the DPS is either less than half, or hovering right around half current DPS totals Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Avallo Kantor 923	Posted - 2015.10.15 06:27:00 - [47] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: SNIP Eve-style missile calculations are fun...but I don't know/think we are using any part of the calculation(s) (Neither sig/velocity are taken into account for missile damage). As far as I know the factors that where recently changed where the knockback affects that swarm missiles have, to make it easier to regain/maintain flight control in a dropship...(although, if Rattati or another dev could weight in on this that would be greatly appreciated) Well I was suggesting using something similar to this method of damage calculation because 1) CCP already has known algorithms for making it work 2) It allows tweaking of damage via statistics that are already in game. 3) Allows the introduction of modules that would not be overly difficult to implement (we already have modules that can do similar effects on dropsuits) that can then allow for specific tanking of Swarms. All in all, I think the idea would allow for some aspects of EVE that make sense to help guide DUST style combat, as well as solve the core issue Rattati was stating with swarms: How to balance Swarm v Dropship without also affecting Swarm v HAV. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
IceShifter Childhaspawn Rebels New Republic The Ditanian Alliance 799	Posted - 2015.10.15 10:55:00 - [48] - Quote How about new variables? Shielddropship armordropship and tankshield or tankarmor? Instead of balancing DS and Tanks. Let them be different. Seriously have any of you been in a helo or a tank? Its ludicrous that the armor for a tank could be on a helo youd burn through your fuel in 10 minutes. It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.15 11:46:00 - [49] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV. Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution: - A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later. - A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed. I'd like to follow up on this with some numbers, but I'm unsure on the design goals. Should ADS have a harder time in the future? We just pulled in the range on the SL, so that indicates the intent is to make it easier on ADS, but the quote by Rattati above indicates ADS have it too easy now? Should SLs become more competent against HAVs? Rattati's quote seems to indicate that HAVs have it too tough against SLs right now. Banter on the forum seems to go both ways. I don't have enough data to come up with good design goals. My experience as a pilot doesn't give me a clear direction to go. I know my NDS can sustain a single swarmer for quite a while, on the other hand it takes two people to operate a NDS, so that seems fair. [Edit] By the way, for future DPS calculations for the current SL you can use a time between two volleys of 2.3 seconds. Back then I wrote this thread I actually measured the time it takes PC players to launch three volleys from a couple of youtube videos. The best SL operator took 7 seconds to lock on and launch 3 volleys. That makes about 2.3 seconds per volley.
DiablosMajora 337	Posted - 2015.10.15 11:51:00 - [50] - Quote Again, why not just have different swams for different vehicles? One that can only lock on air vehicles, thus can be balanced around that One that can only lock on ground vehicles, thus can be balanced around that as well You don't need to tackle the monstrous task or reinvent the wheel by balancing Swarms vs All Vehicles, just divide and conquer the beast like other games do (planetside 2 comes to mind) Prepare your angus

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.15 12:02:00 - [51] - Quote DiablosMajora wrote: Again, why not just have different swams for different vehicles? One that can only lock on air vehicles, thus can be balanced around that One that can only lock on ground vehicles, thus can be balanced around that as well You don't need to tackle the monstrous task or reinvent the wheel by balancing Swarms vs All Vehicles, just divide and conquer the beast like other games do (planetside 2 comes to mind) The short story: 1. Split SL into anti-HAV SL and anti-DS SL. 2. People complain it's not worthwhile to fit one of these if it can only attack one type of vehicle and doesn't even reliably kill that sort of target ("but that's it's only purpose, why else equip it?"). 3. Specialized SLs are buffed to compensate for their lack of usability against other targets. 4. Piloting an HAV is now a thing of waiting until somebody brings a anti-HAV-SL, which is guaranteed destruction. 5. Killing an HAV is now a thing of running to a supply depot, switching out to an anti-HAV-SL, running back to the HAV, killing it and running back to the supply depot to do what you were trying to do before. 6. Both SL operators and vehicle operators now hate Dust. Congratulations.