shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here.

that's probably because you're not doing what I do and playing showdown at high noon with said HAVs.

Look. I'm AV, I'm infantry.

I'm NOT going to advocate making it harder to hit or kill infantry.

Bluntly this puts the Cal and Gal tanks on equal standing roughly.

By my estimation that's a damn awesome thing.

Now if we have anti-shield heavy weapons and a heavy autocannon introduced we can really get down to business.

And once the amarr/min stuff pops up..

I'm drooling at the prospect of all these juicy fireballs.

Rattati got it right. Armor HAVs will be vulnerable to armor hitting weapons and highly resistant to shield crackers. Vice versa for shields.

it's amazing

Show me a rep fit that can beat an IAFG Doc. Pics or it didn't happen.

and Forge guns will be weak vs. shield tanks so working as intended. Means we need anti-shield AV.

Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots!

Not reallyly the same outcome dude. Any kind of alpha will destroy that fit. Around the same armor as the current Maddy, less shield, with around 300 hp/s. Missiles in the weak spot bro.

HAHAHAHAHAHA Like I ever do that.

You poor naive person, you. I don't ever play by the tanker's rules.

Because you always lose when you do.

Your scenario is IMHO utterly stupid, and I'll never play that silly little game. I'll disengage and hit you from another angle before I play peekaboo.

Actually unless you were redlining I almost never do that.

Plus if you redline like that I'll just load up a JLAV and suicide you. I even have suicide AV fits just for that kind of thing.

plus it helps your cause that shield tanks eat somewhere around 7-8 forge shots on average

It also helps that I have suicide AV fits just to be a cheap lemming till you explode

The Armor advantage is in being able to aim much lower than the shield tank, not higher. I can only assume it was designed this way because they are the close range brawlers, and were supposed to deal with infantry and close range targets. Gunlogis were not, they should and do have a rough time of CQC fights vs infantry, or infantry counter measures like proximity mines. But the caldari are better at long range fights, the gallente at close in one.

Asymtrical, sure. But its still balanced as is.

UHAV defenses are highly likely to be resistance to infantry AV, but no particular efficiency vs. tank turrets. so expecting a UHAV to weather a storm of railgun or blaster fire may very well be a pipe dream.

Actually most people asked for requiring the Gunnlogi to fit a module to get it regen as high as it was, since its natural regen would outclass even the best armor repairer. the added effect at the time was shield pilots would need to swap a hardener for a recharger if they wanted to enjoy regen around 200hp/s. Obviously things are a bit different given the fact that there are more slots.

Now I know some others have asked for it, but I've always been against the 1 Hardener limit, and instead advocated for a more uniform resistance model (ie both armor and shields closer to the 30%-35% range with an increase to shield base HP to compensate for the loss in resistance % per hardener. so that stacking them causes a less extreme jump in eHP.

Passive Regen still needs to die in a fire, it's too hard to balance. Passive Regen should be slow to take light damage, active regen to temporarily rep through incoming DPS.

Well when "most people" spend most time complaining about how much they hate everything rather than offering tangible solutions, those producing actual feedback are taken the most seriously.

Also I've said, many times, that hardeners in general need to be redone on both fronts.

Also note that I never said shield vehicles should need a module to start shield reps. I have no issue with them repping naturally without any modules needed. What I did have an issue with is the natural shield recharge outclassing even the best armor repairer with zero module investment...again, it leads to balance issues. And no, throwing more CPU at the Madrugar would not change this fact.

And you're right, a CALDARI vehicle using a GALLENTE turret against a tanking style SPECIFICALLY designed to counter low sustained damage in a range which is not supposed to be well suited for a shield tanking style...you're going to lose. Working as intended. If you want to be a close range blaster sustained brawler, use a Gallente HAV. If you want longer range burst damage, use a Caldari HAV. It's not complicated.

Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for.

Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that ***** up and wear it.



So you just want to buff both hardeners but maintain the fact that shield hardeners still have a massive difference in percentage, thus maintaining the issue we currently have? Also, why exactly do we have a huge difference between armor and shield hardeners? They're nearly identical in EVE for a reason.

And yeah........no vehicle should be passively repping at 200 hp/s constantly, armor or shield, especially with resistances.

Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust.

Give me a compelling answer to WHY there should be so many large differences. Convince me why the current system is better than how it works in EVE, I can be reasoned with.

This is basically it as you describe.

Active = High volume
Passive = Low volume

players should be progressing towards active as it rewards skill, but passive is easier to cope with as a new pilot.

Shouldn't be forced to fit armor reps to be able to recuperate, so native reps, very low.

An offensive action, should be countered with another action (hardening, boosting, active repping) and that in turn should be countered by maneuevering into the back (fuel injector or weak spot), or active dmg modding.

