I think the generalist tanks should have more slots, while the specialized tanks get fewer.

The generalists will build their tank exactly how they like it, while the specialists will have the tank pre-built, with just a limited amount of modification allowed.


So Madrugar and Gunnlogi? 7 total high/low slots.
Enforcers and Marauders? 5 total slots.

While the discussion is great, I think we way be getting a little carried away with deeper level ideas. Perhaps we should refocus on a couple core issues that need to be hammered out first.

1. Consideration of increasing slot layout to 4/2 and 2/4 with a decrease base HP for balancing purposes
2. Address discrepancy between regen and eHP for shields vs armor (Possibly focus on reintroduction of 180mm Armor Plates to push Armor HP higher while shields maintain higher regen)
3. Address discrepancy between fitting capability of Gunnlogi vs Madrugar

1. Yeah, I'm not satisfied with the flexibility of fitting on HAVs in general. Instead of going crazy with trying to keep base HP the same and tweak modules to make it all work, I think it may be simpler to just reduce the base HP and increase the number of slots. Similar levels of eHP would still be obtainable as they are now, but using similar existing module values (Some tweaking between shield and armor may be needed, but Im speaking in general terms). Not to mention I want to shift away from high Hull HP and focus more on the modules. LAVs would do well under this philosophy as well.

2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though their regen rate would need to be adjusted. The current 168 is extremely good even with a 4 second delay. I also would not be opposed to the idea of keeping current regen and delay but offering up Shield Regs to reduce the delay. We're lacking in low slot modules for vehicles anyways (funny considering Dropsuits have the opposite problem)

3. I mean here's my deal, if you don't want to nerf shield resources thats fine, but they have enough to fit full proto shield mods AND armor plates, the Madrugar needs to be able to do the same and add shield extenders. Obviously I prefer a more pure tanking philosophy when it comes to vehicles though, so I'd rather find ways to prevent/discourage the use of armor modules on the Gunnlogi, and allow the Madrugar to fit full Complex modules in its lows and still have room for utility modules in the highs.

2. I say "cap stable" in quotes as to mean, armor reps that run constantly and don't need to be cycled like a normal active rep. Call it a passive fit if you prefer.
2a. Not in Dust? Unless I've gone totally insane, I'm fairly certain there is currently no way to increase the natural rep rate of shields in Dust (Boosters obviously increase effective rep rate, but you get what I mean.) In EVE, sure, extenders increase regen rate, effectively.

3. You can actually fit a Standard Large Turret, 2 Complex Hardeners and 1 Complex Shield Extender without the need for any PG/CPU upgrade modules, and have enough change leftover to put on utility, plates, ect. (Though the plate *might* require a PG upgrade in the second low slot...I forget offhand). Madrugar can fit 1 Standard Large Turret, 1 Complex Repper, 1 Complex Plate, and 1 Complex Hardener and at that point its pretty much capped out on CPU. It cant fit anything in the highs or any small turrets. At the very least the Madrugar needs more resources to work with.

EDIT:
Ok so I checked it out, assuming Protofits is correct...for a tanky, OK DPS Gunnlogi you can fit

1 Complex Heavy Shield Extender
2 Complex Shield Hardeners

1 Enhanced 120mm Armor Plate
1 Complex Ammo Cache

1 Standard Large Railgun

For a Madrugar

1 Complex 120mm Armor Plate
1 Complex Heavy Armor Repairer
1 Complex Armor Hardener

*Nothing in the High Slots*

1 Standard Large Blaster


So even without PG/CPU modules, the Gunnlogi is capable of fitting an additional Enhanced HP module over the Madrugar. The Ammo Cache is kinda mute point because its 0CPU/0PG, but again nothing like that exists in the high slots so the Madrugar kinda gets boned on that too. Thing is the PG on the Madrugar fit is still going strong, its the CPU thats severely limiting. I'd really love if I could fit my Madrugar with the above fit with enough CPU to handle a Fuel Injector and a Scanner, or hell even a damage mod.

2a. *facepalm* whatever. Currently they don't in Dust.