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 508	Posted - 2015.10.15 12:54:00 - [52] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Easy enough to solve. In the "damage-per-volley versus lock-on-duration versus clipsize" design space you can dial in the size of the alpha-strike that can be delivered to an escaping DS and the sustainable DPS on a static target HAV. Here are some logical sanity-checks for a potential solution: - A short range SL must be able to scare off a DS further than 150 meters, otherwise a DS with a gunner can rain missiles on the swarmer with impunity. The launched missile must travel to 200-250 meters at least, otherwise the DS can just dip out of range to recover and be back 10 seconds later. - A long range SL must be able to break the reps on a hardened dual-rep Madrugar, otherwise it isn't an AV weapon. That's 425 DPS to armor minimum. Better add some margin, otherwise the HAV won't be impressed. I'd like to follow up on this with some numbers, but I'm unsure on the design goals. Should ADS have a harder time in the future? We just pulled in the range on the SL, so that indicates the intent is to make it easier on ADS, but the quote by Rattati above indicates ADS have it too easy now? Should SLs become more competent against HAVs? Rattati's quote seems to indicate that HAVs have it too tough against SLs right now. Banter on the forum seems to go both ways. I don't have enough data to come up with good design goals. My experience as a pilot doesn't give me a clear direction to go. I know my NDS can sustain a single swarmer for quite a while, on the other hand it takes two people to operate a NDS, so that seems fair. [Edit] By the way, for future DPS calculations for the current SL you can use a time between two volleys of 2.3 seconds. Back then I wrote this thread I actually measured the time it takes PC players to launch three volleys from a couple of youtube videos. The best SL operator took 7 seconds to lock on and launch 3 volleys. That makes about 2.3 seconds per volley. I also got some footage of my corpmate Grimcrimm getting swarms off in 1.8 seconds...it is highly variable, and I think we're aware of this (hence why it has noticeably higher DPS than other AV Weapons), but I'm still going to record the theoretical values for now (before proficiency should help with the variability a bit, but the max theoretical values are important...) I'm open to changing it, but I'd need a better sample size of expert players to determine the average (sample size would need to be about 25ish players, 3-6 trials each) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
IAmDuncanIdaho II Nos Nothi 4	Posted - 2015.10.15 12:58:00 - [53] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Some more general arguments: Right now, in any situation that doesn't involve buildings, the resolution of a fight between a DS and SL is determined only by the distance between the two. If distance is x then y volleys connect before the DS escapes, delivering z damage within w seconds and the DS either pops or it doesn't. That means I can design a SL that destroys any DS of a given ehp if caught within an arbitrary distance to the SL. In fact I came up with a couple possible variants during a train ride yesterday. However I fail to see the gameplay here. Neither the SL operator nor the DS pilot are doing anything interesting - they're both not enjoying their time, which is terrible gameplay. I know that isn't what you asked for, but I'd like to put some effort into creating a more interesting SL-DS interplay before creating such variants. Tweaking turn-rate and missile speed as well as implementing directional swarm launching (I'm going to keep banging that drum) creates a much more interesting gameplay where we can involve both the DS pilot and the SL operator in more interesting activities. However the design is much more complicated - more analysis to come... I think this makes a lot of sense. I was thinking about maybe tweaking swarm turn rates to be much less than they are now, a function of the potential turn rate of the DS. Merc skills can modify the turn rates on both sides of the equation, and allow a skilled DS who is aware of the incoming volley (a separate issue I know) to outwit the projectiles, unless the swarmer was more invested SP-wise. Then you may create a parity between low-investment swarmers and low-investment DS pilots. You could also look at swarm projectiles being dumbfire, and only starting to seek after a specified amount of time, or a specified distance. That starts to involve some additional skill from the swarmer. I reckon I could come up with more but as you've right said, this is probably complicated. NoobCavman has a hand-sized DS3
DiablosMajora 337	Posted - 2015.10.15 14:49:00 - [54] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: DiablosMajora wrote: Again, why not just have different swams for different vehicles? One that can only lock on air vehicles, thus can be balanced around that One that can only lock on ground vehicles, thus can be balanced around that as well You don't need to tackle the monstrous task or reinvent the wheel by balancing Swarms vs All Vehicles, just divide and conquer the beast like other games do (planetside 2 comes to mind) The short story: 1. Split SL into anti-HAV SL and anti-DS SL. 2. People complain it's not worthwhile to fit one of these if it can only attack one type of vehicle and doesn't even reliably kill that sort of target ("but that's it's only purpose, why else equip it?"). 3. Specialized SLs are buffed to compensate for their lack of usability against other targets. 4. Piloting an HAV is now a thing of waiting until somebody brings a anti-HAV-SL, which is guaranteed destruction. 5. Killing an HAV is now a thing of running to a supply depot, switching out to an anti-HAV-SL, running back to the HAV, killing it and running back to the supply depot to do what you were trying to do before. 6. Both SL operators and vehicle operators now hate Dust. Congratulations. 3 through 6 sound like you are a lot of pulling things out of your bum, broheim. Prepare your angus
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 984	Posted - 2015.10.15 16:15:00 - [55] - Quote Seriously, instead of making the swarm launcher 2 different weapons why not just lower it's DPS? That's all that is needed. Wanna play eve?
