http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751
http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751

I don't see the point in the SHAV?

Point out the things that you feel should be changed, from what and to what. Also support it with sound arguments. Don't get into fights with your friends . It's fairly easy once you get the hang of it.

Rattati, you may want to tone back the costs associated with the fitting mods...as has been stated, ADSs are almost entirely dependent on them...(The unfortunate part of a rebalance of the system the way you have it is you hit everything that uses the module types at the same time)

as for the HAV side of things...consider re-tuning the Shield Booster fitting cost. Shield boosters are very...temperamental...to use right now, and the punishing fitting cost doesn't help them look like a reliable choice.

As for armor hardeners...while it seems like a lower resistance for a shorter time is pretty good...they end up falling flat. The engagement window for HAVs is so small when someone has AV (doesn't matter if it's man portable or on a vehicle, so long as the operator is competent), that for armor HAVs there is hardly a point to hardeners...30% resistance would be a nice start...and shouldn't result in too much of an extreme result (other than the possibility that Incubi become a little harder to shoot down...) especially considering the limit of 1 hardener (of each type) per fit.

I don't think fitting 4 high-tiered heavy heavy mods like that is going to be accepted. Downgrade an extender or the booster. Personally, I'd just run small boosters since the heavies take waaaaay to much pg as is.

http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/9084

Here's my try at a full blown proto fit Gunnlogi.

4.8k shield base. Two boosters help keep off infantry AV without having to waste the booster, and vs another tank gives about as much as a heavy shield booster, plus come back in 30s with skills and instantly restarts regen.

With the hardener, it gets 8k shield. Full proto, no fitting mods, not even max skills in fitting.

So I have a gunnlogi fit that has 6175 Shields but only 900 armor.

with the hardener active it has 9509 shield EHP. vs railgun profiles without including the armor

against plasma profiles it has 7780 EHP without the armor.

Gladius

3x complex heavy extenders
Complex shield hardener
Complex Rail damage mod
Prototype Rail Gun
2x STD small rails
Complex CPU mod
Complex PG mod.

Estimated shots to break shields from a triple-modded IAFG: 6.25 shots to break the shields alone. Since Forge guns are single shot alpha we have to round this up to a 7 shot TTK

Very not bad survivability.

shield boosters are too expensive, even with the mods in the back end unless I downgrade it sharply

Never mind you and I have very different definitions of "crappy regen"

triple repper?

HAHAHAHAHA. that;s the definition of a shitfit

all regen, no buffer means my forge gun's going to net me THOUSANDS of warpoints. it's a stupid build.

That's too bad because it probably won't stick around and fight back.

Nitro AWAAAAAAAAY!

I HOPE you run away!

Gives me a clear shot at your tailpipe.

Don't worry, I'm surprisingly gentle.

on another note, wasn't the PG mod supposed to be a high slot item?

BRB, writing a new fanfic.

I'll call it...

Fifty Shades of Gunnlogi

I'll post some thoughts when I get home and can look at the numbers.

However,

* Hardeners Nerf - if only one can be used then go back to old 60%/40% shield/armor otherwise you see tanks for about 3 seconds as it drives past you to the redline, if it comes out of the redline at all. TTK will be far too low.

ie: every fit will stack extenders or plates ( cookie cutter ) with shield repair delay being worse than immediate armor rep, the age of the nitro armor (300ish immediate reps / second ) being the only vehicle more than 100m out of the redline is upon us.

Shield tanks will be stuck keeping within 5 seconds of cover in the redline and every infantry AV player will be screaming for nerfs. Armor tanks will be able to at least rep behind cover for a few seconds and fit a nitro in a non-tank slot. Just like infantry, shield tanks will rely on cover, the best of whichwill be the rredline.

If fits will be limited to one hardener, shields will be doing a lot less 'tanking' for that 24 seconds.

Well, it makes sense that the Gallente would be better at using their own weapons in the close quarters combat, and Caldari would falter using the enemy turret in a range Caldari are not designed for.