3 complex damage mods on a proto rail and you can take 90% of a tanked ADS's HP.

The 4 second delay was incredibly manageable. In many respects too easy to manage for the prolific nature of the reps that did not require a module.

I've basically be using the two common Gunnlogi fits since their inception.....half the reason the 5300 one works as well as it does is that it has enough hardened and unhardened tank to survive until you could get your shield regen to kick in.

It was basically a passive tank for all intents and purposes but with significantly higher rep values than it should have had. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that a passive shield rep rate take 90 seconds without imput from boosters.

But you are not considering that those reps were nothing to do with anything I fitted. So while an Armour tank might have been able to rep 500 armour between when its repair start and my regen start that Madrugar consumed PG and CPU to fit that as well as a low slot that could have been reserved for another module.

So in terms of contemporary fittings where the Madrugar is forced to fit at least one repair module to keep it functional on the battlefield and Gunnlogi never did since it was always taken for granted that those shield values would passively repair after a set amount of time essentially cementing the value of a high eHP tank using hardeners and extenders in a situation it was undeserving of.

Not to mention if Rattati goes ahead and adds Regulators, 2 complex regs will drop the recharge delay to 1.8 seconds.....faster than most infantry AV weapons can refire. It'll be awesome.

You are not supposed to passively for any reason repair a significant amount of HP during Large Turret reloads. Prolific regeneration is the sole domain of active modules.

Yup Passive Armour reps need to die in a fire.

Ideally the conflict between shield and armour mods should be intense enough that fitting both is less valuable than fitting on single tank type.

I agree that Shield Boosters need to work under fire. I'm not sure what voodoo needs to happen behind the scenes to make this work, but it is problematic. I also have no issue with passive armor repairers, I see them as 'cap stable' modules but as such need to be much much lower...like 30-50HP/s for heavy reps. Active armor reps should be very powerful however.

Naw, WAY higher than that!

But anyways, you aren't "sacrificing" anything when you fit a nitro. Used properly, it works just like any other defensive module would work. Too many people get caught up in this idea that HP and Defense are the only way to go.

Speed is key in engagements. It comes down to fitting either an extender, booster, or nitro. All viable options, with the latter booster and nitro being a bit stronger in my opinion for staying power. This is of course using double hardeners. That way you can stack some armor for a bit added D.

Don't knock it til you try it. I've noticed a lot of PC players using it, in addition to the booster over a nitro. My high defense fits couldn't stack up which is why I was forced to adapt. Speed is key, can't kill it if you can't hit it.

Don't get stuck in the box, step out every now and again. It's more or less how I imagine a Dhav would work.

Broken mechanics, I can hardly agree with that one.

You honestly can't call it broken hit detection when where your shot is no longer where the other tank is. I've come against this and used it, and it requires you to slow down when it comes to dealing with it. And the nitro works against the user just as much as it can work for them.

You think it's hard hitting a nitro gunnlogi, try hitting something while using that nitro. It's not exactly "easy". Then there's the fact that by using one, you are sacrificing tank so you honestly can't eat too many shots.

As for your last part, honestly man, it just doesn't apply. You are ALWAYS predicting movement when using the rail. You don't shoot at distant targets (dropships are good examples) by simply aiming exactly where they are at. You always lead. It's not hit detection, it's simply you missing your shot.

I mean I'm not trying to be a **** here, I've just come across a few tankers that were able to compensate for the change in acceleration and over come it. As I myself have done before against them. You recognize what you are fighting and compensate in whatever way needed. I've never seen any indication that the hit detection itself was "broken" as you indicate.

It's simply that I was aiming forward and firing as they either stop in their tracks or move backward or forward. And it's honestly not hard to compensate or even predict their movements. Sure you are going to miss but that's their D, and if you are stacked more than them, you can take those few shots they are putting out more than they can take them.

Nothing "broken" there, just a mechanic that requires a different approach to handling. And it's not like that nitro last forever. If things stay as planned, you are going to really hate the Dhav. Speed is key, and when we say speed is key that means AVOID being hit, rather then taking hits.

You keep talking anecdotal opinion and ignore the fact yhat my numbers for TTK basically require that the AV gunner be God's Gift to tankbusting of for the tank to be driven by an oblivious idiot.

It assumes somehow the AV gunner can put all of his shots directly on the HAV without interruption, interference or cchance of missing.

Swarms are NOT included in my TTK delusions or recommendations. They are problematic at best and I refuse to touch them to use or for balance suggestions unless a mechanical rework is on the table.

But if an HAV driver ALLOWS an AV gunner to hammer him nonstop without interference (even if that's moving behindcover and siccing squadmates on him) then he deserves to die.