Demandred Moores Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 192	Posted - 2015.10.15 19:55:00 - [56] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Seriously, instead of making the swarm launcher 2 different weapons why not just lower it's DPS? That's all that is needed. If you did that I would never get shot out of the sky I promise. I actually think swarms are finally balanced VERY well vs ads. Having a lot of fun and was still able to wreck people before the update. I don't have many ideas but I will let you know what I think from an ads perspective. riseofancientFA.gs
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 984	Posted - 2015.10.15 23:08:00 - [57] - Quote Demandred Moores wrote: Echo 1991 wrote: Seriously, instead of making the swarm launcher 2 different weapons why not just lower it's DPS? That's all that is needed. If you did that I would never get shot out of the sky I promise. I actually think swarms are finally balanced VERY well vs ads. Having a lot of fun and was still able to wreck people before the update. I don't have many ideas but I will let you know what I think from an ads perspective. Give it the lock range back, lower damage and give it more ammo in the magazine. Wanna play eve?
knight guard fury Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.10.16 00:23:00 - [58] - Quote Sanchez Rivera wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Is It A Bad Idea To Make Specific Swarm Launchers To Specific Vehicles...? Like For Example: ADS Swarm Launcher: Will Have More Efficiency On ADS (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicles(75%) Tank Swarm Launchers: Will Be More Efficient On Tanks (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicle(75%) Numbers Could Be Different, But 2 Different Vehicle Types In Battle Would Be A Challenge For One AV User (As Always) And LAVs Would Feel A Bit Buffed Good Day People! i like this idea. basically making two types of ammunition types, Armor Piercing and HE variant missiles. AP for tanks and HE for dropships, and just adding something to the names to make it clear which types do what and etc. Kin of the Vherokior tribe and warrior of the republic Self proclaimed minmatar lore master
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 520	Posted - 2015.10.17 16:55:00 - [59] - Quote knight guard fury wrote: Sanchez Rivera wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I agree with Celus Ivara, SL variants must be identifiable to the vehicle pilot that is being attacked by the sound of the impact alone. Swarms still don't always render. Yesterday I did some theorycrafting and noticed that variants aren't really necessary. If we gave our current SL 6 shots per clip DS or ADS wouldn't notice. They leave lock on range before the fourth shot is in the air anyway - and if it launches, it won't catch up. An HAV however will have to endure 6 volleys with no pause for reload in between, which is a serious (17% for non-commandos) buff to DPS. To me, that sounds like a very good proposition. No additional damage to DS, big buff to DPS against HAVs. No extra variants, no hassle. Only one value has to be modified. Could be deployed by Monday. cool. But the complaints are, I think, a bit in the other direction, "how can I swarm kill Dropships without it being OP against HAVs" Is It A Bad Idea To Make Specific Swarm Launchers To Specific Vehicles...? Like For Example: ADS Swarm Launcher: Will Have More Efficiency On ADS (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicles(75%) Tank Swarm Launchers: Will Be More Efficient On Tanks (100%-110%) Less Efficient On Any Other Vehicle(75%) Numbers Could Be Different, But 2 Different Vehicle Types In Battle Would Be A Challenge For One AV User (As Always) And LAVs Would Feel A Bit Buffed Good Day People! i like this idea. basically making two types of ammunition types, Armor Piercing and HE variant missiles. AP for tanks and HE for dropships, and just adding something to the names to make it clear which types do what and etc. Certainly is an interesting idea Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.10.17 17:04:00 - [60] - Quote What if the swarm locking mechanism involved a long, easy to see red laser... So even though the swarms don't render properly, at least people know where they're coming from and can run in the correct direction. Plus then in pubs, people on the ground who don't pilot will be able to tell where they're coming from and be more likely to help their teams pilots out?

