How about you not try and berate people for the horrendous crime of not perfectly agreeing with you.

People have opinions.

They usually don't seem to mimic yours. Get over it.

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?

I bring this up because you're rather frequently crossing the line into personal attack. This is neither constructive and it's against the ToS.

Learn how to talk to your peers. Because you are not above anyone posting on this board.

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.

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

There is a difference between attacking your thesis/position and attackingng YOU. I can assault your logic all I want. I can say your methods of communicating with people are childish. I cannot start making callouts about how clearly you are (insert epithet here) by implication or outright saying it. You are flagrantly doing the latter.

Quit trying to dominate everyone via post.

We are having none of it. You are one voice among many. Not "the one."

You want respect for your ideas? Earn that respect.

3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret.

4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations.

There will be no DHAV rail fit, I will make it so, whether through fitting bonuses or something even heavier handed.

I'm a pilot. I will not compromise on being a pilot. I want the SP I invest into vehicles to be worth it, and I don't really care about the ISK.I just want everything to be worth it. I spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of operating vehicles, and have become very, very proficient at using a tank - so much so that I can take out missile and rail tanks with a blaster. I can also take out more than one bad shot at a time, I did that last night at their redline. I refuse to be treated like a second class citizen just because my voice belongs to a minority group of players.[/i]

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.

Dear players,

after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later.

Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach.

Phase 1
1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option.

2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow)

3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity.

3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret.

3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto

4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations.

Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills

5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets

6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets.

7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments

8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented)

Phase 2)
Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar.

Phase 3)
More Modules and weapons

I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names.

See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet

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.

Why the hell do you think I'm here? Because I like the free waffles?

I figure if me and a few others provide Rattati with prompt, and complete as we can make it data, we can set up things to AVOID this eventuality on either side.

I don't think anyone is arguing against Capacitors, but from my dealings with CPM, CCP's current stance "We dont have the resources to do something like that right now"

The fact of the matter is that vehicles are messed up right now, like...really badly messed up. Will capacitors make it better? Probably. Should we wait 1-2 years before they have the time and resources to fix it? God no. Easily made changes can happen right now to greatly improve the vehicle experience. Capacitors can do the same thing but will take far longer. The current rebalance effort has a significantly better Benefit/Cost ratio, so that's what we're going with. Besides, adding capacitor wont magically make everything balanced. All it does is replace the cooldown/duration system, but that doesn't affect HP, regen rates, turret damage, ect. All of those things need to be fixed anyways, so if they can be done now, then they should. Capacitors can come later, but right now I wan't them to fix the mess that Blamm made in the first place.

Also simple crafting probably wont be much work to implement anyways. Resources drop in battle. Resource stock counts as a from of currency, you use the existing NPC Market to spend resource currency in order to buy the finished product. Simple crafting, runs off the existing market system. Won't be that hard to do.

I don't like the idea of caps as it adds another full layer of things you would have to manage while actively controlling your vehicle. It's much easier to do a click based game like that, but not in a active combat setting. In non combat situations it would work due to not having to focus as hard, but in actual combat situations, it wouldn't work as well. It would be just too many things to do at once, and we don't have the hands to keep the vehicle moving, aim, and flip on and off modules.

But it's EASIER to manage 1 pool than keep track of many multiple cooldowns. You can make passive fits with high regen and you can have a fit where you turn on your hardener and you'll be cap stable. That's LESS work than the current system.

I wan't worrying about HAV's as much as I was worrying about lighter vehicles, as I assumed that the lighter the vehicle was the more damage it was able to do, and that bothered me, seeing as some of those (LLV) needs to be able to tank against it.

Also, with a suggestion of making lighter weapon classes able to do AV, There will be people asking for more. And more. And that I don't want.

