DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Hull Progression

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 66 post(s)
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 730	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:52:00 - [1] - Quote Actually , I approve of almost everythng here. AI Large missile turrets, oh you make me swoon. Prefitted tanks: As long as we can switch out the prefitted turrets to turrets of our own choice to play with the fit. Also, nothing to stop me from fitting basic small turrets on a proto tank and having the extra PG and CPU to beat up on a solo tank. Skillbooks: What i find contentious is having Two skill books/ SP sinks for solo tanks, and tanks with small turrets, basically double the SP for the same tank. I do believe that fitting small turrets should be up to the player who is paying for the hull and investing the SP, its like asking infantry to speccing into a proto heavy suit twice, once for an HMG and once for a forge gun. Why not a bit of tiericide in this regard, e.g. level 1 tanks gives the option of either buying the tank with small turrets but more PG and CPU or a solo tank with realtively less PG and CPU. A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 730	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:16:00 - [2] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. I really don't want this thread to degenerate through bickering. Looking right at you Soraya. You're beating a dead horse, Just to make things clear for you currently i can fit an identical ehp gunlogi with a small turrets or without, one's called Groot, the other is called Groot+ Rocket base of this fit Two complex extenders /1 complex hardener adv large missile. Groot has complex CPU + missile mag Groot+Rocket has 2 complex CPU and Two Protoype Small Particle Cannons. Thats like having two Incubus shoot you at the same time as the large missile without sacrificing any eHP. They already are more powerful. However, i only pull out Groot + Rocket if i can have squadmates jump in because rule no 2 of tanking is never rely on blueberries. rule no 1 is never leave your tank. @ Rattati, thanks for that compromise, any thoughts on how deep the SP sink will go? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 06:34:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I have been discussing this with Xel. One normal HAV with 3 manned turrets - "will" win a solo HAV, just due to extra fire power One normal HAV with only driver - will have exactly the same fitting power as a solo HAV with only driver - draw Where does the solo HAV must be worse than an empty HAV come from? Could we upgrade the Solo HAV so that, with tiers, it could balance out the fittings? This way, we wont have to fight min maxed fittings, but if pro MBT want to fit equavlent small turrets, then the should have the fitting capacity to do so. Other wise, a Proto MBT would have be able to fit weak turrets in order to have a strong defense. there ought to be some sort of tradeoff. PG/CPU wise: STD HAV < STD MBT with SD turrets ADV Solo HAV = ADV MBT with STD small turrets ADV solo HAV < ADV MBT with ADV small turrets Proto Solo HAV = Proto MBT with STD / ADV small turrets Proto solo HAV < Proto MBT with Pro turrets. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:43:00 - [4] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: A bit of side note, but since we are talking pre fit turrets, is it possible to get Vehicle locks? I really, really don't want blueberries jumping into my tank, one of the main reasons apart from fitting tankers don't equip small turrets. We don't want to be at the mercy of the Neebs of the world. I think that's the mainstay of the MBT, it is deployed as a way for all players to experience gunnery, and feeling useful (and having fun in a different way) I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. That isn't the point. We don't want them in there because: 1: Someone might be hopping in 2: Could alert enemies of your presence (hard enough to set up an ambush as is) 3: Could disrupt your concentration when you're sniping at other HAV's etc. This is beside the point. We are keeping solo HAVs , which hopefully can perform on a realtively similar level. you don't have to run turret fit HAVS if you dont want to. Soraya Xel wants to jump inside of somebody elses tank that they invested a ton isk/ SPtank into to experience shooting an LAV turret. And it looks he's getting it. My concerns are just that 1) Solo HAVs run just as well as min-max fit MBTs and 2) that having both options doesn't become an unessecary SP sink. Believe me, i am just as much against mandatory turrets are you are. But we we need to stay on topic here, and have a constructive approach. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 09:47:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: - Any intentions on making the forward turret able to swivel 360 degrees as they did in closed beta? Always a pain to be stuck on the front gun with anything other than a small missile turret for use against other tanks. - Proper vehicle locks? Anyway, along the lines of progression. UHAVs should, understandably, be very tanky against infantry AV. DHAVs should be vulnerable to Infantry AV, in my thinking, but my current fear is that the DHAVs (as designed currently in the concept) will be just as viable against infantry as UHAVs given that they have higher damage which will inevitably be used to make short work of infantry, offsetting their reduced durability. Also the factor that the Vayu in particular will be faster. It's my current