1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Vehicles)

Sica
High: 2 (-1)
Low: 2
Seats: 3
PG: 1908 (+103)
CPU: 761 (+451)
Armor: 1500 (+537)
Shield: 2650 (+150)
Shield Recharge Rate: 16.8 (-5.2)

Soma
High: 2
Low: 2 (-2)
Seats: 3
PG: 2540 (-299)
CPU: 428 (+210)
Armor: 4000 (+1212)
Shield: 1200 (+863)
Shield Recharge Rate: 9.6 (+1.6)

Gunnlogi
High: 3 (-2)
Low: 2
Seats: 3
PG: 2120 (+315)
CPU: 845 (+515)
Armor: 1500 (+250)
Shield: 2650 (-600)
Shield Recharge Rate: 16.8 (-5.2)

Madrugar
High: 2
Low: 3 (-2)
Seats: 3
PG: 2490 (-200)
CPU: 475 (+265)
Armor: 4000 (+537)
Shield: 1200 (+150)
Shield Recharge Rate: 9.6 (1.6)

Viper
High: 3
Low: 2
Seats: 7
PG: 653 (+258)
CPU: 559 (+374)
Armor: 850 (+157)
Shield: 1375 (+407)
Shield Recharge Rate: 22.4 (+1.4)

Gorgon
High: 2
Low: 3
Seats: 7
PG: 846 (+311)
CPU: 405 (+260)
Armor: 2100 (+570)
Shield: 800 (+170)
Shield Recharge Rate: 10.4 (-1.6)

Myron
High: 4
Low: 2
Seats: 7
PG: 725 (+325)
CPU: 665 (+410)
Armor: 850 (+80)
Shield: 1375 (+300)
Shield Recharge Rate: 22.4 (-0.6)

Grimsnes
High: 2
Low: 4
Seats: 7
PG: 940 (+395)
CPU: 450 (+285)
Armor: 2100 (+400)
Shield: 800 (+100)
Shield Recharge Rate: 10.4 (-1.6)

Onikuma
High: 1 (-1)
Low: 1
Seats: 3
PG: 405 (+245)
CPU: 378 (+268)
Armor: 900 (+404)
Shield: 1200 (+32)
Shield Recharge Rate: 28.5 (+16.5)

Baloch
High: 1
Low: 1 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 504 (+239)
CPU: 279 (+209)
Armor: 2450 (+930)
Shield: 650 (+234)
Shield Recharge Rate: 13.2 (+8.7)

Saga
High: 2 (-1)
Low: 1 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 450 (+280)
CPU: 420 (+265)
Armor: 900
Shield: 1200 (-225)
Shield Recharge Rate: 28.5 (+12.5)

Methana
High: 1 (-1)
Low: 2 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 560 (+285)
CPU: 310 (+205)
Armor: 2450 (+312)
Shield: 650 (+147)
Shield Recharge Rate: 13.2 (+7.2)

1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Large Turrets)

Again, due to incomplete information with the Blasters I will only be showing one until more conclusive information can be presented.

80GJ Blaster
Damage: 105
RoF: 428.57
Optimal Range: 89.6 (+59.6)
Maximum Range: 160 (-40)
Heat Cost Per Second: 15
PG: 747 (-253)
CPU: 84 (+44)

80GJ Railgun
Damage: 1450 (+343.12)
Splash Damage: 180
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 545 (-355)
CPU: 128 (+68)

80GJ Particle Accelerator
Damage: 1687.5 (+414.59)
Splash Damage: 207
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 670 (-320)
CPU: 163 (+91)

80GJ Particle Cannon
Damage: 1885 (+446.06)
Splash Damage: 234
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 817 (-272)
CPU: 86 (+111)

ST-201 Missile Launcher
Damage: 415 (+25)
Splash Damage: 125 (+45)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 712 (-88)
CPU: 163 (+98)

AT-201 Missile Launcher Damage: 498 (+30)
Splash Damage: 150 (+54)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 838 (-42)
CPU: 197 (+119)

XT-201 Missile Launcher Damage: 539.5 (+32)
Splash Damage: 162.5 (+58.5)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 985 (+17)
CPU: 231 (+137)

1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Small Turrets)

Alright, so apparently Blogspot doesn't like me and I'm having to go old school, typing everything you see here in HTML mode. If anything looks crazy, that's why.

Now, to begin, I'd like to mention that this is still a work in progress and it's going to take a little while to get everything in order as I have to do some calculations for each and every individual change to give you, the reader, something a bit more comprehensive than the spreadsheet hell CCP dropped on us.