What exactly do you mean "Cut and paste the stamina code with minor tweaks"? A decay and growth function is about as basic as it gets, and that's all the stamina is. What you're asking for ties in with modules both in modification and activation, not to mention that if you want it to properly work like even then you're not even dealing with a linear function like stamina works off of. I'm not exactly and expert programmer, but I think you deeply underestimate the effort require to put this together. Is 1-2 years realistic? No, it was a hyperbole, but what do you think constitutes as a "small design team" that can "hack it together"? Are you aware of the size of the Dust development team? I'd like to see your source of information that you used to make this estimation.

Like honestly though, have you been following the vehicle discussion? Are you aware of the severe problems between vehicles themselves? The fitting issues with the Madrugar? The problem with the function of blasters? The lack of proper skill bonuses and messed up skill progression? All of these issues are completely independent of anything to do with capacitors and desperately need to be addressed asap. It's like telling someone who just lost their legs "Oh well we're not going to give you a wheelchair, so just lay crippled in this bed for 6 months while we make prosthetic legs."

I mean do you honestly think that the addition of capacitors would just "trash all balancing data" and make us "start from scratch again"? You don't think a well balanced, duration/cooldown system would be rendered completely useless overnight if capacitors were added? I'm not a game developer but I've been pretty balls deep in a dozen community design projects, and in every case, new systems take existing data and make it fit the new system. All Duration/Cooldown really represents is "If I run for 30 seconds and take 90 to cool down, that means I consume 3 seconds of capacitor recharge time for every second of activation. The conversion is of course not that exact, but the principles can be readily converted from Duration/Cooldown into a Capacitor system without significant changes to the base values.

Thanks for your response. The existing stamina system has been designed to integrate with modules, to accept modifiers from modules, and can accommodate large drops in the values based on actions in-game (when you jump). It fills all of the existing needs for a capacitor system. They could use a simple linear regeneration function to start, and tweak the function later, or call up the guys in Iceland and ask for the function they're using for EVE. In the code, the class interface would almost certainly look very similar to a capacitor system. This is simply based on my own experience as a hobbyist programmer. I really don't think it's as major of an undertaking as you believe it to be. Of course there could be performance challenges, and bugs that would need to be resolved, that's likely where the bulk of the development time would be spent. Things always take longer than they appear, so you're right that it could be more involved than I believe it to be.

As far as trashing the data, it comes down to whether engagements are designed to be very short (as they are now) or much longer. That's a major deal. I was somewhat hyperbolic with the trash everything comment, and you're right about the skill tree being a mess, but damage, hp, hp regen, and even speeds would all be dramatically different if designed for a short fight or a long fight. You really would have to almost start from scratch again.

Code....doesn't work like that. Yes stamina accepts modifiers from skills and modules, that much is easy, but you still have to code in how activation costs of modules, weapon useage, ect. Im not saying you can't use existing code, but theres a lot more to it than what you're describing, and as far as I know there are exactly 0 dedicated programmers working on Dust. And development of that nature is borrowed from the Legion team. Also linear regeneration is kinda bad because there would be no middle ground in cap stable/non stable. Linear Rechage would mean that Cap Stable = 100% capacitor all the time which can be problematic if you ever want to have some proper EWAR...but that's not really important at this point.

And again I don't see how the length of battles for Duration/Cooldown would differ from a Capacitor system....not should they differ. A module that has to cool down for 90 seconds and runs for 30 is simply a 3:1 Cap Recharge/Activation Cost ratio. HP and rate of recovery wouldn't change, nor would the effective activation cost of the module. The only difference is that available activation time and total cap capacity are pooled instead of per module. But even then if there were issues, you can maintain the same level of module performance and balance them entirely around cap cost and not disrupting previous balance effort.

Well if a fight should last 4x as long, then either DPS needs to be reduced by 400%, HP increased by 400%, or a combination of many different and complex variables need to be tweaked and ironed out (which is the obvious correct solution). That's what I mean by balancing. In a capacitor system, vehicles would be fundamentally different, they would be very powerful: something like 4x harder to kill, but they would be vulnerable to being "tackled" and beat down. That's much different than just messing with timers and cooldowns, that's designing a completely different style and pacing of vehicle-based combat.