You should see my recommendations for the UHAV. I'm pushing for 14,000 EHP vs. Infantry AV. With AV balanced to combat MBTs running between 6,000 and 9,000 HP with difficulty solo.

But keeping the UHAVs somewhere around 6-9k versus tank turrets.

I don't care if other infantry will think it's unfair. I think it'll be hilarious.

And my fully skilled, triple modded, maxed out AV guns cap out right around where an unskilled, unmodded railgun starts at for DPS on rattati's scale. So no. AV will not be better at killing tanks than tanks do if I have my way.

So unkillable unless a squad of six is working together and gets basically 1 shot at dropping a Laser Strike per match. I know it's not quite the same in PC, but you do realize that you would almost never die in pubs right?

Well you're assuming AV is staying the same, which it is not, so....

And I don't think a single AV player should be able to cripple a tank with one magazine, that is ridiculous.

EDIT: Let me clarify. I don't have an issue with HAVs gaining extremely high eHP. I do have an issue with them having it constantly. Back in the day my typical fits had 3 hardeners which I would typically cycle to have a near constant hardened state. However if **** hit the fan I could pop all 3 at once and my repper and make my eHP skyrocket to tank through just about anything, but then suffer from a lengthy downtime. I would much prefer that sort of model where you either have the option to run in a hardenened state for a longer period of time, or flip them all on if you really need to tank through some nasty AV for a short time.

This is really my primary gripe with the way the design went, and it was made even worse with the 1 hardener limit.

Your tank or tanking skills must be gawdawfull if you die in 4 seconds.....

I was thinking more......drive away through a clear escape route you left yourself and was not too far from?...... I've been driving all morning and seen some really nasty AV combinations..... and just reversed away.

That's not to hard is it?

That's the point. Why bother with complex manoeuvres that get you killed when simple ones keep you alive and killing.

Exactly.

But more to the point you don't need the redline to find cover. Cover is everything around you from the side of a building to the slight incline of a hill that puts you below a Gunnlogi's barrel depression, a turret, anything that can screen or otherwise throw off enemy shots.

If you are in a city socket then you personally need to account for it as you enter, find yourself a location that gives you room to manoeuvre or fire on your enemies, pre-plan an escape route, etc but most of all accept that urban warfare is not where tanks excel.

I'm still struggling to understand where you drew the exaggerated 2 second TTK from especially on a tank....... either HTFU or try out a game like War Thunder which does tank simulation better and has varying TTK depending on where you place your shots, etc. Could be any thing from a OHKO to 1-2 mins or slugging it out.

Edit- Also for a tanker I can accept my KDR is pretty bad for a tanker but I was an assault for a couple of months before I picked up tanking and a partial Commando during the abysmal 1.7 patch when we were so over powered it wasn't even funny.

Dunno where you're getting your numbers, currently a triple mod IAFG get 657 DPS. not 700. That's versus armor. versus a gunnlogi, they cap out at 468 DPS.

So no, 700 DPS is misleading.

the Swarm launcher, however... Not so misleading.

On paper vs. armor is 1505 DPS with three damage mods, versus shields it's 872. In both cases far outstripping the forge gun by more than double. In fact the DPS versus shields appears to be higher than the forge gun DPS vs. armor.

The minmando does a base 1575 DPS versus armor, and the sustained fire coming from the reload bonus does the rest.

But the minmando isn't the problem when the base weapon cracks out 1505 DPS.

Just because you CAN fit the LaiDais on the suit, doesn't mean it'll be a good choice, or that the suit will be survivable long enough to kill said tank, since the laidai does less damage than the IAFG overall, and bluntly is much harder to get into range with.

and since it can take upwards of eight forge gun shots to kill a gunnlogi? No, four shots and two laidais don't kill everything. Not reliably enough to be counted on, or taken seriously as a viable AV setup.

Judging all AV by the performance of the swarm launcher is a hilarious and misleading argument, and bluntly it's getting old.

LOL ambush.

there's a lot of whining about OMS and vehicles. It's pure magic.

suck up the pain and spawn AV.

And the gunnlogi is OP. Pure and simple. It's only effectively stopped by another gunnlogi, which has been the developer definition of OP> A thing that can only effectively be countered by itself.

Citing a glitch as a downside is not a valid argument. Obviously glitches happen in the turrets and should be fixed, but they shouldn't be considered a "downside" to an asset as they are to be fixed eventually.

Additionally you're leaving out many of the advantages that turrets (and the vehicles they are attached to) have over infantry in an attempt to make it look more one sided than it really is. For example the TTK of an infantry with a large turret is far shorter than an AV weapon attacking a vehicle in a direct confrontation. The AV's ability to readily use elevation and cover is a means to offset this advantage.

