As a relativly new user of the PLC I started my first week using just the basic cannon with a lack of skills. I then dumped a ton of SP into it and just changing the operation skill from level 1 to level 5 , well it seemed like a whole new toy having the faster charge time.

I fully predict that the 30 ish % speed increase will require a new relearning of the weapon and I look forward to that.

My only issue is I can't for the life of me figure out why randomly the projectile just goes through people without hitting or exploding or anything. Literally my only grip with an otherwise amazingly fun weapon.

Btw foe, you using it with one of your commandos I guess right? How does that go for you?

I use a balls to the wall speed fit scout so I can do run bys with it , I don't feel like I could enjoy the weapon on a slow moving suit.

Lower Decloak animation to zero (cloak "nerf")

I cant understand this phrase..

Please tell me about it in detail

1. Well they are Projectiles, and don't call me Shirley
2. Range vs DPS, Small Rails have twice the range
3. Don't you think
4. You have to factor in the charge-up, I made the same mistake
5. We'll see. I was killed once by a Thale's in the MCC event, a single death to a sniper rifle in 30-40 battles.

1. Well they are Projectiles, and don't call me Shirley
2. Range vs DPS, Small Rails have twice the range
3. Don't you think
4. You have to factor in the charge-up, I made the same mistake
5. We'll see. I was killed once by a Thale's in the MCC event, a single death to a sniper rifle in 30-40 battles.

What makes you state that this is done on a whim, I have done my best to explain in detail and facts why we believe these changes are necessary?

Now it's, "it shouldn't be 3%, it should be 5% or even 7%". That 7% proposal never came from the pilots during the multiple Delta threads and discussions. Pretty sure, if the Delta proposal had been 5%, the ADS community would say it should be 7% or 9%. We were waiting for counter proposals and they never came, and I understand why, but that's siege mentality, that we as a community could do without.

Simply, the ADS community as a whole, refused completely to take part in the feedback discussions. No give and take.

I would much rather want veteran players come forward and admit that some things need balancing, and that they try to influence the smartest and best ways to do so instead of defending the status quo, tooth and nail.

Someone said, let's see how Delta goes, we will look at the numbers, you collect your feedback and let us know, a single ROF change can be done during any TQ downtime, any workday.

nope
no, not right now, but 100% on the table
send it to [email protected]

Well glad it's still on the table but it's been there for the last 2 years but the question is, can the problems with it be solved? I've talked with devs and cpm over many generations of the CCP teams and it always seems to be tabled due to the complexity of how the mCRU came to be and how it is totally different from uplinks. mCRU still has bugs like it not appearing for players for extended periods of time, a long standing bug. I believe a support dropship pilot is the least rewarded role in the game as far as WP and the transport reward is far too low for the risk it entails to land for picking up troops.

1. Well they are Projectiles, and don't call me Shirley
2. Range vs DPS, Small Rails have twice the range
3. Don't you think
4. You have to factor in the charge-up, I made the same mistake
5. We'll see. I was killed once by a Thale's in the MCC event, a single death to a sniper rifle in 30-40 battles.

The underlined part is kind of where I lost it, Rattati. I have been preaching multiple times about balancing the ADS vs AV.

Made my own thread too.

I even made a thread before the final numbers stating that the AB cooldown is way too high, right here.

It's a little insulting saying the ADS community hasn't put forward any numbers when I've been risking looking more and more like some crazy crackpot (I am, but too much ATM) trying to make ADS decently useful, but not OP.

I'm reasonably certain that you haven't heard much from the ADS community because nobody has seen hide nor hair of Judge, he may have shown himself during MY downtime once midnight rolled around (I fell asleep around page 8, it was midnight over here).

Rattati, come on. I think we all know that missiles are explosive, not projectile. If you call them projectile, then where's the splash damage and radius on combat rifles??

Missiles are explosive and should be -20/+20 to shield/armor.

Edit: to the poster above, yes Caldari favor kinetic missiles, but there are also thermal, EM, and explosive missiles. In Dust, missiles have always been explosive (though I really want ammo types so I can have EM missiles in addition to my explosive missiles).