3. Lol I wasn't trying to illustrate a "full proto" fit, I was trying to illustrate that with equal weapons, the Gunnlogi has better fitting capabilities than the Madrugar, even without the use of PG/CPU Upgrades. The general lack of resources is an entirely different issue. It would be best to balance fitting of the two tanks against each other before we start increasing them both, yes? Bringing back the +% to PG/CPU skills won't change the disparity between the two, so I'd like to tackle that first if you don't mind.

That's kind of the idea. It makes the tank as good as what tier you fit on it, rather than innately good because it has high base HP with fewer slots.

5/3 is probably too much.

As I've said before,

Standard HAV 4/2

Enforcer HAV 4/2 or 4/3

Marauder HAV 5/2


Also, on #3, what pokey said. Sure, you would have to use a hp mod to get back to that hp, but you could also use a slot for something else, making tanks more variable and customizable while also rewarding players who have actually specced into the mods over players who just rely on the good base stats of the hull to do well.

The only idea that is good in this thread is returning tanks back to pre 1.7 and to chromosome levels.

Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can).

I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback.

1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out

I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.

2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken

Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.

3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV

To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.

4. Vehicles have no variety

Agreed. I made this point as well.

5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now

I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.

6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising

The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.

It's more like that you don't respect anyone who doesn't agree with you completely.

But it's fine, Rattati is a smart enough guy to not listen to people who act irrational and crazy. So your overly biased opinions will be quickly disregarded by the people who actually matter. So by all means, carry on, I'll bring popcorn.

None?

This line of accusative BS does not help Rattati figure out how to bring back mads and enforcers. He's making them sidegrades not direct upgrades. We can **** and moan about it or we can provide useful feedback that helps him make them as awesome as possible within the constraints.

Complaining that it's not perfectly in line with your personal vision is useless.

Been a madrugar pilot since early beta. Love how you nerds assume that because I'm primary AV I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Wow and i thought the ADS threads went south, more than half of this seems to be crying about whether breaking stuff is a tanker or not.

Who cares? I in fact respect his opinion NOT because he agreed with pilots that the nerf was harsh, but spent good time testing it out ingame to verify the findings. Like it or not we need a dedicated rational AV player (scrub) to help balance out what we want from the tanks, and what the infantry will have to deal with.

Can we get back on subject?

If not,its seems like the Rational voices are being drowned out. Would love to continues this elsewhere. True, Pokey, Breakingstuff, other players who can have a discussion about vehicles coming back can catch me in game or on skype. Tesfa514.

This thread has a lot of examples from "established tankers" not actually understand what a tank is.....but its fine either way. I just hope Rattati actually listens to the one fairly competent individual in this thread and acts on his suggests.

((Three guesses who its it.... cuz its not me, its not spkr, and its not dukey))

Why dont you get off your ass and provide numbers and feedback that is useful rather than trying to shout everyone down? - I have done, but the numbers already existed in Chrome/Uprising builds

Between you and spkr the contribution hs been the rough equivalent of plugging your ears and loudly yelling NONONONONO to try and drown people out. - Like your doing

Secondly this attitude that only HAV drivers have any right to comment on HAV balance needs to die. - No

Everyon from the oldest, bitterest vet to the rankest of new newbies has every right to weigh in on any aspect of the game. This elitist "you're not X therefore you want to ruin Y thus your opinion is invalid" BS is so childish that anyone spouting it should have their game privileges removed. - Nope, infantry shouldnt have a say in vehicle matters because 99% of infantry hate vehicles and want COD

Last time this "only tankers get to comment on balance" BS was widespread the rest of us had to cope with the fact that the marauder master race hada gentlemen's agreement not to fire upon one another so they wouldn't lose 2.5 million ISK. - Very few pilots did that but it was fun and frankly was the only way pilots could take a stand against the OP AV buffs at the time

So we got to see enemy marauders ten meters across from each other farming infantry while ignoring other tank drivers. - Good times

That was why I specced heavy, maxed a forge gun and made it my mission in DUST to make every tank burn. - Seems you want it easier aswell with some of your comments