Not that I'm disappointed with them, they -finally- made some measure of communication with us and that much I'm grateful for. So, here's how this works. This here's a list of changes from our current numbers to the 1.7 numbers in traditional Eve Online feedback format, with the increased/decreased values, if any, in parenthesis.

Rate of Fire is measured in Rounds Per Minute.
Ranges and blast radiuses are listed in meters.
Charge-up times are listed in seconds.
Heat capacity is not given in new stats.

I will update this occasionally as I find new information through testing (such as seize durations and cool down times, etc). NOTE: Small Blasters are inconclusive at the moment as the spreadsheet apparently has false values (all damages listed as 25 between tiers)

SMALL TURRETS

20GJ Blaster
Damage: 25
RoF: 857.14
Optimal Range: 65 (+30)
Maximum Range: 100
Heat Cost Per Second: 18 (+3)
PG: 168 (+68)
CPU: 62 (+54)

20GJ Railgun
Damage: 235 (-40)
Splash Damage: 75
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 117 (+37)
CPU: 78 (+63)

20GJ Particle Accelerator
Damage: 282 (-48)
Splash Damage: 90
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 144 (+56)
CPU: 98 (+80)

20GJ Particle Cannon
Damage: 305.5 (-52)
Splash Damage: 97.5
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 178 (+81)
CPU: 119 (+97)

ST-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 400 (+50)
Splash Damage: 275 (+10
0) Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 200
PG: 153 (+80)
CPU: 98 (+82)

AT-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 480 (+60)
Splash Damage: 330 (+12
0) Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 200
PG: 180 (+103)
CPU: 119 (+100)

XT-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 520 (+65)
Splash Damage: 357.5 (+80)
Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 250 (+50)
PG: 212 (+127)
CPU: 139 (+116)

No more BS

I say no more BS as in Bullshit, not Blog Spot - so don't jump to conclusions and think I've given up prematurely!

Now, the reason I stopped writing blogs for a while is because I was wrong in my calculations on the active scanners scan range - it's actually quite a bit more because I did the calculations based on a triangle and not a cone. This was due to my lack of geometry and in a game like Eve Online and Dust 514, it's kind of silly to approach things from an analytical standpoint when you have a lack of knowledge in the field you're trying to express a point on.

Though, I'm not going to let that stop me. The mathematics of it all is silly when you get right down to it because be it 20,000 meters or 37,000 meters, improper mathematics isn't going to change the feel of the equipment at hand. If it's over-powered, it's over-powered, regardless of what the effective scan range is. I haven't quite been convinced that it's -not- over-powered though after a bit of personal testing and seeing that the CreoDron Flux Active Scanner has the highest cool-down (25 seconds) it's a bit more balanced than my original approach of it but I do feel that the precision is far too low for being a general purpose tool.

Now, after a bit of re-education through some Skype conversations I've (with the help of others, of course) come to the determination that the scanners need to be more focused on what they're supposed to. Right now there's absolutely no point in using the vanilla scanner because every other variant supercedes it in some way or another. I'd like to advocate that the vanilla scanner be more of a general purpose tool that doesn't excel in anything but averages better.

There's the issue of 'twirling' in which you can use an Active Scanner and just spin around in a circle, making everything around you show up on the map. I dislike this and think that you should have to point the scanner on someone for a second or two before they appear as it's far too easy to scan a large area. Once that's knocked out, you can focus more on the specializations of each.

The Flux scanner needs to be for general infantry, considering it's powerful range, but it shouldn't be so powerful that it can pick up scouts due to it's massive range. The Quantum is in a pretty good place but I feel that, due to it's low cool-down and exceptionally long target visibility, it could also stand to have some changes made to make it a bit more balanced. The Focused is pretty good, in my opinion, minus the twirling aspect it fulfills it's roll pretty well. The Proximity on the other hand is rather useless due to it's very small scan range and design seems to be based around the twirling bit (five second scan duration? really?) I suppose it's nice for close quarters engagements but beyond that it's sort of a silly concept being as, at that range, you're likely to spot them visually.

Now, I don't want this blog to be just another rendition on my "Perfecting the Roles" thing on Active Scanners but I do want to use it as an example to hallmark on my new method of thinking. No amount of specific mathematics is going to change something from being over-powered in a set environment. From this point forward I'm going to work on giving less specifics and simply use an informative standpoint.

