An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.

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.

You're not being condescending about it, and you're listening. The second part is as important as the first. When you cannot have a civil conversation with anyone, and you decide that you are always right, and everyone else is wrong even when they agree with you, you are not engaging in conversation, or talking to people. You are talking AT them.

This, in most cultures I am aware of, is considered to be highly offensive behavior.

You're fine, for the most part, and for the most part I'm OK. Not perfect, but ok.

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

NK use the plasma profile, correct?

good point, with the HAV re-intro, that could help.

I stil think two or three sidearms should be effective, just not overly effective.

Another topic that I like is some damage threshold to slow vehicles down.

Or AV flux grenades.

All in the context that HAVs may become a tad more powerful in the same instance.

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.

CCP Rattati once upon a time

ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles.

[...]

As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it?

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!

Ok back to finishing the flaylock and NK stats. NK use the plasma profile, correct? We need to add the profiles to in-game information for the weapons

hey i run a gunnlogi with a nitro, light shield booster, extender, plate and light rep. missile turret. you would be surprised what i can do with it lol

I've got a little of all of that in my proposal...

My Hypothesis on Shield Boosters is that they're either glitched, in which case I theorise remove shield recharge delay would help it, or they may need to provide more HP per cycle (To avoid appearance of them Stopping mid-cycle)

Low Slot...Power Diagnostic Systems and Shield Regulators are one way to go (decreasing DRD).

Now my do require a slight adjustment to HP mods (actually them going up) , in addition to requiring a lot of skill bonuses, and a look at hardeners...but I believe that I'm on the right track here.

All Base HAVs, and sHAVs get 2325 HP base, split between Shields and armor in a racial flavor way...SHAVs and DHAVs are then adjusted based on the relative HP values of Sentinels and Commandos, and adjusted to be nice round numbers with approx even HP totals. (at least, that's what I started in on)...I'm currently working on trying to extrapolate fitting values for tiered progression right now

spkr and lazer, I'm not trying to be mean or dispiriting but sadly most of your posting is negative, repetitive and arrogant. None of which make me trust or work with your feedback. And it seems you don't even read my explanations nor reasons. Sorry for singling you out but the rest of the players aren't doing that, consistently at least.

An example of useless and hostile commentary: "these fits are terrible". As I have explained I was trying to make a fit without PG/CPU mods AND have the cheapest small turrets, to demonstrate exactly the plight of HAV fitting.

Second, "we don't have PRO tanks". If you had really tried to understand the concept of the bring back initative, it was to create ADV and PRO hulls, that would be able to fit their hulls closer to how dropsuits progress through std-pro. Again, my fits demonstrate exactly how far from HAV pilots are from being able to do that with current hulls and skills.

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?

Rattati, I generally run the laser rifle these days and I think giving it an AV role would cause problems

the laser rifle works by increasing the damage the longer you hold the trigger, this is balanced against infantry as they are a small/agile target whist firing at the optimum range.

Tanks and Dropships are large targets and it would be quite easy to hit them with the entire magazine (or until overheat)

it could end up just being a troll weapon to stop shield regen


I'm not against adding the MD as AV (someone mentioned the changing the breach variant) but at this point i feel the AV options are already skewed against armour so would hold off until we get more shield options

So are AV grenades being removed or something? Because those fit what you're looking for. No need to make sidearms something they're not supposed to be.

If you want people to have the option of ganging up on a vehicle to take it down then make flux grenades disable vehicle movement for a couple seconds. Now squads or teams can flux a stupid pilot that gets too close and hold him while others AV grenade him. Problem solved AV nades and flux become useful, but not OP solo.

EDIT: or instead of flux grenade disabling vehicle movement, let them slow them down for a few seconds. And let the movement penalty stack so multiple flux grenades slow it down even more

CCP Rattati once upon a time

ALL weapons did full amount of damage against vehicles. Just that in those days vehicles had a hefty amount of HP. The effortsof a whole squad's combined anti infantry fire was considered wasting bullets but in theory they could have driven a tank off. The same effect on lighter vehicles such as the dropships and the LAV was however very notable. (but it was rather fun to rodeo a tank and use a 'can opener' aka shotgun on it.)

AV weapons available at the time where however seemingly capable of doing much more massive amounts of damage against the vehicles and still remained the optimal threat against them.

This was all prelaunch mind you and the reasons why this was undone was never made apparent but the idea of potentially bringing that feeling back and adjusting every weapon to be appropriately balanced on effectiveness as its a movable target now could be a thing even with AV still in the mix.

As of note AV weapons of this era were also all very much capable of AI measures. Seperating the roles of the gun so starkly is a potential topic of interest as there been plenty of other games that had justified the use of all weapons against vehicles or given all classes AV abilities out the door. While we are not like those other games there is merit in game design decisions. After all what good is a futuristic plasma rifle if you cannot melt a jeep with it?

I honestly prefer heavy weapons as AV/AI dual purpose to begin with.

Forge guns aren't exactly poor against infantry except in close work

I think this goes back to a concept we discussed in our vehicle episode of Biomassed, in that ideally I would love to see more AV saturation on the field so that it is easily accessible to everyone without making serious sacrifices to their combat effectiveness. If AV is more present on the field, vehicles can afford to be extremely powerful because they potentially will have to deal with a lot of AV all the time.

Unfortunately as things are, most effective AV takes the place of the primary weapon, and aside from Commandos, this means that any suit running AV is severely gimped against infantry. Because this tradeoff is rather large, AV players (reasonably so) expect Primary AV weapons to perform extremely well since they have to give up so much to run it. This lends itself to the mentality that "One AV should be able to take out a single pilot" which I don't particularly like and it lends itself to many of the balance issues we currently struggle with.

However if AV is easily accessible by people without making huge sacrifices, this means that you can say "it takes multiple people to take out a single pilot, *but* they don't have to make huge sacrifices/swap fits in order to do so". An example of this is Titanfall, where the Titan exosuits are extremely powerful, but at the same time all infantry have an AV weapon all the time. These AV weapons are not particularly powerful, but because they can switch to it on the fly without sacrificing their normal loadout, and the fact that EVERYONE has one, a Titan that gets itself surrounded by infantry will quickly get nuked, but in a 1 vs 1 fight it will win nearly all of the time.

I'm not advocating for everyone to have an AV weapon, but I think that if AV options that were less effective, but easier to fit without massive sacrifices, many people would feel they can make more of a difference against vehicles without completely gimping their AP abilities. This also allows the pilots to feel powerful by being able to take on multiple infantry at once, but vulnerable if they get zerged.

I agree that only two weapons dedicated for AV (Swarms and Forge) are too few, and you are sacrifice a lot (AI) to run them. While the idea of bumping existing small/sidearms weapons AV capabilities are an interesting one, I still remember the bickering when small arms fire would trigger the vehicle shield recharge delay.

If we are bringing racial symmetry to HAVs by using existing models (Caldari and Gallente hulls), can't we do something similar to bring symmetry to the AV weapons?

If we combine the model of the Forge Gun and the effect of the Laser Rifle, can't we get a heavy laser?
If we combine the model of the Swarm Launcher and the effect of the Mass Driver, can't we have a heavy artillery?

It is probably not as easy as it sounds, but it might be worth investigating?

Also, please bump AV grenades back to 3