That is what you get when only pilots get to comment on vehicles. What happens when only AV players get to weigh in on AV and tank drivers get cut out? - We end up with OP AV and consistant buffs over the last 2years of this game being out

You get tanks dead 514 easy mode. - You wanted it and asked for it and CCP delivered, now we trying to make tanks have some teeth and you are against it

Understand laser fo cused you and people of your mindset are firmly in the minority. The rest of us refuse to return to the days where HAVs were more or less unstoppable and the lot of you get to pad you K/D without fear of loss. - Pilots are in the minority, Chrome and Uprising tanks were not unstoppable that was easy AV like swarms and AV nades, HAV vs HAV was fun and balanced, now thats its been dumbed down the pilots of old has gone

You don't get your godmachines back. Period. - While you ask for paper thin HAVs which you dont use and god mode AV, gotcha

You can help make HAVs fun and functional, or your opinions can be discarded. But thus far the primary contribution of "established HAV pilots" has been to insult the people trying to help, provided a "my way or the highway" attitude, made personal attacks and accusations against the other players and crapped all over rattati, up to and including calling him an idiot with no right to touch vehicles. - Being against bad ideas and paper thin tanks is now insults, nice last part your making it up now but at least he admitted he doesnt have a clue, you should take a leaf out of his book

I don't think you nerds get it. He's the lead on DUST. If he decides HAVs are too problematic he CAN in fact remove them entirely. - That would please you and rest of the playerbase, you have already asked for it anyways many times, maybe they should remove them because infantry have never been happy with them even when they get constant nerfs

Not exactly what I call an ideal solution.

Stuff
[/i]

Gunnlogi base tank for a "proper" fit starts at 5 IAFG shots. I tested this with an HAV pilot when I was looking to see if Heavy Damage mods changed TTK (they don't).

I've had gunnlogis refuse to pop after dumping two magazines into them.

Now this might be because I don't think the hardener animations are loading, so it's impossible to tell. I only ever see the Attempt to use a shield booster, which I put a stop to as fast as possible.

But can confirm 5+ shot minimum to kill most gunnlogis. 3-4 to kill most hardener active sicas. If it's because of hardener animations not working, then it's like the swarm issue, the invisible stuff needs to be fixed.

But when the baseline buffer tank of the Gunnlogi exceeds there's a problem.

And as far as I am concerned counting on always hitting the weakspot is a sucker bet.

But I would not be remotely shocked to find out that people are getting a false positive because the hardener animations are screwy. if that's the case, then it means there's no way to differentiate between a gunnlogi hardened and a gunnlogi vulnerable.

If this is the case then I'll say get the animation to work and bam. fixed entirely, and then we can do the push-pull with AV/V as we go. But the madrugar needs love for sure.

and no, I don't want the 3k swarms back either. Anything doing more damage than a Proto rail cannon or Wiyrkomi Breach needs to have a few sharp drawbacks.

Personally I'd rather see swarms high alpha, have to hold lock from launch to impact, swarms make a direct path to the vehicle, not following the vehicle's path. But that's a discussion for another thread.


Edit: and the frames for dropsuits are nothing more than an illusion of contant/SP paywall. The better example of sidegrade would be logi vs. assault or commando vs. Sentinel, or if we ever get one, scout vs. pilot.

You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?

It's doable in a sentinel.

its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2.

give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles.

small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them

EDIT:

tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops

Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.

1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle).

2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created).

Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems.

Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all.

are trying to snipe them? small blaster shooting out to 100m is like asking for an ion pistol to have the same range as the plasma rifle.

that siad. i kill heavies out to somewhere between 50m and 70m. which feels good enough for defense. on a LAV its more useful as you can move around more to keep safe distance but apply damage.

most of my small blaster kills were done while on a LAV.

on a tank, the issue is that no one wants to get close enough to use small blasters because tank handling is poor. so if you get into some thick stuff you might not make it out. so everyone tries to keep distance and use the large blaster since it has more range. this range is outside of small blasters, so theyre useless as a supplement to the large blaster.

this could be fixed, by allowing tanks increased range on small turrets, but idk if its really needed

Yeah, loads /sarcasm

TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments)....


