However, I'm in a Gallente UHAV. I'm slow, my defenses suck, and my blaster has limited range. Someone engages me from up high with a swarm launcher. Well out of my range so I can't retaliate, my defenses are weak so I have to run, and Im too slow to get away before I get blown up.

I don't exactly see how that's going to be fun for the tanker?

I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun.

Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs.

A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right.

It's not, and unless the damage profile of a swarm launcher is addressed or the lack of an AV weapon as effective as swarms with the same profile against shields, it's not going to change.

Even with proposed numbers for the gallente hull, it won't be even close to as durable as the shield version will. You are going to experience a LOT of this, even if it goes on as proposed. There's a reason why the gunnlogi is so much stronger of a choice atm than the madrudger. And unless that get's addressed, your above scenario is going to still happen.

And I'll be sure to gun with you, running proto swarms and AV nades to even further the imbalances presented. Glad I'm not the only one to question the changes.

Numbers do need to be played with some more to come to a good, balanced system

also, I almost had you, but I screwed up and didn't commit...dammit all, so close

just trying to get my daily challenges done XD...still need to blow up 3 installations...stupid challenge making me farm points off turrets...

Lot of interesting conversation going around.

I like harpyj idea, as it was the very first thought that came to mind when I first read of the proposals. I am just a little confused on why some assume that it HAS to have higher defenses to deal with infantry.

There are instances now, where I have no gunners running with me where yes a high defense (which is offered by the gunnlogi) is essential in surviving infantry AV. But when I run a good set of gunners (which is the idea surrounding the UHAV), defenses are of lesser concern. AV can't do their work if they can't live long enough to see it through to the end.

This is how this plays out now, and I run a very tough tank WITH the gunners. I liken my current tank setup with gunners to the proposed UHAV. Ridiculously OP in the right hands against infantry. I honestly just don't see these proposed changes panning out how people expect. Back to tank spammin!

A tank built around the idea of slaughtering infantry honestly doesn't need defenses above and beyond what AV can handle. They don't NEED this to get the job done. It's over kill and puts infantry AV at a disadvantage that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I see us going back to the idea that the best way to deal with a tank is another tank, and I thought we were agreed that this isn't right.

---

I personally don't think that we need such separation between tanks. I do say that yes a tank not built for AI should have the best time against infantry AV while a tank built around AI should be more on par with the enemy infantry they are designed to fight, not above and beyond them.

But I also wonder why we need such a large separation between the two tank types to begin with. What happens when we

Make their base HP more or less equal, and emphasize the differences through role bonuses

Your UHAV is slower, but has bonuses to small turrets and makes better use of modules that help the large turret kill infantry. Base Hp could sit around 2500, still tough but not over the top.

On the other hand your DHAV is slightly faster, with bonuses to their large turrets, and unable to use small guns. Base HP sits around 3000, current proposed for the UHAV. They are slightly tougher than their counterpart, able to more easily survive AV they will struggle to kill.

---

In this way the 2 tank types will still be distinctively different but stat wise there won't be a huge outright difference. Differences come from skills ( as it should be ) and bonuses associated with those skills.

Imagine a UHAV versus a DHAV.

>The DHAV is faster, slightly more HP, and bonuses to their large main turret.
>The UHAV is slower, slightly less HP, and bonuses to their small turrets.

DHAV has an outright advantage over the UHAV when the main gun is considered, but small rails or missiles can play a HUGE part to keeping the UHAV on more even ground against the DHAV. Sure the DHAV seems to have an advantage, but I think it will more or less struggle against a UHAV running rails or missiles, not to mention if it runs anything other than a blaster for the main gun.

I think this is something else people don't seem to notice, what happens when you have a UHAV with double the base HP of the counterpart designed to kill it, with small guns that can effectively double DPS against them.

I wonder, why run a DHAV? UHAV would actually be a better tank killer if fit with all rails AND be extremely effective against infantry. Unless of course DHAV are one shot wonders (exaggerating here), but in that case it just wouldn't be fun.

Exactly what I'm thinking. If the update is released as it is currently, I'm just going with a Sagaris (Caldari UHAV), slap on two small railguns and a large missile launcher (if it is still effective and not nerfed into the ground), and watch the tears flow as my gunners kill infantry and I destroy most vehicles out there, even DHAVs.

