Dear Players,

We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them.

So kind of good news and bad news.

All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working.

In short

The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay.

Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs
Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu
Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder

Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs
Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver
Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking

Main Battle Tank - HAV
Marauder - Same (with tweaks)
Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks)

I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting.

Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors.

Dear Players,

We have wanted to bring back variety for the Vehicle Users of DUST 514 for some time now. I will be honest and admit that I thought it would be easier. After considerable groundwork, I see that there is no easy way to do this and we have to refactor the Enforcers and Marauders completely, with new skills and bonuses where I was hoping to quickly review the slots, eHP and fitting capacity and ship them.

So kind of good news and bad news.

All that said and done, I am sharing an incredibly preliminary spreadsheet on how I see this working.

In short

The Enforcers and Marauders are strictly side-grades and meant to create an interesting vehicle vs vehicle paper/rock/scissors gameplay.

Tank Destroyers - Enforcers - DHAVs
Falchion - slow to react, quick to aim, long range platforms with very low ehp - Main Counter to Marauder - insta pops Vayu
Vayu - flanking brawlers that circle to avoid tracking while blasting - Main counter to Falchion, has a fighting chance against Marauder

Ultra Heavy Tanks (Super) - Marauders - UHAVs
Surya - Armor and rep, low mobility, good turret tracking, stand and deliver
Sagaris - Shield and regen, ok mobility, bad turret tracking, aim through maneuvering and flanking

Main Battle Tank - HAV
Marauder - Same (with tweaks)
Gunnlogi - Same (with tweaks)

I am not a tanker, so will rely on the Vehicle Community to bring everything they have to the table. CPM is also crowdsourcing something so should get interesting.

Here is the spreadsheet, you are seeing this early an unpolished, probably with some errors.

Some constructive Critiscm of the Tank fitting philopshy as per your spreadsheet.


For the Falchion:
- Slow Turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Fast Turret tracking
-Slow Forward Speed

This is pretty much the epitome of the Redline RailTank. Without the HP buffer to at least survive an infantry ambush, or the speed to get away through an ambush, these guys will only be safe within the redline, trying to snipe tanks and other infantry then roll backwards. Which double and triple modded tanks already do, yet the slow turret tracking speed helps to counter this somewhat. It ougt to more closley follow in the Vayu below.

Maurader
- Normal Turn Speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Slow turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed

This is a good philosophy for a hard hitting tank, makes it tough to engage head on but gives other faster tanks a fighting chance.

Vayu
- Fast turn Speed
- Low HP
- Same slots
- Slow Turret Tracking
- Fast Forward SpeedSide grade to MBT

This is more what i envision a tank destroyer to be. Very fast, low hp but hit and run

Maruader

- Slow turn speed
- Massive HP
- Same slots
- Normal Turret tracking
- Normal Forward speed

I envision this pretty much aas a beefier maddy.

Um....why? Any specialty HAVs would be built off of existing skills, meaning that if you wanted to spec into them, you would just level up skills that require the ones you already have trained as a prereq.

You do remember though that that kind of Sagaris was PASSIVE Tanked and only had a rep rate of 50-60 Shields per second..... and maybe only 20-30% passive resistances.

So you're saying we should get a respec with the release of every new suit, weapon, and vehicle? lol

Well obviously yes, if skills are removed that people have specced into, then they would obviously have to offer a respec, but that's entirely different from "They added new stuff I want so gimme SP back"

What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea.

I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of

Enforcer Tank < Cruiser Tank < Marauder Tank

E.G

-A Gunlogi will have 4/2 Slot Lay Out and 150/150 PG/CPU after turrets
-A Sagaris will have 5/2 and 175/175 PG/CPU after turrets
-A Falchion would have 4/2 and 100/100 PG?CPU after turrets

Comparatively Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, and Shield Boosters are expensive module to fit. Costing anywhere between 35/35 and 50/50 (or some combination of values to fit).

However Heat Sinks, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, Damage Modules, etc only cost between 1/1 and 10/10 (or some combination of these values).

In comparison an Enforcer Tank has superior hull HP attributes, but less fitting capacity. If a Gunnlogi could fit 2 Heavy Extenders, a Hardener, and a Passive Recharger (for a passive tank) an Enforcer could only fit a hardener and maybe a Light Shield Extender/ or booster...... encouraging them to use the rest of their PG and CPU on Weapons Upgrades.

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.

It's not slow at all. It's essentially what makes Shield HAV OP as hell.