I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).

It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post.

So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot.

difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context.

Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design.

The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant.

M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios.

The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point.

The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges.

My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3...

1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate)

3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front?

.

Simply have a greater contrast between an offensive and defensive equipped tank.


You mount a proto turret, you can't fit anything better than basic mods and vice versa. The mid range equipped tank, or rather advanced turret tank would be closer to the basic turret tank which would be defensive with complex or enhanced mods.

Also, the turrets would reflect different abilities. A basic blaster turret would be like now. A proto would be like they used to be. However, the proto blaster tank would be a paper tiger.

Also, tank vs. tank combat would be balanced because a weak defensive, strong offensive tank would be inversely proportioned in power to a strong defensive, weak offensive tank.

The difference would be in the minute differences in tank power created by module power skills and the possibility at level 4 fitting skills to fit some enhanced modules on a proto turret tank.

And the most important thing GÇô DON'T MAKE THE MILITIA GRADE TANKS AND MODS AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR ONES!

Keep the "sidegrade, not an upgrade" mentality when coming up with prices. No need to make them super overpriced.

Updated my numbers with what I think would be pretty good (drawing heavily from EVE and the Dropsuits)...I don't think these will require too much of an AV Re-balance (other than filling the missing AV Roles).

1) Really?

2) These Racial vehicle values are based on the relative values of the current dropsuits, and don't necessarily need to be fully introduced to achieve balance, but we do need more racial weapons (and damage types to achieve proper balance).

3) Shield regeneration based on a recharge time 3.5 times smaller than the frigates in eve, and every effort made to maintain the charge time when increasing buffer. In addition, rechargers under this proposal are very powerful, and consider fitting a booster every once in a while (It's designed to prevent shield tanks from being massively powerful compared to their armor counterparts).

4) They don't necessarily need to be, provided that shield Hardeners have a low enough active duration and long enough cooldown, but I agree it would be easier to balance if they where identical (feel free to try stuff out, using the armor hardener stats for it...shield's being pulse-like isn't something I'm attached to).

5) Page 3 of the proposal talks about resistance by facing, Are you agreeing with me that it should be introduced? (Hard to tell).
5a) Side Armor stronger on the Brawler Marauders could be changed, but it is to demonstrate their "Orbiting Style" of combat that Rattati suggested, what would good values be for this?
5a-b) Noted, but it isn't that big of a deal to remove them.

6) Yes, in eve shields increase signature radius not some DRD level, but Signature radius helps all weapons hit you better (not to mention decreases enemy lock-time) which is a hard feature to implement in DUST, so DRD helps with the damage application side of things.

6a-b) yes both are nerfed by approx 10% to account for the average resistance gained under the Base Resistance by fitting section, might not be entirely necessary, but I thought it was a good idea to account for gaining 10% more EHP base on the sides, and 20% more base on the front.

6c) No it wouldn't, these are just active armor repairers...(these assume we're keeping our current passive ones as well)

6d) I was keeping with the current feel of shields being pulse-like, and the difference in stats is in the Cooldown, can look at active duration if you'd like

6e) (I saw you down at the bottom) They have the same tiering as shield hardeners, reduced cooldown. This sticks with CCP's current design philosophy...but if you think they need changed, what are good values for them? (I'll plug them in and see how they change things)

7) Rail Turrets have the same DPS as before (Just fire slower), Blasters could be toned down, but all the other weapons are based on the relative DPS of infantry portable weapons (using the Railgun as the Rail Rifle). TTK with railgun might be modified very slightly

8) If CCP happens to have the exact numbers cached somewhere agreed, this is only in case they didn't save the old numbers (or if they felt that reverting to them would be too much of an overhaul) and to demonstrate where racial variants might be.

Thanks for the neatly ordered feadback Lazer

Nowadays I only need to know three things.

1: what your hull is

2: what your gun is.

3:whether you're an HMG sentinel poptart.

That's it.

That's not how it should be.

