That would be ******* silly if they did. I don't remember a single person saying that they staying the same is a good idea.

I don't really like Marauders being a infantry killing/suppression platform, but more of a defensive platform. Enforcers are the opposite of Marauders, being the offensive platform. BO HAV's seems like thebetter option to have a more infantry platform, it being fast and moderately tanked, but it has a weaker medium turret. It's made to be a real infantry suppression tool, but against a HAV with a large turret, it won't do much of anything.

Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV.

Now, for untalked about subject. Can we get our small turrets to have limited AI capabilities when there is no one in their?

Because I really don't like paying extra for unused small turrets just because no one wants to get in my tank.

Unless they are automatically added onto the price for being prefitted.

Destiny runs on ps4 though :p

Things and stuff

So I assume you split artys into two groups?

Of course the issue for drivers is "too short fights". They have a ton of ability to relocate quickly and get away from a fight. A prolonged fight with AV means vehicles can choose to disengage at any time and run away. A longer fight is almost guaranteed to heavily favor vehicle users.

If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary.

[Edit]
Should AV weapon discussions maybe go in a different thread? I could make some interesting suggestions here, but I don't want to derail the thread.

[Edit2]
Eh, what damage profiles did you use and where is prof. V added?
Looking at swarms I can't follow e.g. from D3 to D27 and then from D27 to D51. This data was entered as constants, so I can't see the formulas you used.

My Only problem with this Ratt, is that your still going by a 3/2 or 2/3 system for slots. This is very, very bad. Reduce power of the mods, add more slots because we need variety. Gunnlogi should get 4 highs and 2 lows, opposite for Maddy. Minmatar should get a 3/3 layout, but I'm not sure about what to do with Amarr....

Tiercide for vehicles, but no tiercide for infantry.

AV is not of my interest at the moment, i care to have enjoyable and worty vehicles.

AV can then be buffed or nerfed as needed, once vehicle setup is in the right place, AV is dependant from vehicles not viceversa.

Same old words

Cool, and appreciated. I have been thinking with the possible escalation of HAV strength, that MD and LR could be more useful against vehicles, and possibly IP and Flaylock as well.

I feel a bit call out on this, but i've also explained why i think those fits are terrible.
It's more a lack of modules than the fit itself, when you have nothing to put on a slot, it's natural to put the only useful thing there.
Role wise my hint was that we should not have to put plates or armor modules in general on a shield vehicle, or at least if we do, we should not expect it to work good.

I'm a little confused, i feel like we are moving on separate rails, we look at each other, but there is no point of collision.

I know i'm repetitive, but that is most because i'm not a english master, when i speak in italian, i do not repeat myself

If UHAV are faster, and DHAV are slower.... how exactly is a DHAV supposed to hunt UHAV?

its early... you know what I meant. Got an answer? or just being yourself?

After a coffee and a re-read I do see... I also see people using these new hulls for the wrong vision.

The fight your own war trailer comes to mind. Suits have had limits placed (cloak costs, equip BW, role fitting bonuses) but still fit whatever they want really. Unless the new hulls have restrictions (which I am firmly against) people will just muddy the roles until we are back to triple hardened rolling jokes. (which I am also against...)

Some of you might say "Wait, Dev, do you even tank bro?" To which I answer "not often anymore, 3 MLT HAV can instapop a fully fitted Maddy/Gunni, then there's the JLAV..."

The mention of active modules making a return has me hopeful. But I know our playerbase.


CCP is doing GRAND work on DUST atm, suits have never been in a better place. All roles are now a pitb, and that's a good thing.
The past, present, and future of vehicles is what scares me.

Anyway, about the light Lazer rifle as AV.

Juno runs the lazer rifle alot, so take him at his word when he thinks lazers might be a bit difficult to balance as AV. A decent lazer rifleman(?) is used to hitting infantry at around 80+ m, hiting a vehicle would be like hitting he broadside of a barn.

What about a combination of the scrambler rifle and laser rifle, assault forge gun mechanics?

Breach Lazer Rifle:

- Requires approx. 2.5 second charge (like scrambler/ assault forge gun)
- Fires powerful approx. 5 second AV pulse ( increases in damage up to 5 seconds mark player has to keep full pulse on target for maximum effect)
- Lazer damage profile vs shields
- can be used vs infantry, but long charge time means infantry have a chance of escape.
- fills in missig lazer rifle variants.

People will just fit ehp and AV on the AI tank. Making the AV tank worthless vs the AI tank.
Unless CCP cooks up some good role bonus(es) for these new hulls, exploitation will commence.

