yep, except that reason didnt include anti infantry.

ask for medium turrets instead of OP large blaster turrets

Is this what your are looking for?

Vehicles

Old weapon stats Including AV

Source

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.

1. 4 IAFG does the job in most cases, 4 will move the HAV away if the pilot is smart enough which is a win in my book, 2 will defo kill it outright

1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters

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

It's doable in a sentinel.

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

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

1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?

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. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV

2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else

My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.

The pilot has to pay for the HAV.

The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.

The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.

Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.

There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.

You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.

My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.

The pilot has to pay for the HAV.

The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.

The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.

Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.

There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.

You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.

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. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?

would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol

Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable.

That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time.

Kind of like side arms.

Sorta I guess, I pictured it more like swapping seat, though IDK why you couldn't just be third person over the main turret the whole time while cycling through each turret.

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.

Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game.

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

1. Rattati hasnt replied to anything in this thread

2. The spreadsheet hasnt been updated

3. We have no idea what CCP are thinking currently

4. Other threads that Rattati has created has more than 5posts by him on various things, the only way vehicles will progress is if CCP actually try to create a discussion on there vision for vehicles