thinking that UHAVs should take a single DHAV or a -lot- of infantry to deal with. Meanwhile, DHAVs should be balanced on a 1-v-1 basis against infantry as to not offset the numbers game in a 16v16 gameplay. - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that DHAVs are especially susceptible to Infantry AV on a 1-v-1 basis, as they are solo vehicles? - What plans, if any, are being made to ensure that UHAVs are reliable -against- infantry but susceptible to DHAVs? DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like. Hw about dropship like? I've talked it over before with breaking, The ADS's of the game survive only through high manueverability and not taking sustained fire. A DHAV tank with max HP of an incubus, would go down in 3 proto forge shots, or three commando MK0 swarms. Keeping them around 5K ehp max fit would put it on the same level as a soma/sica with no modules. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 731	Posted - 2015.01.22 13:31:00 - [6] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Please remove the Caldari DHAV damage bonus to rail guns. First, it's unfair to the Galente DHAVs having only a short range damage bonus application. Second, it promotes redline rail sniping DHAVs look like they're the agile hit-and-run types, close combat should be their specialty. Agreed. Bonus should be to missiles, not rail turrets. Yes, high alpha missile strikes are a concern, so instead of a direct damage buff, a bonus to reload speed. DHAVs only have a short time to engage due to low HP, so being able to get out two full missile ammo clips may come in handy. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 732	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:09:00 - [7] - Quote Concerning SP dump it looks the requirements will be HAV operation I : Tank with turrets HAV operation III : Tank with turrets HAV operation V : Tank with turrets HAV proffieciency I : Same Tank without turrets HAV proffieciency III : Same Tank without turrets HAV proffieciency V : Same Tank without turrets GAL UHAV I GAL DHAV I CAL UHAV I CAL DHAV I It really should'nt be an SP sink to use the same tanks. Forget the 'i dont want randoms to jumpinto the tank thing", i think it is asking too much of players to have drop twice SP to run a identical tank with less PG /CPU just to have a turretless option. There already is a proposed tradeoff between fitting power to make them essentially the same tank. Thats a 1.2 million SP difference between a madrugar without small turrets and a madrugar with small turrets at no discernable benifit. Its akin to making infantry suits take basic dropsuit skills to proto before starting into the racial bonus suits. - Perhaps we can have two different skill trees, MBT Operation and SHAV operation independent of one another. - Or merge both into one skill tree and have both of them purchasable from the market. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 734	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:00:00 - [8] - Quote The way ratio I envision damage distribution VS infantry UHAV 1.25 HAV 1 DHAV 0.75 VS Vehicles UHAV 0.75 HAV 1 DHAV 1.25 This can be done by tweaking the bonuses to hull damage ouput so that the UHAV and DHAV remains on the oppossite sides of the spectrum, and the HAV remains dead center. UHAV can have an anti infantry bonus to Fragmented Missiles clip size and a bonus to reduce Blaster Dispersion. DHAV gets a bonus to Missile reload speed and reduction to Blaster Heat build up. I am purposely leaving out the rail, it does too high damage and is too easy to abuse. I don't want to boost base turret stats, as we currently have them they are sufficent for tank vs tank fights, we need creative bonusss that makes bringin out a UHAV or a DHAV make more sense rather than a "I win button" Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 734	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:58:00 - [9] - Quote We can deal with the rails in the hopefully soon to be Turrets feedback. I would not like hull bonuses tied to rails precisely because it would encourage that type of hull to be abused a redline camper. CAL UHAVs wont need it if they are heading into the fight as A.I. Fragemented missiles FTW. DHAVs should be encouraged to get in close and be at risk to kill UHAVs, but limited vs infantry. Planting a bonus to OHK rail turret on it defeats the purpose of having it focused on tanks. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 739	Posted - 2015.01.22 20:51:00 - [10] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aero Yassavi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization. Solo HAVs should not be as powerful as MBTs though. More players should have that force multiplier effect. Especially when you consider that in this particular case (Dust as a game that is) you are locked to a max of 16 players per side. You can't add a 17th or 18th player to the team no matter how hard you try. So if you are going to invest 3 players into one unit, that is essentially 2 lost players on your team. More players operating as one unit should definitely be more powerful than any one player in theory at least. Now if players weren't as much of a limited resource, like say in EVE where you can keep calling more and more players into the system, then I could see the validity of counter arguments. But of close that won't happen here (at least not soon or on the PS3). I have been discussing this with Xel. One normal HAV with 3 manned turrets - "will" win a solo HAV, just due to extra fire power One normal HAV with only driver - will have exactly the same