For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters?

First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'.

I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping.

For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters?

First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe?

I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping.

I would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that.

Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry.

There's an issue with rail turret overheat.
The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7.
Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (4*1.4*8+4*14 = 100.8).
As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot.

Alright I looked at your initial there.

My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capacity to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights.

2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret.

For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000.

Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now.

My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge.

In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV.

I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage.

And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls.

It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one.

If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion.

My two cents. Hope it helps.

A quick comment here, i am not a fan a reducing the Missile turret clip. Yes they are OP vs Armor, but extremley UP v other shields.

I don't want to be critical without giving a solution however, so i do want to also note that the missile turret has recieved a number of buffs. The most notable of which was when they got a -20% + 20% damage profile change. The main issue with this sort of profile damage is that a single Armor hardener (-25% damage resist) can only negate 5 percent of damage while a single shield hardener (-40%) can negate 60% missile damage

With your proposal, missiles would do per clip

10* 540 = 5,400 damage, 4320 vs shields and 6480 vs armor.

Vs 1 Active hardner

5,400 damage, (- 20% profile - 40% hardened = -60%) = 2160 vs shields (+20% - 25% hardned = -5%) 6156 armor.

Still keeps it OP vs armor and UP vs shields.

Proposal:

How about giving it a hybrid damage profile, and keeping it at 12 rounds per magazine.

12 missiles per clip 6480 -10% damage 5832 damage vs shield + 10% = 7128 vs armor

VS hardener active

6480 damage ( - 10% - 40% = -50%) vs shields = 3240 damage

6480 damage ( + 10% - 25% = -15%) vs armor = 5508 damage

We can keep the missile count at 12 and still do less damage vs a hardened armor tank than 10 missiles do against an un hardned tank.

3240 damage can be negated by two ADV heavy shield extenders (giving current gunlogis) 4664 shields
A light shield booster can knock the ehp back up to full in the 12 seconds it takes for a missile tank to reload.
A second hardner negates another 40% damage.

Cons: un hardend shield and armor tanks still will have a rough time of it.

Pros: better balance in the AV turrets that heavily favor anti armor weapons, gives hardened armor tanks a fighting chance, while still leaving shield vehicles the advantage when fighting a missile tanks, just not as large as an advatage they had before.

Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot.

Have you seen the insane proposed PG/CPU stats for the Gallente tanks? They'll be able to fit almost everything. Here's some example fits:

(Used Protofits for used PG/CPU with max fitting skills)
PRO tank: 3822 PG & 1093 CPU
All proto
Large Blaster
2 Small Railguns
Blaster dmg mods
Fuel Injector
Armor Hardener
120mm plate
Heavy rep
Leftover: 960 PG and 213 CPU.

ADV tank: 3227 PG & 930 CPU
Same as above
Leftover: 365 PG and 50 CPU.

STD tank: 3070 PG & 901 CPU
Same as above
Leftover: 208PG and 21 CPU.

The Design Thoughts on Blaster is that "Blaster dps is only constrained by heat" but with the proposed changes, it very quickly becomes Heat, enemy regeneration, range, and Reload. My concern is that with the short magazine size you're going to want to be reloading -constantly- if you want to be ready for what is around the corner and an 8 second reload is pretty harsh considering that you only have enough ammunition for 7.5 seconds of fire, as well as 6 seconds of cool-down 2/3rds into the magazine.

Honestly, I'd say to ditch the heat mechanics all together in that case because there's really not much you can do with that last 1/3 of the clip, apart from kill infantry or really lightly tanked vehicles.

To elaborate: Let's say a player just holds down the trigger until he overheats (we'll factor in dispersion later since Blasters are the only ones that have to deal with this). That means that he can fire continuously for five (5) seconds before he overheats, which takes roughly 6 seconds to cool-down to firing capability (during which the enemy is capable of damage recovery) where he will then only have twenty-five (25) rounds to fire out or about 2.5 seconds of fire for 5000 damage, which may or may not be enough to kill a target that has recovered HP in that duration (due to modules/progression). All while having to stay within range of the target.

EDIT: So it's basically... Fire (5s) Cool-down (6s) Fire (2.5s) Reload (8).

That's -A LOT- going on all once in the heat of a battle and I think it's a bit too much against the Blaster. This isn't touching up on range/dispersion which are also a factor that Missiles and Railguns don't really have to deal with as much.

The higher rate of fire also gives a bit more leeway toward anti-infantry purposes and the higher damage rounds mean that less have to hit, so it's a pretty significant buff toward Anti-Infantry play but then again so is the Railgun's buff to splash.

But again, this is just an amateur tankers opinion. Take it at face value.

Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry.

Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets:

AI <----> AV:
small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun

I've already done that CCP Rattati. No dev response or input.

I do appreciate that you want to bring balance to vehicles which is wonderful but I think that I'm personally beginning to see that you wish to take vehicles in a specific direction that's not particularly interesting to me. As such I wish you luck in your development and balancing efforts. Hopefully you can make vehicles balanced and enjoyable for the other players who favour the existing assets.