I believe Rattati's intention is to buff the resources of hulls such as the Python so that either the use of the PG expander is non-problematic, or unnecessary.

Well Im not defending the choice, but I imagine his train of thought is he was trying to avoid shield vehicles from having too many resources by always using their lows for that purpose.

If anything if he goes this route, we really need more low slot modules that a shield pilot would find useful (and not armor plates).

I think of anything it should be more of an evaluation of the tradeoff you would be making. Currently we pretty much have crap for low slots that a shield tanker would want to fit (aside from resource enhancers). I think what we really need is players to be asking "Well I can have more PG, but I need to give up X in order to do so" by consuming that low slot. So whatever low slot modules they add, then need to be useful enough that using a PG/CPU extender is not a no-brainer idea....get what Im saying?

Well that is an option I suppose but that's not what I was saying.

Like....just as an example, Rattati is adding in Shield Regulators for vehicles. For a MBT (again just as an example), if he uses Infantry reg values, 2 regulators on a Caldari MBT would drop its recharge delay to ~1.8s which is actually pretty good. So for a Caldari MBT user, having those regs in the lows is a valuable thing, OR they can choose go with the longer recharge delay (due to not using the regs) in order to get more CPU/PG by using the Enhancers.

I guess my point is that personally I don't mind shield vehicles making us of resource modules, but I would like there to be an equally attractive alternative they could use instead of PG/CPU mods, so there is actually a sort of tradeoff. Because right now, there's really not much going on for shield vehicles in the lows, so resource mods are often the clear and obvious choice.

But you are right in that any sort of 'cost' for fitting them, if Rattati goes that direction, it needs to be percentage based. You can get away with absolute values for things like Heavy vs Light HP modules, but for generic modules like resource extenders, it needs to scale to the vehicle, so % based is the way to go.

We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners.

Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods

Do you guys always forget to think about ADS? ADS is one shot by a Proto rail with 2 complex damage mods, gunnlogis will now have 5 highs...

The primary issue when we had the 3 slot system was that the Gunnlogi didn't need any modules to have very good regen, so they could fill their 'regen slot' with the second hardener. Had they required a module to get really good regen, the stacking of hardeners would have been non-issue.

His inference was that the Gunnlogi could effectively have a rep/sec rate of 168 (higher than a single complex [with skills V] armour repairer) without having to fit a module at all. That gave it a huge edge over the Madrugar counter part since you could couple that rep rate with higher module based and natural resistances and higher total eHP's.

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.

fairly bold statements there bunky. Historically statements like this have been proven false repeatedly.

if AV isn't to be buffed in response to the new HAVs then we should just leave HAVs as they are now.

compromise: when nobody leaves happy.

But no. You dont get improved tanks and demand that AV be marginalized to worthlessness. That's not a solution.

Plus LAVs are too durable anyway. A militia trash LAV takes multiple shots from proto antitank guns to kill even if no modules are loaded.

Kill LAVs my ass.

You're reaching pretty hard asserting dropships even.

Try again.

Everything you just posted is opinion.

And bluntly I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.

And in what deluded post has anyone in any of the latest HAV threads seriously suggested buffing swarms? My count is at zero. So why are you using swarms as your be-all end-all example?

And you've never seriously entertained nor considered any counterpoint in any post so I'm not exactly inclined to listen to someone who simply dismisses me as a "spreadsheet warrior" or as someone who "Doesn't play the game.

I say again: No one has ever suggested buffing swarms. Quite the opposite in fact.

Why are you using them as your justification for saying AV should never be buffed?

The creating various fits on protofits is part of the community feedback phase, and is designed to help Rattati see if there is anything broken at all. I agree with you that I don't like the heavy-handed approach to hardeners. As well, PG/CPU mods don't need as hard of a nerf as Rattati is giving them as much as they need some competition for utility in the low-slots, beyond just armor mods.