fitting power as a solo HAV with only driver - draw Where does the solo HAV must be worse than an empty HAV come from? Because this can't be balanced in a vacuum. AV is a part of this system. And a single AV should be able to take out a single person tank (pretty close to current tank balance), but if you actually have three people manning a tank, it should be much tougher to kill. Yes, I am asking for a tank buff. Me. Of all people. Please dont. Not in a 'your not a tanker" sort of way, but in a "your ideas and comments have been counterproductive concerning vehicles on every possible level" kind of way. Your idea of a buff is to make solo tanks very weak against solo AV. 3 people just means more offensive/defensive firepower, should not mean better defensive modules or ehp modules. That should be a party tanks only advantage over solo tanks. UHAVs and DHAVs i consider seperate as they are a seperate class. For the MBTs and the solo HAVs aside from having the extra pg and cpu to fit small turrets, otherwise they should able fit the exact same ehp modules. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 750	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:00:00 - [11] - Quote At risk of sounding pretentious just to point out some things before somebody rants Nerdmode activate, ahem. Loadouts Tab Gallente Gunlogi is the Caldari Gunlogi. Fitting wise, the fuel injector is rarely used on gunlogis in favor of shield booosters, hardeners , extenders or damage modules. Also, the fuel injector takes up only small amount of fitting space, so any balancing acts based off of gunlogi fits with it equiped may seem off. Vehicle Modules tab, forgive me, are these new or old values? T I notcied that you put in adding a small missile turret variant as AI. Do we still get the Large AI. turret? Will the current small turrets be repurposed for AV? Other than that everything looks pretty good. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 753	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:39:00 - [12] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would you like me to convert the turret numbers I gave you to conform to current AV meta? One of the biggest complaints from drivers is "too short fights." 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. I want to explain to you why sitting there and taking damage over a longer period of time is bad, and that fights that are too short leaves a feeling of a cheap death. TTK balance is not really an impossible concept to grasp but then i read your post again. What do you mean by this statment "a longer fight is almost garunteed to favor vehicles", as in LAVs, Dropships and Tanks? How so? How would a long engagement favor a dropship over a forge gunner? You seem to be unable to grasp that vehicles by their nature are mobile (call me crazy, but i'm sure i can get farther in a car than i can on foot).Why? Sure a vehicle can move away, and once the vehicle does the AV is no longer under threat from the vehicle either. Tanks are hardly nimble (as many a forge gunner knows), LAV have no real offensive power except the wheelchair heavy leaping out . That just leaves the Dropships, which by your own admission swarms are ina good place vs dropships right now. I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with all of this hyperbole. Even with my wildest arguements with Atiim, and my AV vs Vehicle discussions with Breaking Stuff, nobody else (except IWS) just comes out and drops the sort of comments you do. When a dedicated AVer comments HAV TTK should be balanced why do you have to jump all over him? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 763	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:11:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 764	Posted - 2015.01.24 01:52:00 - [14] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. I need to do this first in an environment that is known, IE 7. Once I have bashed out all the requirements for that to work, there shouldn't be any problem going to 7 slots. Problem is that that may require a little different approach with progression, because I don't want to rebalance all module efficiencies at the same time to make sure 7 slots isn't OP. So, please propose eHP reduction that follows going to 7, because brick tanking should not be a thing. Also, recommend some shield modules for lows. Also, list out the unusable modules, and give hints on how to fix them, f.ex. shield boosters and the like. "What would they have to be like for me to start using them" Thanks! In several proposals (true, breaking thaddesu, and i think pokey as well) i have seen with 7 slots, there is already a reduciton in base eHP based on the pre 1.8 stats. You can have a look at those. If we go to 7 slots then i have to recomend, if my fellow vehiclists agree, to a fitting cap on hardeners to two. Cycling 3 hardeners would be a bit extreme especially for the shield tanks. It wouldn't be balanced for either AV infantry or other tanks. No. Cycling hardeners would mean that 1: You'll have to constantly monitor them 2: You're running less tank overall than a plate tanked vehicle, just that you can for a certain amount of time you can get more. Downside to that is that you have a downtime. Monitoring them is easy. once every 60 ecods flip the wheel. What wont be easy is fighting a 5-2 tank with two extenders ad three hardeners .You always manage to have one on and the other two in reserve, or pop all three on at the same time. given the majority of AV infantry and turrets arearmor based, its basically circling around being untouchable. Right now with tanks its requires a two vs one to beat a gunlogi with 2 hardeners and 1 extender, how are you going to best a gunlogi with an additional hardener and extender? I don't want to see turrets or Av overbuffed to compensate for this. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 774	Posted - 2015.01.25 08:23:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Players don't have a way to have meaningful AV unless primary. Most other FPS games have a way to have a secondary weapon, meaning that players can gang up on vehicles and take them down. That is definitely where I intend to go, while maintaining balance. I would argue that players that don't want to run an AV primary already sufficient options AV grenades, remotes, proximity mines and Commando suits. AV 'nades to Forge guns: Players can equip AV grendades, which do the same damage as equivalent tier Forge guns, without sacrificing the rest of he fit to AV work. You can throw all of the AV grendades in the time it takes to charge one forge shot. - ADV EXO-11 packed AV nades: 1303 dmg, 1,563 damage vs armor - ADV 9K330 forge gun: 1,320 dmg, 1452 dmg vs armor - PRO Lai Dai Packed AV grenade: 1,563 dmg, 1876 dmg vs armor - PRO Kalilkioota Forge gun : 1,444 dmg, 1, 588 vs armor 2 players, not a gang not even half a squad, but just two guys tossing 4 ADV nades at aTank can do 5212 damage base or 6252 vs armor. The same 2 players tossing 4 pro grenades can do base or 6252 (oddly symetrical)base or 7504 damge vs armor. Which falls in line direcly with what you want. Tank is called, in, everybody switches to the same slayer suit but with a grenade, and toss hem when the tak gets close. Poppeed in no time/ Remotes are already well known for both AV and AI capapbilities. Commandos: They turn Swarms and Plasma Cannons into sidearms. We have to draw a line somwhere, that is if players do not want to bring out any sort of AV to fight a vehicle, then the responsibilty lies on them. They know dust has vehicles, they know there is AV options available to them. Every player that has speced into grenades has AV grenades as an option. Unlocking ADV commandos cost 750K SP, which is less SP than geting dropsuit armor upgrades to 5. Unless you wan to add in a second grenade slot to all suits? I guess the trick is how to convince more players about having AV options fit in case of an AV engagement rather than over relying on the the few dedicated AV players on a side as a cructh. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 776	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:53:00 - [16] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Not_knowing_when_to_quit.gif 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 777	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't think that's going to be an issue, especially if the destroyers hit like a truck. I have no issue with Large Turrets being crappy at killing infantry. It's a similar metric to EVE where larger turrets struggle to hit smaller targets. Its obviously not a direct comparison, but you get the idea. Solo HAV pilots should struggle to deal with infantry if all they have in a large turret. Not impossible to do, but difficult. Think of it like the inverse, you can use a Plasma Cannon or a Forge Gun to kill infantry, but their primary function is to kill vehicles, so it is difficult to kill infantry with them unless under specific circumstances. Agreed, but there still remains a sort of threshold that large blasters still fall short of. Not by much mind you, it may be just half a point in dispersion or decay that would make the difference between difficult and frustrating. Something better than what we have now, but certainly not as good as a blaster insallation. I would love to see the gap beween those two halved and see what comes of it. Should be relative low priority. @breaking, great minds , as they say... Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 21:33:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I need the rate of fire stats actually, but this will help All flaylocks 125 ROF There is only one breach, it has 54.55 ROF. All NK: 66.67 ROF Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:28:00 - [19] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: The damage bonus should include large rail turrets.. maxed out it is 10% which is half a damage mods worth of damage.. if missiles are throwing 10% more damage at a rail, and blasters are throwing out 10% more damage at a rail, I don't see why rails can't throw 10% more back. Triple damage modded rail tanks have pretty much disappeared to favour more ehp. I don't see 10% breaking any balance when they will really be used to take out installations and other tanks that aren't paying attention. Doesn't matter to infantry if they get shot in the face with 1800 damage or 1980 damage. Would be pretty boring to only see Missile tanks chasing each other around, I know not as many people have spec'd into Missiles and I hope this isn't the reason rails won't receive the damage bonus. I can see a reason to complain against a rail damage bonus coming from people running Missiles and Blasters, but lets be honest, if 200 damage at most per shot is going to pop you, then maybe you were standing still in front of the rail turret for too long. I still think Large Blaster turrets should be looked at, maybe increase rate of fire, slow heat build up and make them marginally better at tracking infantry. Missiles do an insane amount of damage in half a second and if Fragmented ammo is introduced then there would be some real fun. But if a 5 million isk Missile tank is fragging everyone at a letter then a 5 million isk Rail tank should have the proper bonuses to force it off. 