Yes, I'm a little disappointed as well with seeing two major areas (vehicle changes and new weapons) being pushed back to 1.6. I could understand that you'd need to push one or the other back (to perfect the other), but pushing both back is disappointing. However, I'm going to reserve judgement until I see what you guys are actually bringing to the table in 1.5 before posting how I feel about the changes. Baseline, though, it's VERY disheartening to know that new weapons are off the table for 1.5, since it would have been nice to have all racial rifles/play styles reflected finally.

I do have to hand it to you, though, CCP, you guys are damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you had released the vehicle balancing/new weapons in 1.5, but they'd have been incomplete, then you'd have been crucified for releasing buggy/unbalanced/unfinished changes, and yet if you pull them to make them better for release, you get crucified anyway. I feel for you guys that you're in a no-win scenario.

To address some of the posters here, though: you guys don't think CCP is raving mad to get new features/suits/weapons out?? Of course they do. They know much more of the vision than we do. They know where art assets are at, vfx, balancing, implementation, QC, etc. are. Believe me (as a developer myself) that they want to do whatever is necessary to get these out, and I'm sure it was a tough decision to pull these most-desired features. But, if the NPE is improved with tutorials, and that in turn helps newberries sticking around, then it's probably a win-win for us all: getting new players to play the game only expands the player base, grows the game, and improves its health. That's great for the game and all of us, because then CCP can build/add-in new things for bittervets (do we have those so soon?) and newbs alike can have fun with new kit occasionally. Plus, CCP is pushing updates every month or so. It's not like the new weapons/vehicle changes are pushed back for a 6-month expansion window, and if CCP is giving us the opportunity to look at the changes (and comment) beforehand, then I think that's probably an acceptable compromise.