The reason for this mostly spawns from my recognition that educating forum goers is a bad move. They either understand the concepts and principles or they don't and when they don't they're usually pretty adamant on it. Disproving someone's math on the forums isn't going to help anyone because CCP knows, far better than we do, what their designs are capable of. So, if someone's wrong in their math - the only people you're going to be proving it too is other forum goers, which are less likely to listen anyway.

Apart from the community being rather sheepish in the sense that they'll follow someone's ideals simply because they agree, it's important to understand that they will do that. If a mass of players think something should be a certain way, correct mathematics isn't going to change how they feel - they'll just retort with something else and stick with their belief that they're right and that no argument will ever defeat their logic.

To which, I'm going to just ignore all of that and work more on the design aspect. What -I- feel the gear should do, with as general a concept as possible because in the end CCP is going to be the ones who inevitably work out the numbers. That's not my job. My job is simply conveying how I feel it should operate and I have a feeling that a lot more people will agree with that if I keep the numbers to a minimum - the less specific, the better.

With that being said, I also want to convey that I am still going to campaign for the CPM when elections are open, but I do have a lot to learn before that ever comes to fruition. Considering that elections usually aren't until a few months before Fanfest (which is normally held in April/May) I think I still have some time to focus on the learning aspect of things in order to fully prepare for the responsibility.

One of which is to hone in on the aspect of not caring what people think or whether they approve of my tactics. In the end, if they disagree with what I have to say, it doesn't matter. My sole concern is the health of the game, not the approval of that person. Of course it does help to have the people's approval but I'm not going to play the Politician and outright lie to you in order to get the seat and then go against my word, doing what I want. I'm going to be upfront with you - I am going to do things you may not agree with. 

Concerning Respecs

I'm honestly against respecs but they can sometimes be beneficial, especially in the case where developers are shifting the way certain things work.

Now, in a lot of games you can pay gold or whatever the currency is to re-adjust your specialization (or 'respec') but it's important to remember that a lot of these games are co-operative based where you and your guild go on raids against AI controlled enemies. PVP aspects are usually tacked on but aren't part of the core experience and isn't where the majority of the player population is going to be associated.

Whereas we have Dust 514, which as yet has no PVE experience and it's entire being is revolving around you making other players dead and vice versa. This sort of gaming environment encourages specialization as being able to switch out on the fly sort of kills any ounce of importance on the field. In a game of Planetary Conquest, the team is only as good as it's contenders - and when everyone can switch out their skill allocations on the fly it's bad for business as suddenly everyone can do everyone's job.

Which, would be okay if it weren't for Dust's unique specialization aspects. A person who's run Caldari Assault since May is only going to know what it's like to be a shield tanker and likely will be left with a sense of confusion as their recently respecced armor tanking playstyle is turned to mincemeat against a Heavy Machine Gun, which receives a damage bonus against armor.

So, your specialization is only as good as your knowledge of it. Respecs to become the FotM (flavor of the month) is a bad idea because it's only going to last as long as it takes for balance passes to be implemented and suddenly you're wanting another respec. Is this the developers fault for not having it balanced in the first iteration, or the players fault for falling in line with what was powerful at the time?

Honestly, I think it's more the player's fault than the developer because they knew what they were getting into and using the "it's all that was competitive at the time" is no excuse because this is admitting that you knew it was broken - which leads to the fact that you knew it was going to be fixed.

Another thing that this sort of mentality does is that it kills any aspect of the player having the skill to adapt to a constantly changing environment. Whenever we fall into what is popular and it gets nerfed, we've spent so much time investing into that tactic that we haven't developed the skills to utilize other playstyles which now seem less appealing because it's not as powerful as the tactic that was truly over powered at the time.

Now, another argument brought up is that when new content is released there should be respecs because the players were forced to play something they didn't want to before the content they wanted was available. I disagree with this as well because, while you are dropping a few million skill points into the suit and playstyle you might not desire at the time, it's in no way to your disadvantage.

I've been waiting for the Gallente Heavy for a long time now but it's not available. This doesn't bother me though because it's still the Gallente and their style doesn't shift much between suits. Be it Assault or Logistics, Gallente still favor armor tanking - so having skill points invested into that playstyle does nothing be prepare me for having it later on. I can also work on my core skills like Electronics and Engineering, of which I've gotten them all to level five. Suffice to say, I'm actually running out of skills to get to level five in order to prepare for the Gallente Heavy's arrival.

Then there's the argument of the "Developer Fault" which is forcing players to drop SP to try out different weapons instead of having militia variants. Again, this doesn't deserve a respec, this just deserves militia gear where it needs to be. It's a self defeating argument, in my opinion, solely because it provides the solution to the problem it's bringing up. But there is one more "Developer Fault" that I think deserves a respec... and it's the only one...