Regardless, I have serious concerns with regen rates in general. I think keeping the status quo where passive regeneration being the primary means of tanking, is going to self destruct in terms of design. Tanks really should have more HP, less regen, and move a bit slower if unmodded.

http://www.protofits.com/fittings/view/1134/6066

same thing i run now as my anti tank fit... except more eHP than before lol and STILL proto turrets

6655 raw shields plus complex hardener and triple proto rails. since shield boosters are broken.

---

http://www.protofits.com/fittings/view/1134/11806

my anti infantry tank. by downgrading the cpu mod to a basic cpu, you can swap out the proto rails from the previous fit to proto blasters.

Quick feedback:
- If shield hardeners are a problem, reduce their effectiveness while increasing uptime. Basically make them more "armor hardener"-like. Those aren't a problem, thus we can avoid a heavy-handed mechanic like a one-module-per-fit restriction.
- If those are going to be the new PG-modules I see two ways of going ahead:
a) Increase each DS's (all 6 of them) fitting resources by two complex PG extenders worth of CPU. This is the easier option.
b) Increase each DS's (all 6 of them) fitting resources by one-to-two complex PG extenders worth of PG and create some sort of useful low-slot shield modules and high-slot armor modules.
- Before I'm going to do any theory-crafting on future dropships I will wait for final numbers on large turrets. Dropship balancing, to me, very much comes down to how many damage amped pro railgun shots it can tank in relation to how many shots a pro railgun can deliver before overheating.
As far as I can see - after a few minutes of reading this thread - a (N)DS will need to tank over 10k hp of raildamage in one go to be useful.

Caldari aren't the CQC ones.

How are you guys generating a share link for the fits? I can't see the option on proto fits.

A blaster madrugar will tear a blaster gunni a new *sshole from the looks of this. Madrugar if you fit a pair of complex 120s, a hardener and a rep, you may only be able to fit a fuel injector up top but DAMN that thing will eat shields.

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

It seems like a pretty opportune time to address Shield Booster mechanics actually, if they worked at all how they were intended to work (ie. if they weren't interruptable during the boosting process) then I think Shield Tanks would be in a much more competitive position. Before they were able to mitigate the problems revolving around Shield Boosters because their fits were comparatively ridiculous, that's no longer the case.

welp, lemme see. two builds side by side:

Madrugar 2 complex plate, complex hardener Doesn't take into account any reps: looks like 5 shots to kill from an IAFG. so requires a reload unless experimental or officer, assuming no misses. With a Plasma Cannon (opposite profile, similar damage) it'll take 7 Verdict: Buffed.

Gunnlogi with 3 complex extenders and hardener: Plasma cannon will kill it in 5 shots. IAFG will kill it in 7. this isn't including the capacity for a LSB, which could change both TTKs. Verdict: roughly status quo.

Oh no!

Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots!

sure.

exclusively in knife fighting (for tanks) range.

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

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130202081345/falloutequestria/images/6/6a/War_Machine.png

I raise you one Brotherhood of steel powered armor pony.


Back to the other issue.

Elevation on all HAVs needs to go.

Needs to move to the turret base instead. Blasters should have the widest range until other rapid firing weapons make it in that are more suitable for AA work.

Missiles and rails should have the slowest elevation gains and lowest limits as missiles as are mostly useless against air targets to begin with and rails are simply too powerful against most dropships in a manner most similar to a large rail vs any lav.

Pokey, I think I have a better Cv.0 fit, but it's using CPU and PG upgrades:
For 964 less shield eHP, it gains 1950 HP every 40s which is really great if the shield booster would never fail.

3x assorted repairers
2x assorted plates
basic railgun
assorted nitros etc in highs

+ ANY SORT OF COVER COMPARABLE TO THE COVER YOU ARE US ING WITH YOUR FORGE.

beats you as in I back up for 4 or 5 seconds in cover and outrep your damage where a shield tank will need around 14 to 20 seconds.

clear enough picture ?