Lazer
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about in number 3 and 6...but that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. You don't have to explain Eve's mechanics to me, I know them well. Anyway, so if vehicle v vehicle TTK is too low, why not try adjusting the turret DPS instead of increasing base hp too much (I'm adjusting my hp numbers back up and just going to make a note on the resistance page).

What do you think would be a good DPS for the Rail Turret? (If I change its DPS the other guns should update accordingly)

(Guns in my proposal as it is now can only theoretically OHKO a base hull with no HP Mods)

I still don't think you understood what I meant there (For instance, having Shield Extenders increase signature profile in DUST won't help every weapon's damage application against that target although it should help with target acquisition, hence we have DRD)...nor did you answer my question...what do you think a good DPS Number (or how much lower from current) do you think Large Railguns need to be? I've updated my numbers slightly based on what you and Breakin have said...but I'll need to work on other skill bonuses later on today. (I've decreased Rail DPS by 20%, so look at the turrets and see what you think)

Random scribbles, just doing this **** in passes.

Assume 3 Main slots (Will be increased later, values adjusted accordingly)
Assume Passive Armor Reps (Will be changed later, values adjusted accordingly)
Assume Shield and Armor Hardeners are both 30% reduction
Assume 180mm Plate is 50% more HP than 120mm Plate

General Goals for this pass:

-Maintain Gunnlogi eHP
-Require Gunnlogi to fit Shield Recharger to reach same levels of shield regen
-Maintain Madrugar Armor Repair rate
-Match Base HP of Gunnlogi and Madrugar
-Significantly increase Madrugar eHP so that it has ~20% more eHP than Gunnlogi, and Gunnlogi has ~20% regen rate.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2n_K-I5tvkghAG6Hvjygy51YZuOCP50PAdKT_LoS-k/edit?usp=sharing

Result is that Gunnlogi for the most part performs as it currently is, Madrugar has similar regen to before, but a lot more HP.

Feel free to spaz out as per usual.

Good lord you guys weren't kidding about the compressed blaster in chrome.

In exchange for a gain/loss of 2-7 damage per MINUTE they are tacked with a 70% heat increase.

My brain just broke.

Back on topic, and on a more serious note: the following were marauder bonuses.

Sagaris 4% to Heavy Missile turret damage per level
Surya 4% to heavy blaster turret damage per level.

Given that bringing enforcers back is part of the initiative, do we want to make the mads more defensively aspected?

I'd like to give the madrugar and Gunnlogi a bonus, and keep them somewhere between enforcers and marauders in tankability and damage output. Main Battle Tanks rather than specialist.

I also want to make Enforcers cheap, destructive and relatively fragile.

does anyone have any reasonable suggestions for bonusing while I try to sort through all of this crap I'm looking at?

Read the entire spreadsheet before posting.

So you're complaining that he isn't going fast enough? wtf?

So. I have consolidated the data I found for chrome as promised.

I suck at spreadsheets, everything I know (which you couldn't fill a thimble with) I learned over the last two hours by myself.

Copy/paste is my friend.

I didn't include the AV nade values because whoever copied the values down didn't bother posting the direct damage, and had dandelion fluff like 6m blast radius crap written in, so I'll leave that to Rattati to figure out.

So, in short, to everyone who has ever driven, or shot at a tank,

No One Loves You

It's the spreadsheet.

Click it.

2. Noticed missing alot of other modules like nanofibres and overdrives etc, take it you couldnt find them

Nope

3. We should just bring this back and tweek it which i am going to do

what are you intending to tweak?

leave the splash alone, I don't think Rattati's going to give you back the infantry bashing potency without some serious begging.

Let's not poke the hornet's nest immediately, there are better times for that, and all of the splash values in chrome are much higher than what we have now. all of them. on every weapon. I doubt getting those back is negotiable

I would like to add a fairly reasonable suggestion: Mjolnir Swarms. Same Swarm Stats but with the Laser (+20/-20) Damage Type:

Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
KIM7 Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
KIM-112 Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
CCM-129 Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Khanid Innovations Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Khanid Innovations Specialist Mjolnir Swarm Launcher
Carthum Assault Mjolnir Swarm Launcher

Also, I'm lovin' the Scrambler Lance

Boosters that get shut down are only remotely balanced in an environment with the current regen numbers on shields.

