Rails already have extremely high damage and long range, its already devasting enough to the point where theres no need to buff it further.

Also, the rail turret is the only one to be constantly used from the redline, where they don't use ehp modules but stack damage mods and let the redline do the defending for them. Where as with the other two turrets, you have to mix it up in the fight, and you are using maybe 1 damage mods but rely more on ehp and speed mods.

The last thing i want to see is a high speed low ehp tak witha damage bonus to rails. It would never leave the redline, and would retreat to quickly for anythin to catch. which defeats the purpose of DHAVs.

I'll throw your example right back at you, if you cant score kills with 1800 damge a round, why do you need the extra 10% buff?

Tank vs Tank it matters, and rail vs Dropship it certainly matters. But it looks like you havent played for a whule, we haven't had 5 million isk tanks in nearly a year now.

Just to clarify for you the stats between Missiles vs Rails:

Missiles are explosive, -20/+20 (i kow it says projectile in protofits, but rattati changed them to explosive dmg profile)
Rails are hybrid, -10/+10

- Pro Missiles XT-201 539.5 damage per missile x 12 shots per clip = 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor

- Proto Rail 1885 damage per shot x 9 shots = 16,965 damage base 15,268 vs shield 18,661.5 vs armor

But I know Rails over heat in 5 shots so in five shots = 9,425 damage base 8506.8 vs shields 10,367 vs armor

You are already putting out in 5 shots with a rail turret 1,656 base damage MORE than an entire XT201 Missile launcher Clip can do vs Armor.


Without sacrificing any HP for damage mods, in 5 shots you can already out-DPS in your own proposed glass cannon Missle Tank.

But you are not happy with this , so you want rail tanks to do in 5 shots +10%

10,367 damage base, 9425 damage vs shield, 11,404 damage vs armor without damage mods.

because missile tanks may do per clip +10%

7121 damage base 5697 vs shields 8545 damage vs armor

and you think this is balance. Because of you're mythical triple damage modded "redline missile tank" with 150m optimal, damage dropoff, missile travle time, inaacuracy, and the need to land every single round to get damage even comparable to a rail tank which has 300m range, no damage drop off, pinpoint accuaracy, no travel time, and can put out enough damage to kill any vehicle without overheating.

" This is the problem with opening the forums up for discussion with every type of player, more often than not 6 or 7 will try and push their agenda thru and Rattati has to sift thru all the garbage and try and figure out who is lying to him."

Yep, and i'm looking right at you.

You aren't really answering why 5 Rail rounds that do 2,951 more base damage than a full clip of Missiles, 3,327 more shield damage than missiles, and 2,597 more armor damage than missiles needs a 10% damage buff.


You also haven't been paying attention, i have been asking for armor tank hardeners to be buffed as a defense against getting instapopped by missiles.

You should try to show why rails need to put out even more damage to "keep up" with other turrets it already surpasses. Rails don't need anymore love. You wanted to compare it to the damage missiles do, here you go.

Now that you know for a fact that rails do far more damage than missiles do, are you ready to accept that Rails are in a great place right now and don't need a buff?

The current regen is way to high on Gunnlogis.

Armor hardner has a lower percentage of resistance and quite all AV weapon have bonus against armour so i think shield hardner is bettwr than armour hardner and if you have core vehicles upgrade maxed you recharge modules faster...

I can see armor at 30% and shield at 40% , it's delay combined with nearly half tGunlogisration and the possibility of armor repping more hp/sec immediately after taking damage, also the armor tank has a shield buffer which is more useful than the shield tanks armor.

No my point is that even though the raw HP is different, the eHP of those two fits is very similar, meaning that the Gunnlogi recovers eHP far faster than the Madrugar, while having an equal (and sometimes superior) eHP.

And you can argue that you can fit 2 reppers, but that is typically an non-viable fit and would drop the eHP of the Madrugar even more sharply. And keep in mind that the Madrugar still has to fit multiple modules just so it can beat the regen of the Gunnlogi using 0 regen modules. That's my main gripe. (Under the old model) if the Gunnlogi had to fit 1 proto module to get the 169 HP/s, I would be FAR more comfortable with it.

As for the new model, I can do that, but looking at the first few seconds after depletion isn't a really clear picture since that is specifically the weakest part of the shield regen. Regardless I think passive shield recharge and passive armor reps need to nerfed into the ground and bring back proper active modules.

I'm saying the strength of the passive reps is too strong. I'd love to add modules to increase the passive rep so that 1 module vs 1 module, the Gunnlogi would still rep faster than the Madrugar, instead of the 0 to 1 we have now. This would also allow the Gunnlogi to get more passive reps if it wanted. Do you think its unfair to require the Gunnlogi to use 1 passive module to beat the Madrugar's 1 passive module?

I'll take that as along winded "Gunnlogi should not have to fit any modules or train any skills to outrep a Madrugar using a maxed out proto module with max skills". Ok, thanks for your feedback.

So what are the disadvantages of the UHAV, do they track slower? Turn slower? Accelerate slower? Have a lower top speed?

pokey's providing rattati active feedback doc, complete with numbers and spreadsheets to back it up. I'm working on turrets and handheld AV. Thaddeus is working on a future vision thing. If Rattati uses our numbers, neat. If not, his decision.

All three of us think inherent regen is too high, both on passive gunnlogi regen and on the passive armor reps.

Right now, so far as I can tell, Rattati is working on hull stats and balancing them out. Modules and turrets come after the hulls are bashed out. Once Rattati has the turrets and modules bashed out, I'll be making recommendations for handheld AV.

This is a process, and until Rattati says the numbers are final, it's still a work in progress. You're crystal balling and making assumptions. Why don't you talk TO Pokey instead of trying to argue why he's wrong? You might get some actual data because for once the damn Dev doing the work isn't being a secretive cave troll and when he talks about what he wants to do we're listening.

Ok, so how much of a damage bonus should the DHAV have to overcome the defensive bonus of the UHAV? What is the proper ratio in your opinion?

[quote=Doc DDD]As for the proper damage to defense ratio between the two, they should nearly offset each other. The DHAV is goingto be driving circles around the UHAV unleashing insane damage while the UHAV will have a difficult time tracking and retreating for cover.

Rattati already posted that rails will not get DHAV damage bonus.

Did you factor in small turret damage as well?

No, it wont, given the listed stats. Given what the sheet is currently showing, the UHAV will be better at AV. A damage mod will not turn 25% bonus into the needed 200% bonus.

Like really, what is the DHAV for if the UHAV can beat it, by a very large margin?

I'll reply to this with the skill breakdown when I get home from work.

I'll suffer the thousand notifications until then.