Massive changes to entire playstyles. If it's a balance pass on a single suit, that's one thing, but when the developers go and tweak every single aspect of a particular playstyle (the best example being the recent Vehicle changes announcement) then there might be some grounds for a respec. Scout LAVs are nigh useless as they're just militia variants with a few bonuses attached in the wrong places (acceleration?). When every facet of an entire playstyle is changed than a respec is a good idea solely because of the fact that what the players currently have invested is being completely changed in a way that renders many of the skills completely altered.

Then of course there's the removal of skills. If skills are removed, obvious we want the SP back otherwise it's just a wasted investment - not that I can honestly see CCP ever -not- giving it back because that's just asking for a PR nightmare and they have done this for Eve Online. There hasn't really been a case of skills being removed from play without a total SP reset in Dust 514, but with vehicle changes coming up I notice that a few skills have been nyxxed completely... I'm curious to see how they go about this.

TL;DR - Paying for respecs is a shitty idea and takes away from specialization and the lasting choice of investment. Respecs should not be granted for any other reason than complete playstyle alterations.

Philosophy

I know I haven't written a blog in a while and I've been meaning to do that. Such is the nature of studying taking up the majority of my time. Mathematics isn't something one learns over night but most importantly you can't inherently learn it unless you practice it. This isn't Passive Skill Point accrual here guys.

At any rate, I'd like to share with you a theory I have on why modern philosophy isn't as widely known as philosophers of the past, such as Gallileo and Plato, taken from my post on Facebook.

So I often hear that Philosophy doesn't exist anymore. Well, I ahve a theory as to why that is. See, Philosophy does exist; just not in the sense we think of it. Quotes of great philosophers were often accompanied with some prestige, something many people lack now-a-days.

But what is prestige? It's definition is:
widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality.

Now you're wondering what was considered prestige back in those times. The answer? Mathematics, while not the only answer, is the most common. Almost all philosophers that are worth quoting in the modern time had a great understanding of mathematics and, more importantly, brought new knowledge to our understanding of mathematics.

Suffice to say, philosophers were often very intelligent and brought some new understanding to humanity. We still have that, but it's become harder to notice. Instead of it being common knowledge you sort of have to research these things. For instance, who originally conceived the concept of the Particle Accelerator?

A great inventor by the name of Ernest Lawrence from South Dakota, who held a nobel prize in physics, but more interestingly is quoted as saying:

"The day when the scientist, no matter how devoted, may make significant progress alone and without material help is past. This fact is most self-evident in our work."

Perfecting the Roles - Grinding

Let's begin with an explanation of what grinding is in a video game. Grinding is essentially any repetitive task using the same strategy over and over again to advance in the game. So let's talk about why it's importa- no, it's not important. At all. It's a silly mechanic that was put in place by every MMO designer -ever- for the sake of two things.

A.) To increase the time and disparity between lower level and higher level rewards.
B.) As a brutal means of influencing players to spend money for reduced grinding.

That's the basis of it in and of it's entirety and you can beat around the bush all you want but inevitably that's what it comes down to, one or both of those aspects. Every game has some form of grinding, some are absolutely terrible with it's execution (RuneScape) and some are actually pretty creative with it (FF-XII).

So what separates a "good" grind versus a "bad" grind? Execution and implementation. If it's actually enjoyable it's hard to consider it grinding, such is the case with Final Fantasy XII (as mentioned before) in which you're given a 'chain' for killing the same mob repeatedly (maximum of 999). This 'chain' will give you better rewards as you progress and actually leaves you with a sense of "I wonder what I'll get next" for those that are patient.

On the other hand... We have Dust... Which is the epitome of grinding. Apart from the miniscule amounts of SP we obtain through passive accumulation, the only way to gain SP/ISK is through matchmaker grinding. This effectively turns the most innovative and inspired shooter to hit the Playstation 3 into the most advanced lobby shooter with -potential- to become the greatest console FPS of all time. 

What we have is a system that rewards players for in-game combat in which the weak get powerful and the powerful get more powerful -in the same area-. There is no point to it. It's repetitive, dull and ultimately disruptive to the game's overall health due to damaging the general balance between new and old players. Without more innovative content to provide some sort of meaningful engagement, the game swirls in place without moving.