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 779	Posted - 2015.01.26 01:19:00 - [20] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Redline rails don't do much anymore short of defend their redline from red vehicles, I'm not going to get in a pi@@ing contest to see who plays more as I am interested in bettering vehicles as a whole rather than hurl insults. 10% more damage to missiles will put them around 7100 damage per clip, now add a damage mod and you are around 8500, another brings it near 10000 damage when you hold down one button, which is emptied in about a second. No difference if one of these sits in the redline to a rail tank sitting in the redline doing under 2000 damage per shot. Now you are telling me that you are worried about 200 more damage coming out of a rail then you are 10000 damage from a Missile tank, or are you hoping no one is going to figure out the math so you can laugh at rails trying to hit your triple damage modded Missile tank cowering in the redline. 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. Large Rail Turrets should receive the bonus to deal with the new turrets having their own bonus. If it ends up being a problem it could always be removed. But let's be realistic, 10000 damage from just holding a button down and you are concerned with 200. 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 780	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:04:00 - [21] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks rails get 5 shots off before overheating. I'm not getting into a debate with someone that thinks a rail can shoot 5 shots in the time it takes 12 missiles to fire. In the time it takes a rail turret to shoot 9 shots the missile tank can empty it's clip twice. Keep trying to pull for the next iteration of Dust 514 to be triple damage modded missle tanks driving around. The rail turret needs the 10% bonus to keep up with the bonus received by the blaster and missiles. 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? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 780	Posted - 2015.01.26 02:39:00 - [22] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Gonna start out with correcting some of your statistics...80 GJ Particle Cannon (Proto Railgun) has a base damage of 1696.5 (Source: Show Info on the 80 GJ Particle Cannon) and will overheat on the fourth shot if you just hold down the trigger (Source, just hopped into a match to make sure before posting), giving the 80GJ Particle Cannon a damage to overheat of 6786 vs the missile turret's damage per burst of 6476, or a more sustainable damage model for the railgun of 5089.5. Additionally "Missile" Turrets can empty their entire magazines before the rail turret gets off its second shot (1.8 Seconds for the entirety of a missile turret's mag to be emtpy, vs the Rail Turrets 0.35 Spool Up, then 1.6 Fire Delay + 0.35 Spoolup). With heat statistics the way they are, the "Missile" turrets can get just over 2 magazines off (due to the reload type of the "Missile" turrets) before the Rail tank can get the entirety of its magazine off. This doesn't negate your concerns about the "Handling" of each of the weapons (which is a valid concern), but you damage statistics are only showing the variable are only showing the data favorable to the Missile Turrets (and some of your data is out of date, or you where mistaken when posting). Saying that the D-HAV bonus shouldn't affect rail turrets is like saying the Commando Bonus (Caldari) shouldn't work on sniper rifles (Which there are cases for and against), and I'm personally in favor of consistency in this case. My source is Protofits and CCP 1.7 devblog and there hasn't been any hotifx to change the large rail numbers. Like i said, rail turrets do not need 9 shots to kill any tank. Whereas the overheat is managable, 5 shots are usually what i manage in a tank fight before overheating, but no matter what, fighting with missiles means dropping the whole magazine and waiting to reload. I'll switch it to your scenario, whereas both tankers spam shots like crazy. With your numbers 12 missiles still do 6,474.5 base 5179.2 vs shield 7769.4 vs armor Rail in 4 shots 6785 base 6107 vs shield 7463 vs armor. Rail still has a signifcant advantage in damage output and application, 5 hits and the fight is well and trully over. We are getting into the nitty gritty, of why the rail is still much more powerful than missiles, the balance philosphy reason why i dont want a damage bonus for the DHAV to rails is that i don't want have combination of high speed, high manueverablity, long range, high damage tank. the only con would be relativly low eHP, but it would have enough speeed to traverse the redline anyway. Risk vs Reward for DHAVs was that they would be rewarded for close range fights as they would put out some serious damage but they'd risk getting into serious trouble vs AV infantry. Take away the close range requirements, and we have just another purpose built redline sniper tank. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:18:00 - [23] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:36:00 - [24] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Tesfa has proven why its a bad idea for infantry to talk about vehicle related subjects - Really i dont think you could have been anymore wrong and just proves that you dont use vehicles at all let alone turrets Really dude? Skip 00:52 to see my garage. 