It will take longer for greedy tankers to destroy installations so i can hack them instead of them being destroyed

They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.

Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.

This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC.

When you put up the ******* effort to use of defend them then maybe I wouldn't have to destroy them. But alas infantry players tend to be so inanely brain dead they let them get captured and wonder why I went back to destroy it later.

I'll put it to you this way.

Which is more valuable and tactically sound to me as a pilot.

1.) Allowing you to keep and installation active you will not defend or use, and costs you nothing.
2.) Destroying a Potential threat which could result in me loosing 600K ISK of HAV.

I'm glad they are tougher.... perhaps infantry will put as effort into manning them and defending them as they wondering why their assault rifles won't blow us up.

They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.

Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.

This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC.

Good replies from all.

Like I said in another post GÇô I'd rather they be even stronger, but with less installations on the field. Maybe with bigger maps in Legion there could be the number there are now as they would be spread out.

Being less in number but stronger in defense would allow a built in counter to tanks and would give infantry TANKOPHOBES no reason to complain. No need to skill AV or pull out a tank to counter. Just keep that turret manned and no probs (shouldn't that really be what it is all about? Keeping them manned if you want them to stay on the field and be useful?)

Less turrets would allow for tanks to manuever somewhere and remain in blind spots while being denied certain paths of advancement.

One per outpost entrance and one per redline in the forward positions. Heck, take away the redline if you can pepper it with invincible (yet still destructible) cannons.

I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.

You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you.

I will find it interesting adapting to these turrets in my python, I have a few mental notes for tomorrow.

I'm going to have to work turret locations into my flight paths so I can check up on them more frequently. Wouldn't want a missile or rail turret to flip close to my redline, especially because blues don't defend them but love to hack them and I won't have the time to stop that now so I will have to babysit them

Attacking a turret is going to be difficult. Even with my two gunner's and my xt-1s it will take all three of us hitting every missile in our clip to destroy one on a pass. With exploding gunner's and the time and speed needed for a strafe like that is close to impossible so high orbits are going to have to be the strategy. That of course has its own problems, gunners could still explode and it is extremely hard to hit anything with missiles in an orbit which means more wasted shots and a longer engagement time. Both I am weary about.

Blaster turrets pose the biggest problem of the three, they can elevate much higher than their rail and missile counterparts. Making high orbits much harder to do with the same drawbacks only more difficult. For these I'm thinking I'll have a speed hacker or gunner jump out and hack them rather than waste time ammo and potentially crew fighting it. Though of course then I'll have yet another turret to babysit. Since it is a general rule of thumb to not trust blueberries with anything I don't want to spend my games babysitting turrets and nothing else so my crew and I will have to destroy some, probably rails then missiles.

The biggest challenge I can see are going to be redline turrets. I really don't want to pull out a tank when I want to dropship just to take put redline turrets. As it stands now I make it put with only a few seconds 6-7 if my gunners and I can all hit, nobody explodes and I guessed correctly where the turret is because it doesn't render until half way through a strafe run. If we are lucky we might be able to take one out in one run, realistically we are looking at two to three runs to destroy one turret, depending on other factors it could take much more or even be unassailable to my dropship.

I would really hate if there was a turret that I couldn't drop troops on, say a contested area, blue berries are pinned by it and I cannot come in for an attack either (be it av or tank or dropship) and would be even more annoying if as soon as we clear a turret and hack it the enemy just hack it right back and start hitting us again.

As for my dropship itself, I will definitely need to up my minimum crew from 2 to 3 preferably a speed hacker but anyone with decent hack skills, a big pair of balls and some jumping skill will do. I can't have my gunner's change to lighter suits or they would explode more frequently, and heavies will be too easy a target on the ground for this kind of mission so it has to be another player. Still the ideal crew remains at 4 and that will never change.
Only problem I see with this one is time management, people don't want to sit in a dropship, they want to go on missions, and if I have a lot of turrets to babysit, av, suicide dropships, incubi and tanks, to watch out for then it will be harder to also provide the much needed fire support for shocktroopers on missions. In essence I am their life line out and if a turret flips or a tank gets the drop on me they may well become stranded, usually behind enemy lines.

There are still more things I need to think over, a lot of this will be learned from experimenting in the field and seeing how things work. Honestly my life would be a lot easier if the damn missile turret manufacturer made it so the operator couldn't explode a missile in his face but what ever, I've faced worse.

Hmmm looking over this, I wonder how infantry are prepping for this.

When you put up the ******* effort to use of defend them then maybe I wouldn't have to destroy them. But alas infantry players tend to be so inanely brain dead they let them get captured and wonder why I went back to destroy it later.

I'll put it to you this way.

Which is more valuable and tactically sound to me as a pilot.

1.) Allowing you to keep and installation active you will not defend or use, and costs you nothing.
2.) Destroying a Potential threat which could result in me loosing 600K ISK of HAV.

I'm glad they are tougher.... perhaps infantry will put as effort into manning them and defending them as they wondering why their assault rifles won't blow us up.

I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.

You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you.

6 shot of particle cannon with 2 complex dam mode is the right sp investment?

I see it as a positive thing. For once we as infantry can hold an installation and prevent the enemy any ground in a certain area. All it takes is a gunner, a heavy, and a logi. The heavy covers the gunner and the logi reps all three plus the installation. Its win win.