|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11056
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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.
AH Now I understand.
But what do you propose?
Giving dropships arbitrary bonuses is ridiculous in my mind.
I mean if a weapon can deal X damage to a tank which is more heavily armoured it should do the same to a dropship which is less armoured.
Please elaborate further so I dont make a stupid comment.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11057
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say is wrong.
Are you saying HAVs should be harder to damage?
No I think he is saying ADS need to be harder to damage by limiting the amount of damage AV options can do against them for some reason..... though I could be wrong...post isn't clear.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11058
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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?
A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not?
Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11058
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Beld Errmon wrote:I would suggest that Assault dropships are a tech 2 vehicle and should have a different resist profile too ordinary dropships.
BAM right on the money there Beld.
For clarification
A T1 Punisher might have armour resistances of 30% against Explosive Damage (the main minmatar damage type)
While a T2 Retribution will have an 87.5% Resistance to Explosive Damage against Armour.
Just like a Wolf, Minmatar Rifer T2 hull, has a 90% resistance against EM, the Amarr main damage type, for its shields.
However this would then imply that HAV T2 hulls would have increased resistances to specific damage types as well.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11058
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:True Adamance wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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? A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not? Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be. 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?
No its not fair, but neither vehicle is designed to fulfil the others role.
The advantage of an HAV would in this case be its armoured hull, which should absorb fire. The cost being mobility and lack of ability to engage close range targets both aerial and on ground.
The advantage of a Dropship should be its mobility, fire power, and aerial nature. The cost being less durability.
To be fair I cannot argue Dropship semantics with you, so I defer to you on dropship matters, but I'm not going to agree that ADS are useless. They are the most dangerous (but not OP) thing on most maps right now.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11061
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote: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.
*facepalms......
No tankers, myself included, should ever talk about crutches.....
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11061
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:The dark cloud wrote:Not this crap again. Is it just my impression or since the armor dropships lost their god mode vs swarms you are complaining about AV ALOT more? Well its a hard world when crutches are being 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?
Personally yes and no.
No mainly because it harkens to the ship signature system in EVE where large weapons cannot easily hit small ships, meaning fast and small ships can wholly evade the large ones guns.
Yes because you have the main advantage of not being tied to a single platform. DS can move freely in the skies as they wish and have the advanage to looking down on a foe. I think more logically that yes a DS should be downed more easily than a tank providing the shots hit the targets because DS have and are designed to have less armour.
If a rocket clips a small helicopter (Littlebird) it goes down. If a Rocket hits a tank it can cripple its movement systems or destroy the think in one go. Being a smaller, less armoured helicopter does not alter the missiles destructive capacity.
But given that yes the ADS is essentially a T2 hull I could give concessions regarding hull damage resistances as long as you are willing to accept that other T2 hulls like LAV and HAV would receive similar benefits.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11063
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
BOOM and what could have been and interesting and valuable discussion about balance and vehicle roles was BLOWN wide open by a certain group of individuals once again waltzing in with assertions of player supremacy and calls of "Git Gud Scrub"......
This is why we can't have nice things..... If people just jumped into the thread to discredit Judge can you just **** off..... I don't care what his intentions are but I want to discuss this at the very least without some ******* irrelevant and or non productive interference.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11063
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
devonus durga wrote: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.
A very detailed summary that puts the argument into a realistic perspective. Do you have any additions for in game mechanics that could better reflect this, or more so balance vehicles in terms of damage taken vs AV fire.
While I appreciate a good dose of realism OHKOing my HAV doesn't sounds like enjoyable gameplay given the proliferation of AV amongst players.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11063
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 01:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Great summary there.
Really good stuff.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11066
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 02:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
GeneralButtNaked wrote:Izlare Lenix wrote:I just hate how my 80k soma is sooooo much more survivable than my 500k incubis.
I just hate how my Madrugar can't fly. You don't balance by ISK.
No ISK balance emerges on the open market. We ourselves as players balance by ISK.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11066
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 02:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:True Adamance wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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? A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not? Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be. 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.
Does it?
Are not both hulls destroyed?
And I have said vehicles needed to be balanced around static AV values.
First of all I am not saying ADS can't have Resistances....... they are essentially T2 hulls. But we need to be prepared that if this becomes the case we must balance all T2 by this standard.
You cannot arbitrarily give one hull a damage resistance.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11067
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 02:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:True Adamance wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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? A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not? Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be. 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.
Fair call. Would a Javelin have been a better analogy?
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11068
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 03:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:True Adamance wrote:Pvt Numnutz wrote:True Adamance wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote: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? A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not? Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be. 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. Fair call. Would a Javelin have been a better analogy? 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.
So if I eyeballed a Javelin and hit and air target.......what would happen?
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11081
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 04:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
medomai grey wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:I love how before AV was complete crap none of you DS pilots said anything about the swarm launcher but now that it can hurt you you want to nerf It. Sad part is that the swarm hasn't even been buffed bugs just got fixed. If your ships had more fitting room and an extra relavent slot you could get more HP. That's the problem not AV damage, you have fits that have 2500 HP and complain you can't 'tank' AV. 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.