5. We'll see. I was killed once by a Thale's in the MCC event, a single death to a sniper rifle in 30-40 battles.

Will post the intent of the rifle changes under the Rifles page

And it still is a problem, exactly as you describe. The mCRU is not an uplink and has none of the programmable attributes uplinks have. It was a shortcut hackjob back then and the only remedy we have is the transport bonus WP. Is that WP system salvageable in your opinion, if we play with those parameters, distance traveled, duration, etc?

I read both of those threads when they were written, and took note of them. I was actually missing facts from those threads to influence any decision. We truly want ADS's to be a vibrant part of the battle, just not at the cost of everyone else's happiness. That's why after Delta it will be harder to pop tanks, and sometimes an ADS will have to flee and wait 26 seconds to come back. That's the long and short of it.

What makes you state that this is done on a whim, I have done my best to explain in detail and facts why we believe these changes are necessary?

Now it's, "it shouldn't be 3%, it should be 5% or even 7%". That 7% proposal never came from the pilots during the multiple Delta threads and discussions. Pretty sure, if the Delta proposal had been 5%, the ADS community would say it should be 7% or 9%. We were waiting for counter proposals and they never came, and I understand why, but that's siege mentality, that we as a community could do without.

Simply, the ADS community as a whole, refused completely to take part in the feedback discussions. No give and take.

I would much rather want veteran players come forward and admit that some things need balancing, and that they try to influence the smartest and best ways to do so instead of defending the status quo, tooth and nail.

Someone said, let's see how Delta goes, we will look at the numbers, you collect your feedback and let us know, a single ROF change can be done during any TQ downtime, any workday.

Personaly, I stopped suggesting things after you show me you were decided to reduce the dropship ISK cost (but I find it logic now that the patch-notes is released).
Anyway, you already have my opinion on vehicles. Beetween the number of vehicles, modules and the skills that are more or less useless (I mainly target turret proficiency in that case), the vehicles in their current state are broken. They will need a complete rework in order to be released in Legion. And even if I only speak for myself, I'm pretty sure that many pilots are ready to work with you to do that.
You can use the stick and force us to do it your way, and that is your right. But remember that the stick alone is not a solution. A proper rewerd (even a long term one) will always be see with a good eye by everyone.

About ROF, I still think that on the short term, you should change the racial dropship operation. As an exemple, give an overheat bonus to the gallente and more missiles on the Python magasine.
Wouldn't this solve the gunner stacking ROF, while giving the impression to pilots who put level 4 or 5 on those skills that they did it for a good reason ?

What makes you state that this is done on a whim, I have done my best to explain in detail and facts why we believe these changes are necessary?

Now it's, "it shouldn't be 3%, it should be 5% or even 7%". That 7% proposal never came from the pilots during the multiple Delta threads and discussions. Pretty sure, if the Delta proposal had been 5%, the ADS community would say it should be 7% or 9%. We were waiting for counter proposals and they never came, and I understand why, but that's siege mentality, that we as a community could do without.

Simply, the ADS community as a whole, refused completely to take part in the feedback discussions. No give and take.

I would much rather want veteran players come forward and admit that some things need balancing, and that they try to influence the smartest and best ways to do so instead of defending the status quo, tooth and nail.

Someone said, let's see how Delta goes, we will look at the numbers, you collect your feedback and let us know, a single ROF change can be done during any TQ downtime, any workday.

The decision was mine and mine alone, a 50% increase in DPS is unprecedented progression of damage in the game, and makes it impossible to balance.

I decided to rip the band aid off and we don't need a full named hotfix to inject one or two remedies afterwards.

And just to iterate, based on all data and experience, the ADS is far too powerful. It is a huge force multiplier and it does everything well, it transports infantry and uplinks. decimates infantry and vehicles, intercepts RDV vehicle delivery, avoids swarms with ease. The only counter is a mass team shift to AV, and forges, and by then the rest of the ADS team has gone full anti-infantry. Even if you, by some off chance, take it down, the pilot ejects, runs behind a hill and calls in another one.

I see that the discussion has swayed from, "it's not OP", to "we all knew and admitted it was OP but this is too much".

We will monitor the situation, and if ADS performance stats plummet below an acceptable threshold, our response will be immediate, not based on a hotfix schedule. For now, let's see what happens. Don't forget that Turret damage profiles have also changed in Delta.

I said that because it came essentially out of the blue after a throwaway comment in one thread.



Right...