You need to provide a better justification than that before I consider altering the proposal. There is nothing preventing a madrugar or (god forbid) surya from operatimg as a team platform given the Surya HP in chrome minus a plate was equal to a sagaris fully tanked.

This is precisely the type of argument I will dismiss because it is based on presumption and personal bias. No argument based purely on "x is unfair because shields/armor" will be seriously entertained when the proposal includes two shield destroying weapons which will benefit greatly from the armor EHP loss inflicted upon a gunnlogi or sagaris.

Furthermore, until MAVs exist this argument falls flat given the lack of armored ground transport for infantry.

If MAVs existed the argument would hold weight.

Your marauder resistances are set both too high and should apply only to armor or shields, not both.

the HP bonus to the Sagaris compounded would almost double it's EHP from chrome levels

The Gallente would be able to run a rep nonstop that can absorb incoming fire from anything less than 2 AV gunners while enjoying 50% higher EHP.

This would be hit with the nerf hammer a week after launch.

What if you had 3 flavors?

Resistance Amps - 15% Passive, Always On, Zero Downtime
Active Hardener - 25% Active, Moderate Duration, Long Downtime
Flux Active Harder - 40%, Active, Short Duration, Long Downtime

ahhh you fixed it

Ok. first up, the sagaris was bloody powerful. adding 25% resistance plus 25% HP would only bring it's EHP upward towards the Surya, and the surya EHP was excessive in a bad way.

second, the buff to the surya takes it's average EHP (someone was kind enough to link the fit) from over 16k to over 20k.

Given the SUrya was almost untouchable that's an unacceptable result. There is no other instance in this game where an upgrade from a weapon, suit or module provides double or triple the base EHP benefit of the unit before.

Your scaling is off. The only way for the bonus you suggest to work is to strip SIGNIFICANT fitting power from marauders.

your scaling is only fine if you want it to require a squad to kill it.

The Surya's EHP was the sticking point in chrome that pissed people off. The sagaris was manageable, but the Surya's tank was both inordinate and excessive. Buffing the sagaris will not win any points, and bluntly given Rattati's concerns about HAV destructibility, I don't see it being seriously entertained.

I'd love to add Swarm Pods as a Small Turret...and Guided Missiles as a Large Turret (Guided missiles being controlled by where you are pointed, while swarm pods are lock-on)

but swarm pods seem like they'd be a bit awesome

1. Rattati would like a 35000+ Laser strike to get rid of a marauder

Right, you want it to be kittens and rainbows.

2. You buff what is weak to make it strong and viable compared to something that is already strong and the current only option

Sagaris was ANYTHING but weak

3. All vehicles annoyed in Chrome because no infantry wanted to skill into AV

Surya EHP was excessive.

4. Surya tank was around 6k with 3/2 resistance mods at 25% and a heavy repper - It was a tank, it was good, it required alot of SP to skill into and perfect and alot of ISK to bring one out

Try again cupcake, you know, and I know that statement right there is horsesh*t. Plates in chrome added over 3500 HP as a baseline, and the Surya could fit more than one plus hardeners/reps.

5. Im making vehicles for PC by the way, where teamwork is required and competant teams fight each other and where vehicles can make an impact like they used to - Im not balancing for pubs

meh screw it, I'm not talking to you any more lazer. I'll do my thing, you do yours.

Your ability to justify anything so long as vehicles are untouchable by infantry is nothing short of amazing.

[quote=Lazer Fo Cused]

6. Remote reps are area of effect to remove the dodgy targeting system
6a. Remote reps can rep as many vehicles as is in the AOE, the rep rate its self will be divided by as many vehicles which are in the AOE area
6b. Light reps can work on infantry, 50% reduced rate amount
6c. No repair turrets - It does not take 2 to use an infantry repair tool
6d. Yet to add AOE distance


6: They were fine on LAV's (specifically the LLV, they were awesome), only HAV's and DS's (DS's in general don't make sense for repping) were kind of wonky, might had to do with the size of them. And even on HAV's, it wasn't that bad, spider tanking was still doable after all (although it took a lot of skill to do).