Lol like every AVer groups me in with Spkr and Taka........ you just have to HTFU because they won't.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11088
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 07:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:True Adamance wrote: So if I eyeballed a Javelin and hit and air target.......what would happen?
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.
Okay now THIS SPECIAL JAVELIN that does fire (AKA forgegun) hits a helicopter.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11116
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 20:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Delta 749 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:True Adamance wrote: So if I eyeballed a Javelin and hit and air target.......what would happen?
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. Okay now THIS SPECIAL JAVELIN that does fire (AKA forgegun) hits a helicopter. Theoretically a fire ball and twisted scrap, remember this is ordnance designed to bust tanks and aircraft are all generally far far less armored since they need to fly and heavy armor runs counter to that Hell did you know a harrier jet isnt even bullet proof to small arms fire 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.
Thank you for explaining that.....though that is in terms of missiles......... not mass accelerated slugs.
Not that I disagree with you, you have made your point.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11116
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 21:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote: 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
That was my point. perhaps I should have established what kind of damage the payload of an Anti Tank missile would do to the hull of an aerial vehicle.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11116
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 21:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Delta 749 wrote: 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.
While I see your points I do not understand why ADS need more durability when they have the abilities of Mobility, Flight, high DPS, and moderate shielding and armour.
In most other FPS the fire power and flight capabilities of a helicopter is balanced by the lack of durability of the vehicle. A dropship is not designed to be a sky tank, and is specifically designated as a medium aerial vehicle.
I mean slight buffs could be given to Gallentean resistance types, and Caldari resistance types, for the hull as long as those same buffs are applied to all tech 2 vehicle hulls in future.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11119
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 22:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
Izlare Lenix wrote:True Adamance wrote:GeneralButtNaked wrote:Izlare Lenix wrote:I just hate how my 80k soma is sooooo much more survivable than my 500k incubis.
I just hate how my Madrugar can't fly. You don't balance by ISK. No ISK balance emerges on the open market. We ourselves as players balance by ISK. 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.
But an MLT would and can destroy a 20 Million SP HAV with little issue, your MLT dropships can't fire back....unless they switch to cruise missile mode.
I have issues against AV like you, I have issues with cloaked RE scouts, JLAV, ADS skill stackers, reps are weaker, hell even I lose 1 in 5 HAV to a idiotic RDV pilot.
You think your vehicle class is the only one that has problems? Wake up.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11148
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 04:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
Espartoi wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote: Which we adapted to by having choppers not stop moving. Most times when an RPG hits, the chopper is usually stationary, such as during a pick up or drop off. As well, those choppers are made for hauling, and are thus big and bulky. Much easier to hit than the Cobra attack chopper the Marine Corps uses. Usually when an attack chopper is hit, its from multiple RPGs fired at them at once, usually from different points.
And yet helos are still shot down by a man portable launchers. Also like you said just because US marines learned their lessons doesn't mean dirt poor third world countries (which are more likely to get shot with a javelin) are likely to still get shot down from everything such as a 40 mm grenade launcher, TOW missile. Javelins, and Stingers (try dodging the newest ones flares do not work against them and they still don't give a lock on signal against their targets) So IWS have you tried to dodge one?. How was the experience?.
I think thats essentially a pointless questions to ask.
Have you? Do you know its not easy as ****?
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11151
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 04:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: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.
What kind of idiot do you have to be to let that happen.........
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11152
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 04:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
The True Inferno wrote: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.
Thats not a bad suggestion, signatures on vehicles is but another aspect of EVE vessels, and opens up the possibly of having many skills to all faster targeting speeds of automated systems as well as decreases of signatures values.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11314
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 03:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
The more I think about it....the less I think anything will actually change in terms of ADS gameplay.
If you will indulge me for a second and suggest that AV is not balanced against ADS as it is designed to directly combat tanks.... the only ways of balancing it aside from the varying lock on timers for swarms is to start applying specifically designated roles for AV weapons.
However when you consider that an Anti Dropship weapons will need to be designed when the split emerges the weapon will do tis job effectually against Dropships and no other targets, in the end you will still be downed in 2-3 shots......
If you seek resistances for your vehicle on the grounds that you have less total HP and swarms are balanced against HAV all you are doing is seeking to make ADS the HAV of the Skies essentially in my mind make them the most OP vehicle ever to have existed in this game...... HAV durability on a vehicle that can fly.......
Correct me if I am wrong because that is how this thread has been conveyed to me.... I haven't actually been able to find a Rhadamanthus post where he expresses options on what he wants.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11316
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 08:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:also.... I cheat anyway in my DEV provided re-skinned flying tank.
If only CCP would give us back the Nanofibre hulls and Broken Nitrous injectors...... we HAV's could scramble our fighter wings
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
|
|
|