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 I could direct you to my post where I discussed calmly where I got my stats from. Where I compared 4 rounds to a full Missile clip. Where I also used the rail stats True Adamance showed me. Where i also explain my views on DHAV. (hint post #370 pg 19) Though I'd like you to quote me on saying rails can fire all shots faster than a missile turret can, seeing as you pulled that one from where the sun don't shine. But, letting you vent your emotions, its partly a entertaining spectacle, but mostly the main reason why the devs, and pretty much anyone who isn't speaker struggle to take anything you say seriously. Its hurting more than helping. Hell, even by responding to you i am partly responsible for derailing the thread. We can talk up the entertainment value of your deflating ego somewhere else, but lets leave this thread with constructive commentary, shall we? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:25:00 - [25] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed. A positive side to this is that we can properly define vehicle roles. Just to see how i interpret your tank vision. UHAVs: high ehp, slow speed, low manueverability, is vulnerable to other tanks but excells in anti infantry: (heavy) MBTs: medium eHP, medium speed- medium to long range , can run all purpose fittings, but is the best tank class to equip with rail turrets to escort UHAVs against DHAVs (assault) DHAV: low eHP, high speed, high damage, short range, best at ambushing the other tanks in short range quick battles, but if spotted first will have a rough time of it. (scout) People have been asking about vehicle roles, now we can tell them 3 A Tanker should want to have some back up before going anti infantry in a UHAV. Encourages Teamwork infantry demand of tankers to make the reddots life miserable. A Tanker can go for all purpose fits that are not quite as good as the specialized fits but don't need a lot of team work to do so. Not much beyond the current meta. Can hurt UHAVs and wreck DHAVs (if DHAV spotted first). A Tanker can choose for the high damage tank. Solo tankers can set up ambushes to catch enemy tanks unawares, and can chew UHAVs to peices, and stands a good chance of defeating a MBT if they have the element of surprise. More likely than not risks losing that tank trying to bring that power to bear on infantry. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 783	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:13:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: question, shield boosters in low? Given that similar to dropsuits, all vehicles get a slim natural rep, so as to not be forced to fit a rep mod in a low. For HAV's with more fitting options, my first instinct is sure why not. Dropships, it may a bit crippling, especially for Pythons. Seeing how much work is going into tanks, there is not alot of room for dropship changes . Moving it to a low would remove shield booster as an optional fitting on a python, or the incubus for that matter. It would leave the python with just one fit, Hardener, afterburner, extender in the highs and pg upgrade in the low. To make up for this perhaps we can leave the light shield boosters in the high and the heavy shield booster in the lows. Its not very symetrical, but it leaves the dropship pilots something until we get dropships PG and CPU sorted. If you ask me "what if dropships had the PG/ CPU fitting costs to fit a booster in the lows?", then yes, i'd be all for it. Also , passive vehicle reps? i like. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 787	Posted - 2015.01.28 14:21:00 - [27] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: 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 :/ 1) Its best to use shield boosters to recover from aplha strikes. It works well when if you can space it between incoming rail rounds (requires good timing) or missile tank reloads, but very poorly vs blasters. Vs a blaster tank you need to have find a break in between blaster fire. 2) Somewhat agree here, i prefer 2 extender + hardener gunlogi, but I use the booster on my madrugar. Its well worth a high slot in this case. 3) Fittings blasters on a gunlogi has some disadvantages, vs infantry but the high shield regen + resists to explosive AV means you have time to reposition. Otherwise, if fighting a blaster gunlogi, exploit that weakness. Low ground is your friend. 4) Agreed. Without a freindly neighborhood ADS pilot, or Viper heavy combo its best to steer clear till you have the WP to nuke it. 5) Same here. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 791	Posted - 2015.01.30 11:33:00 - [28] - Quote I am Looking forward for future DHAV tankers thinking its going to be them running the battlefield. You could try to Dash in but you are certainly not dashing out. Since just the proto turrets average about 280,000 after the first million in losses you wont be all suicidal like. Which leads me to my next question, Prices. Scaling it up like the dropsuits is not viable. 3,000 isk for a stadard suit to 50,000 for a proto suit. (16.6 times as expensive). 1,610,200 for a proto hull. Without any modules, fit all proto on it you're going to run upwards of 2,000,000 per tank. On the face of it, you could argue that tanks used to cost this much isk. but AV has been buffed to become more more powerfull than before, and its tough to argue that the 'new' proto MBTs will hardly have any more eHP than currently. Given the short nature of Vehicle vs Vehicle fights, and the instagank nature of some of the tank designs, it too much of an isk burnden to place on one person. How about a simple + 25,000 per hull tier? It makes UHAV hull costs nearly double std tank. with only a single proto turret (+ 281,955) it would cost 493,955 isk. The same with DHAVs. You want to be OP, better put up the isk for it. std 97,000 adv 122,000 pro 147,00 pro 172 UHAV / 172 DHAV hull A STD hull cost 97,000 isk. ADV Hull? PRO hull? UHAV? DHAV? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 795	Posted - 2015.02.04 06:56:00 - [29] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ok, Ratatti cleaned up the spreadsheet (Thank you!) so i think I'm reading it better...even so if I have it wrong, I apologize. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A6p9jXdSNHTtmo_PtuQdgkntr-JpY-vo5cTAWjEijw8/edit?usp=sharing the UHAV seems much more reasonable, good call on droping the base HP from x2 to x1.5. Also glad to see you spread out the HP drop on the DHAV over the armor and shields, those look a lot more reasonable now. Meh, unless all av is getting nerfed then the UHAV won't be much tankier than now, just a 400 hp primary tank difference. That spreadsheet, how do they get 10k ehp? The effective HP assumes a hardened state. 40% for Shield, 25% for armor. But that is weird. I was running ad 3975 Shield 3385 armor Gunnlogi today with a 40% shield hardener but I got taken out in 10 seconds by two Minmatar Commandos. That with hardener is 9000 HP, and two commandos took me out with ease, I wonder what a slower HAV with 2000 more HP will help me with. Same thing here, yesterday was odd for me shieldtanking. Got instapopped by swarms twice, in a hardened gunlogi. I won't be reporting this untill i can confirm it today though. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 815	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:03:00 - [30] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: things Starting to feel the same. What started with returning the old hulls and fixing stats is turning into a massive SP sink. I already have pro modules, so to use them i have to drop: 1,244,000 SP for my current tanks. (pro modules on a gunlogi with proto small turrets) 1,766,000 SP to fit modules on a tank thats not open to blueberries. (gunlogi or madrugar with pro modules) 2,015,200 SP to fit my pro modules on either racial destroyer 547,360 SP to unlock UHAVs 3,732,000 SP to fit proto modules on either racial UHAV. Thats 1,044,960 SP from level 3 to level 4. Bare minimum to invest is 646,400 SP for a basic destroyer that can only fit basic modules. 2,624,400 for proto Destroyer. You get two ADV tanks, 1 ADV HAV and 1 ADV SHAV. 895,640 SP for a basic UHAV that can only fit basic modules. 4,553,000 sp for proto. You only get the ADV HAV. Looking at that sort of SP investment, its better to wait it out, then run the tanks as players usually do. Highest defenses with the highest damage. Taking the other turret poposals into conderation, how could you not go PRO shield UHAV with all pro rail turrets (large and small). For 4.5 million SP their bonues has got to be OP. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 815	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:30:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The way it breaks down: one has to be the hammer, the other the anvil. If you make DHAVs tankier with bigger hits then you obviate the need for a main battle tank. This is bad. Also UHAV being resistant to infantry AV makes perfect sense. I view HAV AV as refined, powerful and optimized for simply drilling through and bypassing most defensive measures. I consider Infantry AV to be crude by comparison, brute force methods that are reliant upon cheap, destructive gimmicks which try to power through where HAVs weapons rely on efficiency. Given that standard an HAV could easily be rigged to counter "infantry hax" but fall short versus HAV fire. I am not sure that we have the capability, technically, to say this is Infantry AI, except to hardcode bonuses against Swarms, PLC's, AV grenades, remotes and Forges. That seems quite "wordy" for a skill. I will ask around if there is a "tag" way, in the system, but the skill description will be a bit strange. I have to reccomend going against this route. UHAVs will take more the 4 million SP to max out, and players want a good reward for that kind of investment. Any bonus less than 5% per level would not be worth it. Like the uproar caused by the 3% per level ADS ROF bonus for 2.2million SP. Yet, any resistances bonuses have to be very low, otherwise you risk returning the Logi LAV in tank form. Yes it was fast, but its near immortality came from is shield resistance + hardener. The duration sounds better, as it can roll in, smash some troops, swich on the hardener and try o roll out before Infantry defensive fire becomes too over whelming. Its going to be slow but not that slow it cant turn a corner or two to break line of sight. We have to keep in mind how few players really tank, and the reaction a lot of infantry who don't understand resists or following this on the forums. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 816	Posted - 2015.02.06 09:59:00 - [32] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS. 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:36:00 - [33] - Quote I'd envision the ratio for all scenarious would be a .15 difference beween classes, wih MBTs being the middle ground Speed ratio UHAV 0.85 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 1.15 HP UHAV 1.15 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 0.85 Large turret Damage UHAV 0.85 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 1.15 Small Turret Damage UHAV 1.15 / MBT 1.00 / DHAV 0 This gives a 30% gap beween the specialist tanks, 15% gap beween the specialist and the general purpose tanks. DHAV vs MBT: DHAV gets 15% more speed and damage but MBT has 15% more eHP and 100% damage from small tturrets UHAV vs MBT: UHAV has 15% more ehp and 15% stronger small turrets, MB has 15% more speed and 15% more dmage. UHAV vs DHAV: DHAV has 30% more speed and damage but UHAV has 30% morehp and 115% more damage (comparing to other vehicles that can fit small turrets) from small turrets. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:32:00 - [34] - Quote The UHAV skill books has got to change in SP requirement. To unlock the skill book for racial UHAVs you need to spec into Level 3 HAV operation, Level 3 UHAV, and then spec into UHAV HAV x 2 skill Level 1: 24,880 Level 2: 74,640 Level 3: 174,160 UHAV x 6 Level 1: 49,760 Level 2: 149,280 Level 3: 348,320 Racial UHAV x 12 Level 1: 74,640 Level 2: 223,920 Level 3: 522,480 Level 4: 1,044,960 Level 5: 1,866,000 Total required SP 4,553, 040. Minimum time to unlock (divide by cap = 750,000) 6 weeks. Both the DHAV and the UHAV should be a 8x skill, not a 10x or a 12x skill. There is also the possibility of reskinned amarr and minmatar versions, unless there is a respec planned for their release ( which i doubt) then i don't see the need to put an extraordinary SP investment burden on tankers. Most of whom will want to have different types available. Certainly the SHAV or MBT to PRO, at least one destroyer and one UHAV. Having the right tool for the right job is important. Thats should be more than enough of an SP sink for a while, rather than 12 x skills to inflate it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 818	Posted - 2015.02.07 10:10:00 - [35] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Don't forget about passive SP Tesfa. That's separate from the 750,000. This needs to be accounted for in your math. Also frames are a x6 skill. Specialist dropsuits are x10. The HAV skill at x2 provides a similar SP paywall to the dropsuit command skill. However, that being said I think the racials should be x10 like tge dropsuits, not x12. Save x12 for post-level 5 content if we ever get it. You're right about the passive SP, that does make the Proto hull acessible with hitting the cap in under 6 weeks. You understood the point i was driving at, which is to have the SP investment reflect the dropsuit costs. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 825	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:35:00 - [36] - Quote 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 829	Posted - 2015.02.09 04:36:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 10x for the destroyers and UHAVs would really, really be strectching it but thats the upper limit. At 12 x I wouldn't know how to go about offering Infantry balance suggestions, having SP investment on par with the suits removes any excuses from vehicle users as to why they feel the right to go on a infantry farming spree. Anyways, its a bit early to go voer this topic, perhaps another feedback thread on the SP tree investment would be good, get everybodies eyes on it. As far as i can tell, in terms of your spreadsheet the only hot topics to crop up in my eyes are SP tree (as you said theory crafted for now nothing final) Changes to missiles (other thread) Changes to rails (other thread) small rail stats (other thread) But hey its been a long grindy week and weekend for you devs concerning warlords, so no pressure from my end. Pace on the pages is beginning to slack a bit, some of us has been posting about tanks almost daily since december. Pay no mind when the spkr, breaking, pokey etc flareups happen. Given the specific references to the master spreedsheet it seems everybody is still generally on board with the new suggestions. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 833	Posted - 2015.02.09 13:03:00 - [38] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Will there be a vehicle skill tree respec like there was for dropsuits in 1.8 since we are literally getting everything changed. Good question but i doubt it. The hull are only additions to HAV operation, which every tanker has already specced into level 1 already. Don't understand why 1 point in the skill tree needs to be respeced. It sort of makes more sense for the turrets, but since infanty didn't get a respec once rifles / dropsuits were changed wholesale i cant see why turrets would be exempt. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 833	Posted - 2015.02.09 15:31:00 - [39] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I guess I am not part if the consensus, I think tanks should cost more than dropsuits to spec into to keep specialist tanks in the hands of specialists. You might see a few peopke that put a point or two in a python or incubus, but getting level 5 is a mountain to climb for serious ads pilots that enjoy watching there investments pop when a commando locks on. HAVS will still be more than competitive without specializing, especially if AV infantry is ever rebalanced at any point. Didn't mean to speak for you there, but that was the consensus as I was seeing it. Given the relative few that check this thread out as often as possible, I also think working out the finer details of SP requirements should be in a seperate thread. Just to get fresh attention / feedback from a wider group, the kind who are more likley to check out a new feedback thread from rattati and not feel overwhelmed by sifting through 40+ pages of a thread that been here for quite a while now. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.