They are able to rep at a prolific pace (3x the old statistics) for not having to fit a module meaning that any HAV pilot worth their salt can manage this overly powerful passive shield regeneration over the course of 20 seconds to have nullified almost all AV damage again them.

The reason tanks back in the day were good and balanced and arguably more skill intensive was because damage applied to a tank then was longer lasting and required the use of modules or multiple modules to repair.

No Tank, not shield, not armour deserves a meaningful regeneration without having to fit modules.

If you look at a Shield HAV vs an Armour HAV currently in any circumstance a Shield HAV will win. Hands down it is superior...so your assertion it is unfair that a Shield HAV has a down side in CQC in brawling........like (shock horror) Caldari tech would is moot.

Armour HAV, armour everything in New Eden has equivalent or more HP/eHP than shield variants. The reason for this is that armour itself does not regenerate, regeneration power being a huge factor of any conflict where TTK is measured in tens of seconds or minutes.

Now for the longest time since 1.7 Shield HAV has dominated in roles they should not be as powerful in annexing the Armour HAV from tactical and competitive use.

Armour Tanks, Gallente Tech, Gallente Tanks are designed to brawl up close and have the edge in CQC fights using powerful active reps to cover for their lack of any passive regeneration.

Shield Tanks, Caldari Tech, Caldari Tanks are designed to kite out at longer ranges and have the edge in ranged combat through superior access to damage modules (LOW SLOT MODULES) and slow natural regen alongside powerful spikes of Shield Boosts.

Now in the scenario you are discussion I am assuming you are talking about a passive tanked Gunnlogi, the kind that stacks Extenders and a Hardener..... THATS WHAT A PASSIVE TANK IS!

You guys do understand what passive and active tanks are the hall mark traits of them are?

Moreover the Blaster is the only HAV turret designed to take down shields. Your assertion that Shield HAV need a crutch or some advantage vs the ONLY large turret designed to take them down is moot.

I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects.

Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide examples.

Tank Destroyers
Russian ISU -122
German Jagdpather

Heavy Infantry Tank
German PzKpfw VI Ausf H
American Sherman M4A2
Brittish Mk IV Churchill
Russian Kv-85

Light Tanks and Cruiser Tanks (Generalist Hulls you might even say)
Brittish Mk VIII Cromwell
American M10 Wolverine
German PzKpfw III
Russian T-34

However I am concerned that in his proposal we risk needlessly creating great disparities between the Hull types where they are not necessarily needed, in terms of movement, and tracking, etc.

I If I were to comment on the proposal I'd suggest basing the various version of concepts like the following (purely my opinion)

Gunlogi
Shield: 3000
Armour: 1200
Slot Lay Out: 4/2 (for now)
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.

Sagaris
Shield: 3120
Armour: 1000
Slot Lay Out: 5/2
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.

Falchion
Shield: 3200
Armour: 1125
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour

Madrugar
Shield: 1125
Armour: 3400
Slot Lay Out: 2/4
Design Philosophy: The Generalist Hull or Cruiser Light Tank is designed to do just what it's name implies. A tank with no specific mobility penalties or powerful guns the Cruiser tank provides fire support when and where it is required being provided with fair armour/shielding, average PG and CPU allotments, and fair mobility capabilities. It's uses are limitless and only trumped by specialist tanks.

Surya
Shields: 1000
Armour: 3560
Slot Lay Out: 2/5
Traits: A Heavy Armoured/Shielded Tank Designed to move alongside Infantry and support them with fire from it's main gun. Designed to engage other vehicles (LAV,MAV, ADS) and provide cover fire. It is slow and has thick protective layering.

Vayu
Shield: 980
Armour: 3625
Slot Lay Out: 4/2
Design Philosophy: The Enforcer is a "protected gun system" designed to be used in concert with weapons support systems to deliver heavy and accurate anti vehicle fire from superior positions. It has a powerful main gun but lacks Power Grid and CPU processing support as all power is rerouted to the main cannon and thus has lighter armour

I have Pumped up my suggestions slot allocation by 1 on its Primary Racial Side at the moment but may reduce it later after eHP calculations are fully complete and consideration for reintroduction of other modules (the old ones).

The point of that is that the power of a tank should lie in its modules. The Marauder tanks having a little less base hp is completely nullified by the extra slot. Again, customization>>>>> base stats

Less Base EHP.... almost like oh I don't know.....they used to. Also considering they have 1 extra module slot than the other variations their eHP is able to be much higher.