@ Breakin Stuff

I got the Flaylock DPS from Protofits, for whatever that is worth:

Std: Basic, 364.58 Breach, 295.93

Adv: 382.81

Pro: 401.04

For NKs, I just used the known delays, with the first assumption being the delay between Knife 1 and Knife 2 in a swipe, which I think is resonable to say is 0.2 seconds. For charged strikes, I ignored the usual delay between strikes as I to the best of my knowledge you can charge knives immediately after a strike. I also assumed both knives hit. The numbers do not take into account the 50% reduction, nor any Minmatar Scout bonuses.

Std: Uncharged, 282.35 Charged, 375

Adv: Uncharged, 376.47 Charged, 571.43

Pro: Uncharged, 470.59 Charged, 833.33

Hope that helps.

All flaylocks 125 ROF

There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF.

All NK: 66.67 ROF

Go ahead, but be warned that is a phase 2 or even 3 addition to HAV's. Hulls, modules and existing Weapons need to come first and be balanced.

1. How about skip to the post where you think rails overheat in 5shots
1a. How about skip to the post where you think rails do 1885damage per shot
1b. How about skip to the part where you think the railgun can fire all shots before the missile turret can
1c. How about you skip to the part where all your maths are wrong because you dont know about turret mechanics

1. Personal attack? No its pointing out that something is wrong to the point where i do not believe them to be a pilot due to the fact that they got key points on turrets completely wrong

2. Where did i insult them?

3. Thats rich ive already reported you several times for personal attacks

I guess the one thing that worries me is even with how big a problem tiers present for Dropsuits in the form of power creep, we're now going to have them for vehicles?

This could go VERY badly.

I mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you've been doing a pretty good job so far, but something about this just screams "approach with extreme caution".

I mean, how long is it going to be before PRO AV users are here en masse posting threadnaught after threadnaught about how PRO vehicles can just shrug off their PRO AV?

Will we see this same methodology applied to Dropships and their variants in the future?

On further reading this looks pretty neat for tankers, but I think I speak for all pilots when I say we'd like a bit of this love as well.

Hi, can all of you running spreadsheets, please rename them as "Breaking Stuff's something", Spkr4thedead's something so I can more easily cross reference what you say with your data, I am overflowing with data, which is still a good thing.

Much appreciated!

I really hope that's the case.

I've started using a Python fit with 2 Complex Light Shield Boosters and 3 XT-1 turrets.

With all my guns manned, that thing is a ***** to kill, and I can finally survive against Swarms.

And I do not feel constrained to apply the same logic on vehicles and dropsuits, in a 16v16 environment, vehicles should not ever be dominant.

question, shield boosters in low?

Dual Booster allows me to loiter and duel with Forge Gunners easily, even Assault Forges. The fun part is it's actually a tossup as to which of us will win said duel.

Things

1. It doesnt matter because infantry are already supporting this

2. Really it mostly was all good, now its currently all bad

3. Lore? No its a fact - A vehicle cannot hack an objective

4. Armor in EVE does not and never has repped passively yet in DUST it does and it shouldnt yet in EVE shield reps consistantly yet in DUST it doesnt so can you stop screaming 'lore' when it suits you
4a. If its in EVE it should be in DUST because its all new eden - Thats lore but thats also a quick way to balancing
4b. If infantry go to tiercide i bet you now that my Gallente assault suit will still have 8 slots in a 3/5 layout and not as a 1/3 layout where as vehicles will still have 3/2 layout which offers nothing at all - We already have it, the pro tanks that rattati wants to introduce we already have now except it will cost 2.7mil for no improvement

1. You still want it, you already said that you back it

2. Near enough, better than 10% now

3. Im right, i cant hack a point

4. Yes it does because capacitors

1 Are shield boosters meant to be used in cover? They dont work under fire & that is why i prefer the dual hardener approach. Much more reliable.

2 Tried using small shield boosters on a HAV just to kickstart the shield regen without the 4 second delay. Did not prove to be worth the high slot.

3 Also when using the ion cannon on the shield tank you cant quite aim the blaster as low as on the madrugar. There is this "blind spot" near the tank out of the reach of the cannon. Makes RE scouts and AV grenades quite the problem. Would encourage you guys to try it for yourselves on a sica/soma.

4 AV + high ground is damn near impossible to counter with a tank alone. Please keep that in mind when balancing.

5 No doubt HAV's will now require more SP to spec into properly, but i hope to see the returns of that SP investment in battlefield performance. Cant wait to drive these new tanks. Much disappointment when the new patch notes did not include new HAVs :/

How, exactly? It has a 4 second recharge delay...