Some may say that PvE content (drones) will aid to this, but I severely doubt that it will as it will just add a "co-op" shooter aspect to the game that... you guessed it... is just grinding, without the human element behind the mind of the opposition. There needs to be some sort of -reason- for it all, as the game suggests in many of it's advertisements and media outlets. 

The very closest means of obtaining that reason are Factional Warfare and Planetary Conquest, both of which are inherently flawed for various reasons. Planetary Conquest is reserved for the top tier players who already have enough ISK to be able to compete in Planetary Conquest as it is very difficult to get a foot hold with a Starter Pack of clones. This goes right back to grinding as, wouldn't you know it, to get to PC Capability you need to have 16 players who have spent enough time grinding to be able to field the necessary gear to be competitive.

Factional Warfare is flawed in that it allows anyone to participate - removing the disparity between the two players entirely - and it gives you no means of meaningful interaction with Eve Online other than implication. A corporation can fight for a faction and work hard as the dickens to turn a planet over entirely in their faction's favor but given as there's no way to control -WHAT- planet or district you're going to, it's far too easy to have it immediately flipped again. You're not only forced to fight in an area that the game decides, you're also at the mercy of available slots if you're in a squad or multiple squads. 

Of course, this will be changed whenever CCP Implements the overhauled FW matchmaker which will allow entire 16 man teams to deploy together but the fact still remains - there's no way to control where you're going. Anything you accomplished that night can be immediately undone because of this. Beyond that, there's no way to see the impact you're even making given that there isn't enough information being provided (what faction owns the system the planet is in, how well they're doing, what impact the districts your faction possesses is making etc etc). With that in mind, you can kiss meaningful interaction goodbye.

So that leaves us with Instant Matchmaking - Hi-sec, in other words, and I don't need to give a long drawn-out explanation of all the issues surrounding this part of the game and why it's absolutely lacking.

The content that this game needs should be meaningful and have long lasting effects. Drone warfare isn't going to solve a damn thing and Planetary Conquest is just... Broken.. It has the same exact issue as Eve Online in that large alliances/power blocs control everything and if you're going to make it there you have to be able to field similar gear, similar numbers and meta-game the dogshit out of the system (that means using ALL the cheap tricks, formerly Flaylocks/Contact Grenades) to be remotely competitive. Otherwise you're going to be stuck in a perpetual state of timers.

My best suggestion is to make EVERYTHING matter. Faction Warfare shouldn't just be a match maker with some subtle if not vague impact on Eve Online that no-one really notices. It should actually mean something to the players who are participating, giving benefits for the faction who controls the most territory - as it does in Eve Online. If Faction Warfare is more beneficial than your Instant Matchmaking, there might be a migration of veteran players toward it as it's more rewarding. This doesn't mean "nyeeeh higher isk rewards" - I think there's plenty of room to work something more unique in there. We already have enough ISK generation.

Factional Warfare needs to provide Dust players the information they need to see what kind of impact their making - the percentage differential on the solar system's capture status. The solar systems in which Eve players have conquered for their particular faction, etc.

We need to think outside of the box - rather than just tacking on more "grind" content to the game we need to implement more engaging features. Things that players WANT to do and while I'm sure "shooting someone in the face" is a great answer, there are a vast amount of games that include "shooting someone in the face" in their list of features. 

The answer to this needs to be innovative - something unique to Dust 514 that no other game has. We have an amazing starting point and it's been sitting there for over a decade: Eve Online. What ways can we actually make Dust 514 more interactive with Eve Online and what ways can we do it that make the interaction meaningful and engaging without the repetitious bull that every other game already provides (better in some cases)? 

The answer is simple: Player Driven Content. The development team simply cannot keep up with the fluctuating masses. It's impossible, why? Because everyone has a different opinion - but that difference in opinion is an AMAZING conflict driver and where you have conflict you will inevitably have some sort of social interaction. This is something that CCP cannot influence and should make no effort in attempting because it would be unnatural.

What they SHOULD do, on the other hand, is provide the tools necessary to make those social interactions readily available and plentiful. This is exactly what Eve Online hallmarked on and is what it is known for. There's been a few MMO attempts who've tried to dive into Eve Online's niche role but inevitably failed because they didn't grasp the core concept of player driven interactions.

Here's a video (the highlight of my argument) I'd like everyone to watch to help understand what's going on with Dust 514 right now and how we can make it better for the future. Turning it from Operant Conditioning (playing for a reward we know we will get, I.E SP/ISK) to Player Immersion and Engagement (playing for the novelty and experiences we craft for ourselves):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbtAn3dic-g#at=394