Yes it's now, " it shouldn't be that enormous of a drop" because it is out of blue. Most of your changes have been reasonable and part of that is because they're relatively restrained - cutting the bonus by 70% is pretty extreme. What other changes made that jump?

Now, to the point: a ROF reduction is a big drop in DPS. What is the purpose of the ADS? Is it a transport? Is it a gunship? Is it a mash-up? What role is it to perform, especially if it is to keep the ROF bonus but in a largely gimped form - ground attack? Well, the ROF was part and parcel of being an effective slayer. Transport? Well, isn't that the whole point of the Grimsnes/Myron?

Now, people primarily have an issue with the Python, right, because it murders infantry very effectively? Well, what about the Incubus? It's primary role was being a vehicle hunter, using the small railgun (because the small blaster has generally been terrible, and even buffed is difficult to use vs infantry on the Incubus) but with both the ADS and the small rail ROF nerfs, the Incubus is barely more effective after 2+ million SP than the unskilled baseline.

Charlie Particle Cannon DPS
Standard/Max Skills
Base damage: 434.2/477.62
Base DPS: 868.4/1432.86
Shield DPS: 668.668/1103.3022 (77% efficacy)
Armour DPS: 590.512/974.3448 (68% efficacy)

Charlie numbers are too disparate, fine, and with the fix to profile, that's good.

Delta Particle Cannon DPS
Standard ROF 92; Incubus 5 ROF 105.8
Standard/Max Skills
Base DPS: 665.773333/842.203267
Shield DPS: 599.156/747.98294 (90% efficacy)
Armour DPS: 721.350666/926.423594 (110% efficacy)

Standard:
Base: 868.4 drops to 665.8; 21.5% reduction in DPS
Shield: 668.7 drops to 599.1; 10.3% reduction in DPS
Armour: 590.5 increases to 721.3; 22.1% increase in DPS

Incubus
Base: 1432.9 drops to 842.2; 41.2% reduction in DPS
Shield: 1103.3 drops to 748; 22.2% reduction in DPS
Armour: 974.3 drops to 926.4; 4.9% reduction in DPS.

I hope that that is intelligible. The point is that the Incubus needs the ROF to be a dangerous threat to vehicles. At 842.2 DPS with max skills the Incubus is only slightly more of a threat to a vehicle than a LAV mounted small railgun. Thing is, the Incubus with small rail is viable because it can hunt otherwise very tough vehicles and keep them in check; a blaster Incubus is nonexistent pre-Delta, hopefully it will actually be useful in Delta, but then that's also leaning towards what people dislike about the Python.



No offence, but you've essentially just been labeling any pilot feedback as reactionary and wanting to protect the status quo. What can we say except, "No please, I don't want to survive a single MLT Swarm Missile! Please make it so fitting an afterburner costs so much I cannot fit turrets!"? What feedback you've received is that pilots are worried that you'll be making them impotent in their chosen profession; AV is powerful already and mobility is the primary defence of an ADS and Delta is introducing a threefold ADS/AV alteration - this is worrisome because nobody wants to have their favourite thing mad useless and we've already had one period of insignificance (1.6 and the 400m Swarms)

So really, it is reactionary, because we are not nearly as tough as made out to be. That MinScout who you can never get a bead on and keeps coming back to knife you? Yeah, he spent ages honing his skills getting permascanned and now has a balanced arena in which to hunt. That ADS pilot who constantly gets a kill or two while screaming across at top speed? Honed their skills when just showing your face would have had three people in the redline lock-on and launch volleys that would knock you below half HP.

Yes, let's see what happens in Delta, but really can you stop demonizing ADS pilots?

... back then and the only remedy we have is the transport bonus WP. Is that WP system salvageable in your opinion, if we play with those parameters, distance traveled, duration, etc?

And it still is a problem, exactly as you describe. The mCRU is not an uplink and has none of the programmable attributes uplinks have. It was a shortcut hackjob back then and the only remedy we have is the transport bonus WP. Is that WP system salvageable in your opinion, if we play with those parameters, distance traveled, duration, etc?

