they also do the same damage to lavs. are you going to leave them out of this or what?

I mean av is not just a threat to dropships its athreat to tanks currently as well.

I have not completed my LAV training. So didn't want to make claims I could not back up.

No it cannot. If you think it can, you are not experianced enough in dropships.

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.

Wow. Just wow. I didn't expect this, yet again, maybe I should've at this point.

E.H.P.

A dropship has less EHP than a HAV. AV does the same numerical damage to both, but it may strip off 30% of a dropships EHP in one shot while only 15% off of a HAV.

So, AV doesn't deal equal damage to both. It's more damaging to dropships, as it should be.

CCP could've made EVERY vehicle have 2000 EHP, with the only variable be resistance. LAVs: 0%, Dropships: 25%, HAVs: 50%. But they didn't. Would've had the same effect as the current design, but they didn't and I like the current design better.

Judge, you've lost all credibility to me now. You're no better than a scrub.

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.

So a Rifle or MD does the same damage to a Scout as it does to a[n] Assault. So CCP. Explain how you feel that two frames that have vastly different effective Hit Points should take the same damage?

It defies logic. If Rifles or MDs are balanced against Assaults, 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.

ROFLCOPTER
A rail tank can fire two shots before an afterburner is hit I've done this enough to know If I don't land 2 shots I'll have to back off recover my damage mods and come at him again, if it's a nub pilot or I have an exceptionally great location I can land 3 shots.

I've worked with some of the best Forge Gunners in PC and from what I hear landing the first and second shot is easy how ever any experienced Pilot can generally escape the 3rd shot unless the Forger gets lucky so yes maybe you aren't the experienced one.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.