Random thought

Destroyer HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Fast Movement
Fast Large Turret Tracking
No Smalls
+% Resist to Turrets
+% Bonus to Large Turret

Ultra HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Slower Movement
Fast Small Turret Tracking
Slow Large Turret Tracking
+% Resist to Infantry AV
+% Bonus to Small Turrets

Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP.

Random thought

Destroyer HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Fast Movement
Fast Large Turret Tracking
No Smalls
+% Resist to Turrets
+% Bonus to Large Turret

Ultra HAV
Less Slots
Low Base HP
Slower Movement
Fast Small Turret Tracking
Slow Large Turret Tracking
+% Resist to Infantry AV
+% Bonus to Small Turrets

Destroyer can easily resist the UHAV's turrets, but infantry AV ignores its resistance and kills its low base HP. Ultra can easily resist infantry AV, but DHAV's turrets ignore its resistance and kills its low base HP.

.....no. Of the UHAV has less base hp than current tanks, then no.

You misunderstand, the resistance bonus versus infantry AV would push its eHP (against infantry) well above the MBT, but its defense against enemy turrets would be lower than the MBT. Inversely, the DHAV's eHP against turrets would be higher than the MBT, but its defense against infantry AV would be lower than the MBT.

Also since AV is being changed to match these new vehicles, I don't consider "current tanks" even a factor, as their performance is irrelevant under the new design.

ueah, that's the problem, it shouldn't have lower base hp than an MBT.

I also feel like the MBT should also get some general bonus to make it worthwhile to skill up its respective skill. I'm not a big fan of having basic vehicles and dropsuits have no bonus tied to their respective skills.

If its effective HP is higher, why does it matter? The idea is to make it stronger against infantry than the MBT, and weaker against Turrets than the MBT. Incidentally the Hull's base HP would likely be the same, but the reduced slots would yield a lower raw HP.



Indeed, I actually made a few suggestions for this a few pages back. Personally I'd like to see the basic skills for both dropsuits and vehicles, reflect a mix of the racial tanking style as well as frame size. What I came up with off the top of my head was

Amarr - Decreased Penalty from Armor Plates
Caldari - Increased Bonus from Shield Regulators
Gallente - Increased Rate from Armor Repairers
Minmatar - Increased Rate from Shield Rechargers/Boosters

Maddies have constant regen and have shorter cooldown hardeners, and they last longer.
and a shield to cover the armor.

Destroyers with resists to large turrets is not a good idea. They should be glass canons vs other tanks.

AV is going to have a field day with low ehp tanks, every uhav will have 3 proto swarmers poised to fire 6000 damage each into the DHAV. If anything the DHAV needs reduction to all AV damage. Thier ehp is just too low.

UHAVS should be the tankiest of tanks, damage reduction to everything, damage bonus to small turrets, no damage bonus to large turret. Nearly 1/5th of the team is in one tank vs 1/16th in a DHAV, should be able to tank a few shots since it can't move as fast.

Caldari passive bonuses to shield tanking( recharge delay reduction, recharge amount increase, hardener duration)

Gallente passive bonuses to armor tanking( there is no delay, repair amount, hardener duration increase )

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?

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?

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.

So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP.

the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS.

So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS

DHAV would have
750 HP and 125DPS

UHAV would have
1500 HP and 100 DPS.

At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds
At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds

So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster?

So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less.

In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret?

So the DHAV will have say a 25% increase to DPS, and a 25% decrease in HP.

the UHAV will have roughly 50% more HP and normal DPS.

So lets use 1000 base HP and 100 DPS

DHAV would have
750 HP and 125DPS

UHAV would have
1500 HP and 100 DPS.

At 100 DPS, the UHAV will kill the DHAV in 7.5 seconds
At 125 DPS, the DHAVE will kill the UHAV in 12 seconds

So in a direct encounter, the DHAV will lose to the UHAV. That being the case, why would I want to use a DHAV when the UHAV is able to kill the DHAV faster?

So, if you want to "nearly offset each other" the DHAV would have to be able to kill the UHAV in 7.5 seconds or less.

In order to do that, it would need to do at a minimum 200DPS. That being said, are yous saying that the DHAV should get double damage bonus to its main turret?

[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.