...This is to say that even though I do not agree with the changes I would have fully supported them if they had been done in an ordered manner instead of the nerf hammer that has failed CCP countless times when it comes to balancing. As it stands it seem the changes will come out and I hope CCP takes a good look at usage scenarios and not simple usage amounts since this change will not affect missile incubus users which are the majority because of how difficult small rails are to use and how badly blaster perform on ADSs. After these changes I hope CCP uses the balancing scalpel instead of the nerf hammer.

the ADS had enough isk/sp barriers to actually warrant such a high bonuses. Apart from that the thing that really broke the game wasn't even the fact that it existed, the fact was that so much isk was currently in the game because of poor Planetary conquest decision (that were fixed waaaay too late) that many players could abuse the use of vehicles in general. Where the regular player could afford to lose one every 2 to 3 matches maybe more depending on the fit these people did not have that need and could simply spam them giving much grief to other players and creating a horrible game experience. Matchmaking was also a big factor (resolved) in which you could have 2 full squads in one team and no squads in the other, one abusing vehicles and the other team proverbially taking it like a pornstar.

POWER RATIOS

If it's power that many people where afraid or pissed off about, the should only need look to the fit of the month players who regularly get 20+ kills on a regular basis, a very conservative number since many passed the 30 and 40 mark, without having to use an ADS. SO power level was in fact balanced since at such a high isk/sp barrier your performance was akin to that of a mercenary on the ground.



On the other hand, when talking about gunners, people could only say it's a bug but the evidence in the code changes demonstrate that skill stacking has always existed and there was even an active choice as to what skills stacked and which didn't. To this I bring the example of ammo capacity and proficiency. ammo capacity stacks and proficiency doesn't. I would like everyone to know that this paragraph isn't merely defending the status quo of maintaining what many forum warrior believed to be an unbalanced mechanic but the simple fact is that there where many barriers and balancing aspects to the whole pilot gunner dynamic that the regular joe simply did not want to fuss over.

For example I was a dedicated pilot and had a dedicated gunner with both of us maxed skills. We would kill tanks very easily because they were not specced or skillfult. when a skilled tank came one would ussually have trouble taking it out since they knew how to move and what to do. The same thing goes for infantry. A good infantryman could simply avoid spotc where the ship could attack and consequently avoid damage altogether. Forge gunners could simply deny everything on the map, since thy could hit you before you could hit or find them. Against ADS and vehicles in general I would use a breach forge and my buddy would use an assault foge and we would destroy vehicles in no time. It was al about the regular player not wanting to waste time and think about what they could do to actually make a difference. Run and gunn is the only mindset most have.



as many people know it takes about 2.4 million skillpoints to max out the racial ads skill. Not to mention the prerequisites of actually getting to this skill. Lets say a total of 3 million per character pilot and gunner to have this power level. Add about 5 extra million minimum for the pilot since they have to have the fitting skills maxed out to be able to actually be effective with his ship you have a total of about 11 million skill points base for a good ads gunner duo. Now, realistically a pilot gunner duo would have to spend 500k minimum on a dropship. Thats 250k per player (same as a proto suit) for similar advantages.



In my experience with the pilot/gunner combo the average kills per match were 30 for the gunner and usually none for the pilot since my focus was positioning and staying in the air. If you divide 30 kill by 2, remember its a two man team and one person cannot be attributed all the glory, the average kills per person in said dropship is 15 which is by far overpowered. Now for the sake of argument lets say they average 50 kills per match, that would still equate to 25 kills per player in the ads which is well withing the boundaries of top players using FoTM or their weapon of choice for the isk/sp ratio.



Versus vehicle both ships had their potential as solo boats and an exponential increase n damage with a gunner. This exponential increase though did not mean isnta wins. Intelligent vehicle users did know how to avoid damage and the less experienced or skill(sp) ones lost as is the case in most situations that involve sp/isk investment.



The ADS changes go too far. In games you mostly saw an ads every 2 or 3 matches and even if you see one every match it's relatively easy for one person to keep it away from the action. I myself can 2 shot a python with my PLC and commando and anyone who has tried hitting an ads with a PLC knows how difficult it is... .

And it still is a problem, exactly as you describe. The mCRU is not an uplink and has none of the programmable attributes uplinks have. It was a shortcut hackjob back then and the only remedy we have is the transport bonus WP. Is that WP system salvageable in your opinion, if we play with those parameters, distance traveled, duration, etc?

[...]
But make sure you take a look at how long the transport assist applies. At times I get transport assists for half a match from a single person. I think it's supposed to be a minute.