Did you factor in small turret damage as well?

So.....whats the point of the DHAV if it can't kill a UHAV?

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------'-'-''----------



I think you need to look at it more like scout suit with damage bonus vs 3 brick tanked logi suits that combine for 50% more ehp total than the scout and the logis are all tied together sharing the health pool.

It is more play style and strategy, that is the problem with spreadsheet wizards, great at making numbers balance on paper, bad at seeing the big picture. .. sometimes.

If DHAV win toe to toe vs UHAVS then there will just be 6 DHAVS zooming around shooting down red RDVs before they can drop anything in. Why have 6 infantry in 2 UHAVS when you can have 6 DHAV S for three times the firepower. This leads to forum tears and Rattati nerfing vehicles to 2 per map.

Try and imagine there are infantry trying to capture and hold an objective, and the tanks are there to help hold or push the point.

I just remembered something.
Now there will be a reason to get turret proficiency. That is, if it's not bugged.

I am pretty sure he is concerned about solo players calling in UHAVS and running solo ad opposed to solo DHAVS.

I am hoping he understands there will be a difference in play style, UHAV will be pricier but slower both moving and tracking while doing less damage. DHAV will rely on quick surprise strikes with emphasis on piloting skills and avoiding stand still toe to toe trading of damage.

Uprising turret damage was in the right place. Rail spool up and refire was great, blasters were great. If we had all those variants and damage, and the current missiles we have now, along with hull strength, vehicles would have a very concrete place on the battlefield, rather than the WP pinatas they are now.

It kills everything faster.
it's faster.
and better tracking.

But pi+¦atas go down only after atleast 5 hits...
and the proficiency being rotation speed.

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

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

I was taken out by a Minmando in 5 volleys in a Madrugar. Infantry throwing out that much damage that fast (double swarm) is just insane.

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

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

You want a 200% damage bonus? Pffffft ahaha! oh wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder. Ahahahahaha!
you're not supposed to go toe to toe with a tank that is supposed to be tankier than you.
you have much to learn about RPG's...

No, I don't actually. I was pointing out how absurd it is.

Done being a douche?

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 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 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.

As we have seen repeatedly with sentinels, even a 15% resist MATTERS.

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.

Go use a caldari sentinel then come back here and say that.

You mean "go use my favorite one?"

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.

At least I remmeber when vehicle engineering said in the description that it provided a PG bonus when it was in reality ninja-nerfed to not provide one of the most useful bonuses vehicles had.

What is the scout for if a heavy can beat it toe to toe by a very large margin. Even if the scouts weapon does 40% more damage than the heavy.

ON PAPER.

The problem is you are not thinking about attack angles, tracking speed, controlled damage bursts, using the environment, working maximum and optimum ranges, knowing when to engage/disengage.

Try and apply all the proposed numbers to all the tank battles you have been in.

What if UHAVs got hardener duration for role bonuses, while DHAVs got damage mod efficacy?

Like the original proposition for the Minmatar Assault. Make it +10% per level or something