6a: And this is why AOE remote reps wouldn't work. If several vehicles are in one area, you're only trying to rep a single one, this would be very problematic.

6b: This would infringe on the LLV's special infantry reps. Either give them something else, or no. I would say that changing to being AOE would work nicely, as it was a pos.

6c: Agreed.

6d: Read 6 and 6a

Awesome, basically it's my proposal, only with vehicles buffed from the original numbers, and using current AV, of which only swarms would not be useless.

You buffed the sagaris and surya. The two most powerful units ever, and you buffed them.

Bravo.

Cue Spkr4thedead defending his proposal given through his alt Lazer now while altposting how I'm a horrible infantryman.

To address point 1. Why not X...labelled as Bay doors or something on flying vehicles?

I love the EWAR concept actually having some EWAR now XD...

The Target breaker as you have it could be very powerful...I'd suggest instead a penalty to lock on times instead of just a flat out "No Locking"...I'm fine with it throwing off AV 'nades

Shield Regen numbers look solid.

I'd go with Either or on the Marauder Bonuses...you're increasing it's EHP by a frakton there (or tone down both bonuses, Marauders need to be Tanky as hell, but not unassailable)

6: For HAV's, heavy remotes could have been a tad been longer, but not much. You're not supposed to be able to have a wide range of movement, otherwise that would just make it way too easy for people to tank more damage than usual. Smalls can stay, as it worked as we said for LLV's, and DS's don't need the buff for them, because as said, a repping DS in general would regardless be **** unless it had a long ass lock range, in which it would just be OP.

6a: HAV's aren't repping vehicles, heavy remotes were for spider tanking, and pretty much nothing else (as there was nothing else to be able to use them). As for turning thing, that is called a bug (ranges are in radii). That much is clear. As for having both, I would say that it should get a nerf compared to it to be able to rep many vehicles at once.

6b: That doesn't solve the fact that it still infringes on the "Special" infantry Rep. Again, give the LLV something else, or no.

6d: Read 6 and 6a.

Laser I love my Tiger.... I really do.....

But it wasn't "THAT" powerful.....

See above.

The 75mm M3 was considered enough to combat the Tiger I's....however this was proven false. Tigers had superior armour and fire power from the 88mm they were armed with and could bust the Sherman's with relative ease.

Wasn't until 1944 the American's updated their Sherman's with 76mm guns which gave them the edge.

History also suggests if the Russians had superior armour designs for their tanks which often rendered German's anti tank efforts worthless.

More formidable yes. I won't dispute that. But they were by no means the be all end all of armoured warfare for the time.
The Tiger's armour designs are not derived from the sloped armour of the Russian T-34 as the Tiger has sheer armour angles.

Which I think was very odd.

6: It didn't come directly out the turret, although it did come out of the front, and went the other way. It should had went 180, but there was a bug that wouldn't let you. Again, it was a bug. Also, the difference between both is that the HAV's can still be REALLY fast. picture if two sentinels could rep each other, but with a specific setup, could easily move with almost as fast as assaults, but could move with as much freedom as before, and still use your HMG's.

6a: You can. But you would have to deal with not being able to do it as good as other vehicles that are (aka LLV). It's not made as a repping vehicle, so it shouldn't be good at it. That's like asking for a Assault to be as good as a scout at scanning and hiding from scans.


6b: Don't have them. Don't ask me for any chromo stats, all of mine were lost. Anyways, what are you saying at that last part? It made no sense to me.

6d: And they need to stay small. You shouldn't to be able to move freely while repping, as reps are quite strong.

Heavy reps on a LLV would be pushing it, it was already doing good without heavy ones.

Is this backed up by CCP in any way or is every twatt just throwing their silly ideas in here to get attention? There are 2 worlds that people seem to live in:

1. That what CCP is actually capable of in doing
2. What people would want in the game but is delusional

And i highly question it that Ratatti is going to fill the missing racial parity on the vehicles. Until Ratatti doesnt changes something in his OP nothing of this daydreaming has any revelance. Or some 1 gives me a link where he says something about it.