New ADV/PRO HAVs may have the same slot-layout, but they have expanded fitting to allow them to fill those slots out. It isn't the same as dropsuit progression, and in my opinion, it's better and should be how the dropsuits are done.

Swarm Launcher is in a...very powerful place right now, and wouldn't need a change, I'm reasonably sure Breakin, Rattati...and frankly anyone who has seen a swarm launcher in action is aware of that. The Forge Gun (Specifically the VFG and BFG...AFG is in a pretty solid place right now, and might only need slight tweaking) however could use a little bit of help...particularly the BFG... and the PLC's AV Capability is laughable outside of a commando platform, and even then it barely does enough to qualify unless you run double PLCs or a Kubo's. So in that sense, the majority of AV needs some sort of buff, but it would be more accurate to say that AV needs a re-balance, and commando potential AV utility needs to be looked at as well but that's a discussion for a separate thread (that has already been made by pokey). (As do LAVs and DSs...LAVs get too much in the way of base stats...need more slots, lower base stats, better Light Modules...DSs need something)


You are correct, spreadsheets assume spherical mercs in a vacuum, and thus aren't going to ever be where final balance is struck. But they are a great starting point to hammer into a correct shape through testing...and we as the Vehicle Operator/AV community should be focusing on the new stats, and looking for any issues that will come up through the course of normal game-play. It's true that we cannot predict everything, but we can get a pretty good idea based on our past experiences.

Because a maddy now takes 4 forge shots to kill.

Rattatis maddy will require a reload. Possibly a mag and a half depending on regen.

Maddys are buffed. Gunnlogis will be about as hard to kill with a forge as they are now . The 13-16 second TTK I'm quoting is versus the maddy solo assuming no shots up the butt. Using current AV values it's closer to 22 second minimum TTK if you pull every shot perfectly .

The gunnlogis will be significantly harder in both cases. The UHAVs are going to be insane.

AV will require a buff to hit 13-16 second window if your shot placement is perfect.

Swarms will be less stupid vs. The new tanks. They're in the neighborhood of where the new tanks will be Already. I have to rerun their TTK numbers. I have a feeling they're still going tito be a bit too strong.

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.

Just because you two want to have everything and compromise nothing doesn't require the rest of us to be on board or cooperate. But sure, keep banging on the Surya bus when you two are literally the only people on this forum who buy into the idea that the surya wasn't overpowered.

And I don't care about the chrome surya. Rattati has opted to not go with my recommendation to go back to chrome basis for vehicles and AV. I've moved along, and really don't care about what you think things should be, I only care about what they are versus what they will be.

But you two are welcome to try and stonewall everyone else, because it's been kinda amusing watching you bang your heads on the wall.

And less shield regen.
Although I will use 2 light boosters, gunlogis will die even quicker to blasters now.

I have words for tank drivers who hang around long enough for breach forges to fire three times.

they rhyme with Boron, crabgrass, cupid and shrub

And bluntly, nothing should be balanced to survive 3 v 1. that's stupid as hell.

I dunno, does the tank magically get more protection from having two blueberries in the dump seats?

party tanks are a lot harder to kill than standard one-seaters. Not because the small turrets are amazing.

But because one of the passengers jumps out and rips the AV gunner's head off casually. So I'd say it's a pretty damn viable protective measure.

we will, of course laugh like madmen at the thought of a three man tank in PC. We all know no one EVER does that sh*t there.

having the extra seats bring something to the table defensively has never been an objection I have. Even if it's a built-in booster or mini-hardener that the second/third seat can trigger or something. If the defenses take three people to operate then yes, it should absolutely improve the survival of the HAV versus solo AV.

1 player = 1 player HAS to mean something. And no, it can't be a one-way street.

However, the "jump out and shoot the AV" is stupid. it's just as cheesy as JLAVs, which I use whenever I have an HMG jump out to pop my AV fatsuit.

