So a forge or swarm does the same damage to a dropship as it does to a tank. So CCP. Explain how you feel that two vehicles that have vastly different effective Hit Points should take the same damage from AV?

I defies logic. If swarms or Forges are balanced against tanks, then they are not against dropships. If they are fair against dropships then they are not against tanks.

Are you just pulling damage and resistance numbers from thin air? Because that is what it looks like.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say is wrong.

Are you saying HAVs should be harder to damage?

im not saying dropships need to be stronger. But if AV is balanced against one of these vehicles whith the same damage profile... how can it be balanced against the other?

I would suggest that Assault dropships are a tech 2 vehicle and should have a different resist profile too ordinary dropships.

Can I ask you this question : If AV hits tanks and dropships for the same damage. Yet one can have vastly more HP than the other does this seem like a fair balance or not?

Not this crap again. Is it just my impression or since the armor dropships lost their godmode vs swarms you are complaining about AV ALOT more? Well its a hard world when crutches are beeing taken away.

I didn't mention Armour. You did. And it does not matter what changes happen. If imbalance is created no matter the cause, then it should be addressed. So how about you address the topic. Is it balanced that tanks and dropships share the same damage profile?

1lb of c4, regardless of what material it hits, has the same explosive impact against all targets. Its how that target responds that changes. Unfortunately, even a scifi setting such as dust, physics still apply. The same explosion will cause the same amount of damage to a target regardless of its materials, and its a general physical limitation, that, since they fly, helicopters planes etc have less armor then a tank.

This also applies to derpships, seeing as though we might have hover capabilities in dust, the behicle in question would still require a generator of sufficient size to enable lift. This coupled with armor would greatly inhibit a vehicles mobility. So much like modern day, a balance must be achieved between the two. It would of course be possible to create a vehicle with as much armor as a tank, capable of flight, but this vehicle would be far far less maneuvaurable then a tank, as tanks only have to generate enough energy to propel them forward and backwards, while am airborne vehicle of similar weight and armor, would have to sacrifice the majority of its maneuvaurability to maintain VERTICLE lift, its horizontal movemt would be very slow\and or rather clunky and hard to handle. So, asking for one weapon to do less damage, is not only physics wise iimpossible, but also incapable of being argued that an airborne vehicle with the maneuvarability characteristics of a dropship, is better able to resist damage then a tank.

Second, In modern military vehicles explosive resistance comes from reactive armor whihc is desighned to take a hit, and project the blast away from the vehicle as best it can. This usually takes the form of plates that fall off on impact, much like modern cars crumple zones that are used to guide the explosive impact into.a non deadly form. The majority of. These systems are one time use plating. In dust shields and hardners perform along a similar principle, deflecting the blast away as best it can within limits, and are then used up till restocked\recharged.

Your a dropship, your ability to shrug off damage is much like a scouts; its not the ability to soak damage, but the ability to avoid damage, that gives you an edge. You already have an elevated position, stronger weapons and armor then any infantry, and are more maneuvaurable in all axises then anything else on the battlefield.

If we really want a realistic damage profile, let's take the AT4 anti tank weapon used by the us military. It can one shot even our own Abrams. Then there is the javelin missle launcher, capable of targeting both ground and airborne targets, has homing capabilities, and also one shots anything on the modern battlefield. Even classic rpgs can one shot most tanks, and disable all know vehicles. The only difference is that most of the vehicle their used against are desighned to insure their passengers and pilots survival, the vehicle is almost always knocked out of commision by a single strike. Its to bad your derpships arnt desighned that way. Oh wait, nm; you guys always survive your dropship being destroyed unless we hunt you down on the ground.

I just hate how my Madrugar can't fly.

You don't balance by ISK.

But a stinger causes different amounts of destruction to a helicopter and a tank.

And judge has a point. The vehicle community has been saying this since 1.7 dropped. You can't balance AV on HAVs alone, because that throws off the balance for drop ships and LAVs.