Chrome was as long, maybe even shorter than now. People hated it then, and hated it now. When rails and rockets were reduced to blaster TTK's, it was actually fun fighting vehicles.

Running to the redline is a death sentence in a HAV fight.

Also, again, 20-30% adds a couple seconds onto the TTK. That does what exactly?

That's nice godin. I'm not balancing for pre chrome. I didn't play then.

What I have heard about it from everyone except a few HAV drivers doesn't make me want to try, either.

If you want minute long tank engagements do your own balance sheet.

Besides I prefer frigate fights, the talos, oracle, naga and tornado.

I like a fight in which a resolution is reached, not dragged out like a torture session.

Vehicle battles should feel like a game of chess. Moving around, trying to get optimal positioning, baiting your opponent to move where you want them to. But when you go head on, victory should be decisive and quick. The key thing to note however is you don't want to make TTK so short that the tactics of movement and position are obsolete (ie Railguns that kill in 2 hits don't need to have positioning, they just need to shoot first).

You also don't want TTK to be so long that you're just sitting shooting at each other for 30 seconds waiting for each others' harderners to give out. Large turrets need to be powerful so you don't just sit there and take it, and instead keep moving and tracking...but also not too strong so that movement doesn't matter because you're already dead.

speaking of rail turrets have you punched in the old school ranges or no?

I would not like to a see a return to +600m rail tanks sniping at all.

The only things that can hit rails thier rown range is forge guns or other rails anyway. You want to rail tank fine, but you got to leave the redline to do so and put yourself at risk. Screw 600 m rails, there is no place for them.

The redline being moved back is a massive IF, considering how the redline has been moved closer in 1.9, bigger maps are a pipe dream. It should be balanced from where tthe maps currently stand.

Large maps design or no, the only counter to rails should not be other rails, and no tank, dropship, or infantry should have to cross more 300m under fire to just get within thier own maximum engagement distance. Standing on a hill and only having to roll back protected by either several hundred meters of range or the redline takes no skill either.

1. If the maps did get bigger would you be happy with a increase for rails range?

No.

2. 300m is broken by SL missiles which can track to 400m out, are you saying they shouldnt go past the 300m mark since every other turret and weapon cannot do the same

SL hit at 400 m and beyond, (which is broken but in not in any relation to rail tanks), but only lock on andfire on targets from 175m. That limitation doesnt apply to rail turrets, + 600m range means a player track and shoot at +600m range.

3. I think missiles should hit to 300m out really to contend with the railgun, also artillery the minmatar turret could be another turret to challenge the rail if it ever happens

I'm not sure if you mean Large missles or Swarms. Extending missile range to compensate for large rail range does not make sense if we don't have the maps to support it.

4. The hills are in the spawns, wouldnt have that problem if the redline was pushed back and even so we have smaller maps now in which 300m rails are still in the redline anyways so the problem hasnt been solved

without bigger maps there's no reason to increase ranges any more.

Nor do I see any particular reason to reduce ranges at all.

I'd prefer bigger maps, no redline and dynamic spawn points, but wishing isn't going to get us anything.

Hi everyone,

can someone link/create "undebatable" prototype fits for both HAVs and Dropships. I need this for the next steps.

I am not asking you to play your hand so we can nerf the OP. I am trying to find the best fit, so we can figure out at least 1 or two alternative equal fits to those.

When playing around in protofits, I immediately get annoyed by the need for pg/cpu mods.

Using infantry fitting logic, it goes ADV hull + proto weapon and fill in relative mods with adv to std. This is not so easy with HAV's and reduces options.

Another thing, not new, is that the problems usually come with stacking modules. How adverse are pilots to more "good mod" but only one per fitting?

The idea is then to bring out dropships and or enforcers (well in my dreams) that are high speed, low hp blaster tanks (against shields) that have the maneuverability to engage and circle the gunnlogi, or high speed, rapid redeployment missile enforcers that get behind or on the side and alpha strike.