What do u think of the numbers I gave for shield recharge rates and having innate armor repair? I also have an old thread about it.

I agree, I think people are underestimating the power that speed offers an HAV. Slap an Overdrive and Tracking Enhancer on, get up close, and take out the UHAV from close range, moving faster than it can track. You can already do this to some effect with a Blaster fighting a rail up close, and it's awesome.

It's kind of like playing as a scout back when Heavies had reduced turn speed. You had crap for health but you could literally dance circles around the heavy and he wouldn't be able to touch you.

As for the base stats on the DHAV...it has the reduced slots as well as the reduced base HP. I agree with either of these...but not sure if I agree with having them both at the same time, it might be a little too extreme, but time will tell. Stick with both, but I'd remain open to the idea of bumping the base HP up again if the DHAV's defense proove to be a little TOO weak.

I think you might need some help reading spreadsheets. Apart from one second, the madrugar outreps the gunlogi total hps for every second, with a basic rep. Yes 4000 takes longer to rep than 2685, not a surprise.

AS PER HIS OWN SPREADSHEET.

I'm pretty sure rattati said the gunlogi would be 5 high 2 low, madrugar 2 high 5 low. As per his spreadsheet.

pokey, why are you trying to balance numbers around modules that don't exist and modules that are going to be adjusted?

If armor hardeners reduce more damage then the numbers will be even more favorable for the madruger, we need to focus on what rattati has discussed he is working on rather than theorize about potential components.





ill let rattati read both our stances and judge for himself.

as per this being a process I am providing my feedback and explaining myself.

My feedback can be discarded if it is deemed useless, but I will add my voice.

shield tanks need high regen as they rep less hp per second, if there has been numbers and modules released that are not in any of these feedback posts that have been confirmed to be worked on by Rattati then I have not seen them.

I want the hulls to be balanced for for thier intended rolls.

To avoid a nitro blaster madrugar instantly repping at 400 hps while hardened being the new go to frame, I would avoid reducing the 168 inherent shield reps when they already are at a disadvantage of a 4 second delay.

I have said my piece on the subject, I understand you disagree but that's how discussions go.

If there is any change to armor hardeners, which would help balance turrets, and which I am in favor of, the inherect shield reps of gunlogis would be too low, unless there is some module in the works to significantly increase the recharge rate.

Just sayin

I see no reason why there shouldn't be viable active and passive fits, and any fits inbetween, for both shield and armor.

Otherwise what's your opinion on what I had to say about passive shield recharge and making it low to start off with but can be increased through fitting shield modules (and thus only giving the advantage of a faster recharge to those who actually shield tank their vehicle).

I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield.

Your question tells me all I need to know.

Here is the deal Spkr. I like to think myself a pretty rational and reasonable person. I have no issue with changing my mind on a topic if someone can offer up a clear and rational explanation on why they are right and I am wrong. That is what is typically called a 'Discussion'. The problem is that if you refuse to offer up an explanation to why I'm wrong and you're right, I will continue to believe that I am correct. If you That is what is typically called an 'Argument'.

I love discussion, being constructive is awesome. However, I have no patience nor interest in arguing, as it is not only a waste of my time, but everyone else who actually wants to get stuff done.

Fair enough, let me reword the question then: What, in your opinion, should that number be for engaging gameplay both for tankers and AV and infantry? Also, why do you feel that way?

[Sorry, I hope I am not being too much of a nuisance with my attempts to join the conversation]

You said pony

But yeah, HAV's will be used the most, can't wait til the skrubs cry about the DHAV being too weak.

can you sig it, so I can find it easier, back at work?

I suppose this is as good of a time as any. It's not quite done (need to finish up some fields for Active Armor reps and add in active shield boosters) but it's pretty close. I'll try to finish those bits up tonight. Feel free to many a copy and play around with it, anything in green should be editable and will auto update everything else.

NOTE THAT THE VALUES I THREW IN THERE ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP. STRAIGHT OUT OF MY ASS. NOT INTENDED TO BE EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO A PROPOSAL. THEY'RE JUST THERE TO MAKE SURE THE SHEET IS WORKING PROPERLY. But I know someone will freak out anyways ^_^

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dO3Jw-f1MRkKKJj8sgTz1A-M1qxf7IxyJ_v-zBgAlo/edit?usp=sharing

I get what you're saying, however I'm still unsure why anyone under your proposal would use a UHAV over a MBT.

EDIT: What if the UHAV's increased eHP was only against infantry? As in its damage reduction only worked against Light AV, Heavy AV, & demolitions? But not Large or Small turrets?

Go use a caldari sentinel then come back here and say that.