Gunnlogi (Old Hull) - Shields 3250 Armour 1250
Sagaris (Old Hull) - Shields 3120 Armour 1000

Checks and balances mate. That 200 HP the marauder looses over another hull is almost immediately made up for 2-3x over by that other module slot.

Also for the enforcers since they would not be able to fit as many eHP modules due to their low PG and CPU allotment would have a fair base hull value to make them competitive.

My thoughts on what exactly?
marauders? Tanks? Slots?

Well, marauders would be slower and less tracking, maybe 15% less damage on the hull for the turrets...I can make my fitting 2 extenders 1 booster 1 hardener for that tank...maybe marauders get no small turrets?

Dunno really, tanking is kinda meh right now, it's too much ofna pain to use the large blaster...I swear killing competent players is very annoying because of the accuracy.
Even when bursting.
Unless of course the mlt blaster is less accurate.

That is correct. However the difference is that a Gunnlogi fit with a Basic extender will have less HP than one fit with a Complex Extender. Currently it doesn't matter because you can rely on the Base HP. Under this concept, what you fit to the vehicle has more weight. In other words it establishes a deeper Risk/Reward architecture in terms of fitting.

LAVs are a good example of this. LAVs currently have extremely high base HP and a low number of slots. This allows people who choose not to fit their LAV with anything, to enjoy a rather sizable pool of HP with very little (if any) investment. The base HP of the LAV should be decreased with additional slots added so players actually have to fit HP modules in order to obtain high levels of HP. Additionally if a player does not care about having a lot of HP, they can use the additional slots to fit a more unique and specialized fit. Added flexibility always a plus in my book.

So while the HAV does not suffer as much as the LAV in terms of excessive base HP and lack of slots, it follows a similar line of design which I would like to see changed.

Less power going to the turret?

Just saying if there has to a penalty, I mean people might say why use the std hav's?

The whole point of changing the slot layout and base hp is so you ARENT forced to tank....... If you want to build a tank around utility, you can with these ideas. If you want hp, you can put on hp mods, but you don't have to. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your arguing about.....

I think you're missing what I'm going for here. I'll use your analogy if it makes it less confusing.

So currently the Gallente Sentinel has a 2/3 slot layout. A Complex armor plate is what, 135? So lets say I reduce the Gallente's Base Armor by 135, and give it a 4th low slot.

So what you can do now is stick an armor plate back into that 4th slot, raising its HP by 135 (yes I know there are skill bonuses and whatnot that wont line up perfectly but bear with me) back up to what it was before the change.

OR

If you dont care about that extra HP, you could put something else in there, like a Kinkat or another Armor Repairer.

I think we all agree that the current slot layout for HAVs is overly limited and lacks much room for creativity. So by adding a slot and reducing the base HP by similar value, you give people more fitting flexibility, but you also allow people who preferred the old way to simply fill that additional slot with an HP mod to counteract the decrease in base HP. I'd probably balance it against an Enhanced HP module, so fitting Enhanced would give you similar HP values, Complex would be a net increase.

Does that make sense? As I've said before Work + Holidays leaves me a little fried.

Inversely would you support removing all slots and just buffing base HP like crazy? Because if HP is all that matters then why bother letting us fit things at all?

This.

Also, after reading through the whole thread, I like Pokey and True's ideas. Particularly about removing HP and adding the extra mod so that more variety can exist.

I also think it would be interesting if HAVs could have some sort of transport capacity. Essentially making LAVs a more risky option in terms of solo/small group transport, particularly keeping in mind that BPO LAVs sound like they are on their way, with Dropships being somewhat safer/faster/greater capacity, and HAVs being a slower and safer option.

I apologize if that last bit was a little out of the scope of discussion.

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

It's doable in a sentinel.

A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks.

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

Just to reiterate, I am following this thread and actively consolidating your feedback into a single proposal. Thank you.

I'm only calling the imbalances as I see them and they are very obviously there. Whether Shield HAV need to be toned down, prevented from armour tanking, or Armour HAV need to be buffed/adjusted is up to CCP Rattati.

Of all the people in this thread only Pokey, Thaddeus, and Breaking actually have made proposals. I've had some sort of input into those in some way or another helping them bounce ideas around and they all make fair proposals each rather unique full credit to them as they have put so much time in number crunching and well reasoned suggestions for consideration.

I'm supportive of their efforts but I won't lie that when I see such great disparities between specific aspects of tank balance I will call them out and comment on them.