Additionally as you stated, vehicles are very large and easy to hit compared to an infantryman, this is why they are capable of much higher movement speeds to help offset their larger target. Even if the AV chases the enemy HAV down in an LAV, they're incapable of doing appreciable damage before the HAV is out of weapon range again.

I'm not saying the balance is quite right, but you're really only presenting half of the argument.

Fair point, but I suppose what I was getting at is that if Turrets are to be lethal the infantry, then AV should be more than "supplementary damage". Obviously there are a number of factors to consider aside from simply aside from damage and defense, which is why this is such a difficult problem. However these are topics best left for other threads, lest be continue to derail the kitten out of this one.

I believe it safe to say that AV will be seeing a balance pass of some sort, so it's more or less pointless to argue values at this stage, at least in this thread. So lets try to get back to the topic at hand, which is address the fittings of the vehicle, and not so much how it stacks against current AV.

I seem to recall having to fit PG/CPU modules to get it all to fit....though I know I wasn't putting a Blaster on it so that might some of the issue? Are you short on PG, CPU, or both?

Ok I just did a full complex 4Extender 1 Hardener fit on a SHAV. Even without a turret, you're pretty much maxed on PG (2573/2610) and thats with nothing in the lows.

Now...if a fit should be full proto or not is an entirely different argument so I won't comment on that at this time, but at the very least the fitting between the Madrugar and Gunnlogi needs to be fair. I'm not sure how much you've played around with Madrugar fits but I'll lay out what I've experienced so far. Note that I've just been playing with the SHAVs specifically, but it shouldn't really matter for a MBT since they have effectively the same resources to work with.

• It's very difficult to fit full proto low slots. Typically I ended up with Complex Hardener, Complex Repairer, and x2 Enhanced 120mm Plates
• I fit a Prototype Large Blaster
• I was unable to fit all of my high slots with utility modules. Complex Scanner, Enhanced Damage Modifier, Basic Injector

So again I'm not stating an opinion weather a proto tank should be able fit full proto or not, I'm simply stating what needs to happen with the Gunnlogi fitting if it is to be fair with the Madrugar fitting

• About half of its highs should be proto
• About half of its highs should be enhanced
• It should be able to fit utility mods in the lows (Ammo Cache doesn't count) that have an average tier of Enhanced

Now this is....impossible to do since we don't have any low utility modules that aren't ammo caches, but I think it would fair to call Regulators (which from my understanding are still in the plan) "utility" modules. So *assuming the Madrugar is the baseline* I imagine a Gunnlogi would look something like this

Complex Shield Hardener
Complex Shield Extender
Complex/Enhanced Shield Extender
Enhanced Shield Extender
Enhanced Shield Extender

Enhanced Shield Regulator
Enhanced Shield Regulator

Prototype Turret (I'd say make it difficult to fit a Proto Blaster on a Gunnlogi, same with making it difficult to fit Missiles on a Madrugar. I'd put Rails right in the middle)

Again this comes back to the fundamental issue that passive regen is basically the only thing we get. It puts WAY too much emphasis on eHP which is going to make shield extenders feel like they're not worth it next to plates.

I mean without getting into a shouting match, I could see a situation where the shield HAV is capable of fitting full proto highs if it dedicates its utility slots to PG/CPU enhancers. That being said, a half complex half enhanced Gunnlogi with utilitiy in its low, still needs to remain viable if that similar setup on the Madrugar is also viable.

Well if you're leaving slots empty, sure that'll obviously free up resources. But it's very difficult to fit full proto defenses on an armor HAV and still fill *all* of its slots. If a shield tank wants to leave its lows empty to fit full proto, that seems reasonable as well.

Honestly I've always seen the use of CPU/PG enhancers (at least on dropsuits) as a "wasted" fit and really only use them if I'm doing something very specific/weird with the fit. I think an asset should be able to be fit properly without PG/CPU extenders. Now regardless of what defines "proper fit" it needs to be fair for all vehicles within the class.

So you're right, if the Madrugar can fit full proto by leaving some slots empty, it seems reasonable that the Gunnlogi should be able to do the same. One thing you do need to look out for is the fact that main defense modules will almost always cost a lot more than a utility module, so the tradeoff can't always been seen as entirely equivalent.

At the same time you also don't want the PG/CPU modules to feel completely pointless because the base fitting gives you everything you could ever want, you know? It's a weird balance.


Heres just a random thought....what if the natural regen of the Gunnlogi was dropped down, the option to fit a recharger to boost the passive regen up was introduced, and shield boosters were a bit easier to fit but more importantly cooled down far more quickly so they could be activated on a more regular basis.

EDIT: Hell I'd even throw in you might keep the recharge delay penalty on the shield extenders but give a slight recharge rate bonus as well....though a recharger module would be a significantly higher increase to rate.