If an HAV takes three people to operate at max capacity, then the three AV to kill ratio becomes reasonable.

But as long as it only requires one player to run at max defensive capacity? Then no. it's still really one player versus one player. because the two smalls are rarely useful due to hit detection stupidity, and they'll just jump out and shoot the AV player with a rail rifle or whatever.

Except an epic almost 1000 DPS increase depending on your turret and two pairs of eyes to communicate the locations of HAV, DS, LAV as you drive...... that's can and does make you much more powerful than you would normally be.

I never said that the two extra turrets is worthwhile.

But some people want the option.

I could care less if a tank had one person or ten.

Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives.

I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY.

HAV doesn't take 3-10 people to run at peak power, does it? It only takes one and has only ever taken one. The secondary gunners have only ever been tagalongs at best.

Nice attemt at twisting my words. You're better at it thaN the usual suspects.

Takahiro let me summarize every argument you and spkr have made.

"Golly, I can't wait for fragmented missiles so I can efficiently kill some infantry"

Rather frequently combined with "It is inherently unfair that infantry AV can 1v1 tanks."

Translation: "Y'all crops are gettin' awfully uppity about this here harvest day thing."

You want the ability to slaughter infantry with efficiency, but do not want said victims to be able to fight back with any semblance of efficiency.
you argue that three bpdies in a tank, two of which provide another 100-150% effective firepower should allow you to be invulnerable to anything but three AV when the defensive capacity of the HAV DOES NOT CHANGE.

You are also both historically the loudest haters of people defiling your tanks by climbing aboard, have flat out said that unless you have twice and more the EHP of a main battle tank in a marauder that it is pointless to use, at that point are you ever, at all interested in anything resembling balance?

Every argument the two of you have made is in summation when looked at as a whole:

I want tanks to be invulnerable EZ Mode.

You want the ability to kill and destroy everything on field. But if the crops you're farming are able to kill back it's unfair.

So tell me, oh wise one.

Exactly when does anything resembling "balance" come into play? Because from closed beta to today, every single post from Red Star on the topic of AV/V and vehicle balance has been "I pay ISK, and in return I expect to be immune to retaliation."

Yet more of the same. Just because you claim not to speak for R* the message doesn't change.

It's also amazing, your theories on my motivation.

My assertions are based on what you have said. Your counterarguments on my intent have nothing to do with anything I have said or presented your arguments are entirely based on what you assume I mean when I have been pretty direct in my intent.

You have been remarkably adept at playing coy by comparison.

Your stated playstyle preference seems, based on your comments and your direct statements involves an automatic win. With no recourse for a majority of the playerbase.

not one thing you have said has been based on any numbers, no evidence. Just assertions of intent and twisting the words of people who disagree.

As long as you campaign for tanks to be a win button that can't be fought by the majority of the playerbase, then the playerbase will campaign to keep your playstyle nerfed into the ground.

And thus far you, spkr and docDDD (Hi Ripper!) Are the only people in the last four months besides lazer got banned who assert that I'm being unreasonable.

sorry dude, I lost interest when you resorted to name calling to make a point. Which you're incapable of without a hefty dose of anecdotal opinion. Sorry to tell you vehicles aren't the central focus of the game. And I think this conversation has abundantly demonstrated the fact that you're not interested in Rattati's HAVs because they aren't overpowered enough.

Later.

Please do remember that I am currently looking at a Surya fit right now with

Shields: 2135
Armour: 8867

That's a 3/5 Tank as you all well know. Fit up very well, with 25% damage reducing hardeners that lasted over 30 seconds with a very short cool down, damage control unit, and a Heat Sink.

That's also coupled with a pin point accurate blaster that deal 180.1 damage per round.......

AV these days wouldn't have had a chance against that. We'd have everything we need, range, power, durability. One of the best aspects about the old style of Chromo/Uprising Tanking AV I think was that if AV could engage us, providing you guys had rendered we could also engage you back.