I know 15% matters, we have going to stack that resist wih at least one hardener and natural shield resists. -10% to forges and a -20% vs swarms.

With out a hardener off the bat the forge is doing - 25% , swarms are doing - 35%. 1 hardener active and Forges do -65% swarms - 75%.

Try dealing with that beast in an ambush OMS.

Standardize plc charge time at .45s, change operation skill to 3% reload per level, up damage by one tier level (so basic does current adv damage, which is +~170 damage per tier upgrade). It puts the plc in a better place without making it op vs infantry. And increase ammo by one.

Projectile speed is not a problem, it is currently in a decent spot. Reload speed is the bottleneck.

Back on topic...Ok lets take a moment to look at bonuses under the premise of damage resistance against infantry AV.

MBT
+2000 Base Shields
+2650 Module Shields (2 Extenders)
=4650 Raw Shields

UHAV
+3000 Base Shields
+1325 Module Shields (1 Extender)
=4325 Raw Shields

So before Bonuses, MBT will have 325 more shield HP more than the UHAV. Our general goal is to make the MBT slightly better at dealing with enemy vehicles than the UHAV, so similar levels of eHP against turrets with the MBT being faster/better tracking achieves this goal fairly well. Since there is a fairly small difference in HP (325) we'll just leave that as is with the understanding that it might be slightly tweaked in the future.

So it comes down to upping the UHAV's resistance against infantry. If the resistance is specifically towards infantry AV, It is more reasonable to go with a pretty high eHP. We'll shoot for what Ratatti initially proposed to see how it looks.

Ratatti's Initial "Ultra Bonus": +3210 HP

Oh boy, that's a bit of a jump. So in order for the UHAV to gain that much eHP against AV using its base HP, you're looking at ~75% resistance, or +15%/lvl. Eeeeesssh thats pretty intense, landing the UHAV at about ~11700 eHP once its in a hardened state.

Note:
MBT eHP = ~7300 (~40% less than UHAV)
DHAV eHP= ~4500 (~60% less than UHAV)

Discuss?

Alright

So someone that hasn't played in months, and doesn't use vehicles, gets to decide the path vehicles take?

And now you want tanks to use more SP? Please, go ruin a different game.

I'm hoping to be able to record video in 2 weeks or so, to show the state vehicles are in with video evidence, as well as how easy it is to use AV. I'll even use crap tanks to show how strong AV is, while ignoring the experience I've built up through a lot of time spent in tanks.

Spkr. You need to quit with the constant "HE DOESNT X" crap. Present your point civilly. You are calling names and making ad hominem attacks when you are in a position to refute the central point or provide counterarguments. Remember that image I provided to you yesterday?

You do have some relevant arguments but if you present them in a poor manner no one will give you the time of day. Stop making attacks against people.

Breaking is IIRC more than willing to admit he doesn't do much on the vehicle side, but he is more than willing to listen to explanations of why parts of his points are mistaken.

If the biweekly spkr vs the world derail has gotten out of our system I'd like to focus back on the skill tree and the spreadsheet

@ Rattati I believe the general player consensus is that HAV skill point investment should reflect the infantry skill point investsment. 6x then 8x rather than 3x, 6x 10x 12x.

The only difference in HAV and SHAV is prefit turrets. I can't see a reason not to combine both in a single skill tree, and have he two types in the market instead of a double SP sink for the same vehicle. From what i can tell there will be no unique bonus applied to either the HAV or SHAV to differentiate the two. The only bonus is not having griefers leap into your tank.

It doesn't make much sense anymore to have two skill books for one hull. Its more akin to asking breaking suff to spec into proto caldari heavy twice to either use a forge gun, or use a forge gun and a side arm.

You are alreadly removing turret fiting options for tanks, effectivley doubling the ISK sink for tankers. I will have to buy two unique gunlogis, one with turrets, one without. No need to have a massive SP sink as well.

Don't worry too much about the skills, I was theorycrafting and making sure the formulas worked.

I do still want it to be difficult, and more difficult than a single proto dropsuit, for sure.

Will there be a vehicle skill tree respec like there was for dropsuits in 1.8 since we are literally getting everything changed.

Not to mention I want to avoid the argument that "Oh I spent X amount of SP more than you so I should be X amount harder to kill".

We just want the SP and ISK investment to be worth it. Our experience makes us hard to kill. There's a difference.

I hope to see you in battle some day Breakin. I've only faced 1 or 2 good AV'ers in pubs, and it gets old stomping all the bad ones. (Like the ones who just stand still while they're swarming. Makes them so easy to missile snipe.)