Nirwanda Vaughns 1	Posted - 2015.10.17 19:17:00 - [61] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields. When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG. From a lore perspective, Gallente do not utilize missiles as a primary weapon system. The "Gallente swarm" is the PLC; a hybrid - blaster AV weapon. If we were to have an anti-shield AV weapon it would probably come from the Amarr. Or, considering that one of the advantages of missiles in Eve is they can load a missile of any damage type, perhaps we can just keep the swarms Caldari and say it has been loaded with an EM warhead. If we;re going for lore then gallente use drones so the 'swarm' could be changed into description to drones instead of missiles. they effectivly work the same way. Also Gallente could still have a forge gun that is lore compatible as they favor blasters in EVE whereas caldari use long range rail guns. technically the gallente FG is in game, its just called the Breach FG. if that was used as a template but dropped the range and reduced the charge up time it'd work both for players sake and be lore friendly Please fix my C-II hitpoints!! Jesus and I love you :)
Nirwanda Vaughns 1	Posted - 2015.10.17 19:20:00 - [62] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: I just want Gallente Swarms. i mean ffs just reskin a PLC and use the swarm animation/mechanic and have them higher damage vs shields. When it comes to Vehicles and AV we'll never have true balance until we get shield based AV more valid than the standard PLC, when 80% of AV is vs armour you simply can't get true balance. same with a gallente forge, reskin/colour a standard forge, make damage +10% shields -10% armour shorter range perhaps -50m, standard charge time but slightly higher damage than breach FG. as for SL varients, make the assault swarms longer lock range, perhaps back upto 300m but bring damage down and it should be balanced While I agree with the sentiment here...considering our problem(s) with V/AV right now are primarily being expressed on Armor Vehicles...I mean...you realize that, until FoxFour, Gunnlogis have been out of luck for some time...still going to wait for an oppurtunity to try them out again now that they have a bit of a buff...but I don't think it'll help them much where they really need it. But...in regards to Anti-Shield AV...Why not a swarm launcher made by Khanid Innovations, and give it a +20/-20 profile...call it Mjolnir Swarm Launchers... Although...in Eve one line of Gallente ships did have launcher hardpoints...but that was abandoned a few years ago (I think they where the Roden Shipyards line of ships). Although...the lack of AV Laser would make someone very unhappy xD yup that'd work too. just reskins of swarms for all races. the racial differences could be damage to shields/armour but also perhaps minmatar swarm has faster missiles as minny are generally the speed race. amarr could be slower but pack a bigger punch. caldari could have the lock range. gallente the lock speed ect so each swarm could be used differently Please fix my C-II hitpoints!! Jesus and I love you :)
Darth-Carbonite GIO Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 2	Posted - 2015.10.17 22:34:00 - [63] - Quote My observations after playing the Hotfix: Swarms are still prevalent, they are still being used. Swarm range is perhaps too short. A compromise between the old range and the new may be in order. Swarm turn radius reduction seems small, but is definitely noticeable. Very cool to see pilots actually maneuver a bit more. Haven't noticed any change in swarm effectiveness against tanks. Forge use has increased, which pleases me. "Sex is OK!" -CCP Rouge our benevolent overlord "Why does everyone fellatiate Darth? Why?!" -Aeon Amadi
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 987	Posted - 2015.10.17 22:42:00 - [64] - Quote Darth-Carbonite GIO wrote: My observations after playing the Hotfix: Swarms are still prevalent, they are still being used. Swarm range is perhaps too short. A compromise between the old range and the new may be in order. Swarm turn radius reduction seems small, but is definitely noticeable. Very cool to see pilots actually maneuver a bit more. Haven't noticed any change in swarm effectiveness against tanks. Forge use has increased, which pleases me. Instead of nerfing swarm range, why not just give it better range and decrease it's damage output? The fact it can hit far is only bad cos lol 2k armour damage and can fire all 3 shots in under 7 seconds. Wanna play eve?


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.

riseofancientFA.gs

riseofancientFA.gs