Actually it doesn't. Stingers are designed to take down aircraft, which are far less armored than tanks. Aluminum frame vs 4 inch thick steel plate. I'm not sure if stingers can lock on to tanks. Even if it could it won't go for a tanks weak point like the javelin does, which is designed to take out tanks.

But a javelin can't hit air targets. Too fast. There's a reason there are two separate weapon systems. If we could use one for both, we would, it'd be cheaper.

Swarms should be for drop ships. They do reduced damage to tanks. Forges should be for tanks. They do reduced damage to drop ships.

o/ I said lower tier swarms were under performing. And although I've acknowledged that my python is squishy, I have never made a case for it getting more EHP. Please don't group me with "those" people.

The javelin wouldn't fire. It requires a lock before the missile is released. And aircraft are too small and move too much for them to get one. Even if they did manage a lock, the missile is not near maneuverable enough nor fast enough to catch up. Even if the universe conspired against the pilot and made the missile hit, its made to break through thick tank armor. There's a chance the thin aluminum that aircraft use wouldn't be hard enough to set the charge off.

This is where you are wrong. It would either pass through the hull, or simply bounce off. I'm making up numbers to demonstrate a point.

Let's say a javelin needs 5,000 units of force to set the charge off. Thats fine against heavy tank armor, but aircraft aluminum, which is much thinner, gives way at 1,000 units of force. Thus, the metal will give before the required amount of force can be applied to the charge to set it off, leading to the first situation I told True Adamance about. The second situation, which is more realistic, is because the missile doesn't have enough fuel and speed to pierce through much of anything, relying on the charge to do the piercing for it. If the charge is not detonated, the missile wouldn't have enough force to pierce the hull under its own power, and would thus bounce off, leaving a nasty dent.

Only hes talking in theory and asking what the charge of a javelin would do to an air craft so all your rambling about "it wouldnt go off because" is moot since it doesnt address what hes asking IE how much damage, theoretically, would an anti tank weapon do to an air craft which is significantly weaker

Again, not much. Let's assume the round goes off, by some miracle.

The way javelins pierce armor is by superheating metal, usually copper, and then forcing that liquid metal into a stream, which effectively melts a small hole through the armor. The average penetration depth is 20 inches of armor, and should it pierce all the way through, it will incinerate the tank crew inside.

If it hit an aicraft, anything directly in front of the charge would be melted and useless. About the same damage would be done with the 1st situation with the javelin shaped hole, which is also the more likely scenario if a forge gun hit an aircraft. And again, I gave a workaround for forges doing reduced drop ship damage, letting them be able to be adjusted to tank slaying, and a workaround for swarms doing reduced damage to tanks, letting them be independently balanced against drop ships.

It's not just about isk. I have millions of SP invested in ADS, yet a militia tank takes zero sp and doesn't die as easily.

Rdvs, mccs, null cannon missiles, buildings, the ground or ramming drop ships don't insta kill tanks like they do ADS. now reps are weaker and swarms were buffed so now just about everything can quickly kill ADS. it's at the point again where flying ADS is not worth it again. Very similar to when 600m red line rail tanks made ADS unflyable on many maps.

So IWS have you tried to dodge one?. How was the experience?.

You've obviously have never flown a Dropship before, as my Incubus has 3000 armor, yet can be taken out by a HMG. You don't see me complaining about tanks not taking HMG damage so please, stop your whining.

Swarms should have different lock-on times for each vehicle, DS should take the longest(dew to the fact they re flying) and tanks should take the least(as they're on the ground). There should also be different types of swarms that are specailised to different vehicles with bonuses and penalties to each vehicle for damage range and lock-on time. Forge guns should have a slite dip for there projectiles when aiming above 10 degrees and should become more accurate when aiming down as well as a longer range. This would make them less effective against a dropship and more effective against a tank.

also.... I cheat anyway in my DEV provided re-skinned flying tank.