The problem is the spreadsheet wizards and AV players are trying to balance around EHP, like there is weapon that unleashes 12000 damage in one second that will pop one tank but not the other. The reality is:

Shield hardeners increase ehp for 24 seconds base
Armor hardeners increase ehp for 36 seconds base
Ehp over the first 4 seconds of every tank battle will have most madrugars repping 1200 damage into additional ehp, more if hardened.
Shield damage threshold ( which armor does not have a version of) further reduces shield Ehp the longer the battle ensues.

AV players should not decide that which they do not understand.

It makes sense that you want mmore nerfs being an AV player, try not to be so obvious about it.

Unfortunately ratatti decided he wants shield tanks in the redline rail sniping while armor tanks nitro around the map repping 300 hps.

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

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.

I think the issue has to do with total fitted regen capability of the Shield HAVs (What with boosters being both...Temperamental (Possibly Flat out Broken) and extremely expensive to fit). To where, with modules as-is it takes the Shield HAVs longer to regen than it would for them to withdraw from to the redline, recall, and then call in another vehicle...(dependent on fits ofc...but holds true for most MBT-style fits)

I agree that base regen needs to be lower than what it was, but the shield HAVs need fitting options to support that change

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

Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game.

Maybe when turrets are finished. Right now we just have the base tank hulls. There's still the DHAVs and UHAVs, and probably later down the line the logi ships and LAVs.

I want the small fragmented to put on my Python to make all the reds rage.

I have been holding in four replies:

First - Anti Tank specific AV could be really easy, just make the planted REs more plentiful (we are making mine fields) and make them super effective against tanks specifically. Then things like PLC and SWARMs don't need a super buff. The forge gun needs a buff period, sorry but that was a bad couple of nerfs it got. Focus on AV to counter tanks in particualr, perhaps add a second super weak spot on the under side. Then increase ammo count on Vehicle REs, make it so tankers don't get a warning when close to REs, and remove the bandwidth on them.
AV can deny tanks areas by planting mine fields, but infantry can scan for them and blow them up for the tanks while making themselves vulnerable. It forces teamwork and both sides are happy. Don't buff dmg because LAVs already get blown to pieces by vehicle REs and we don't want them getting the infantry with the vehicles.

Second - Does CCP foresee tanks being able to aim their turrets upward more? If so, then ADS will be swatted out of the air with the new faster tank builds and weapon buffs. If not, could we get one of the small turrets to be capable of aiming upwards. Force a trade off for arming this turret, but I hate when swarmers are too high for me to shoot at and I have to step out of my tank to fire on them because there isn't an incline for me to aim up. Same for ADS fighting tanks, upward incline needs supports red line rail sniping.

Third - I don't agree with the blaster buff. That seems a little overkill to make it the anti infantry and anti vehicle weapon of choice. I know missiles really are the king of tank weaponry but blasters should be forced to be either anti infantry or anti vehicle. I hate seeing a neutron blaster take down a rail tank even if the pilot is more skilled. One tank is focused on not killing infantry and he still loses because the blaster is able to fight other tanks. You talk about trade offs, if you buff the blaster it will be the only weapon on tanks going forward IMO. Could we get some numbers on deaths caused by different tank main guns?

Four - Installations need to be buffed so that tanks fear them. Sorry tankers, but the installations can't move, are usually poorly placed and can't be replaced by calling in a new one. These installations need to be useful again if you are buffing tanks like this it will be a race to blow these up for the free WP. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a tanker rage at blue berries hacked turrets. I will leave that one for another thread, but something to consider with new tank hulls.

Otherwise these sound awesome for making some tanks nothing but damage sponges and some lighting assault tanks!

Thanks for the advice, but then I become the redline rail sniper (I have done that before like everyone else). I don't want to be that guy. Railguns are only effective against heavies, snipers, installations, and vehicles (Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a master tanker.). If they make blasters effective against tanks, infantry, installations, and everything else, then why wouldn't everyone use them? Missiles still will do more dmg currently and have smaller clips, but I foresee a HMG similar nerf going to blasters where they will increase reload times and reduce range to balance the use.

Everyone what do you think? That way tank weapons reflect their preferred range and adversary. Also this could add a racial slant.

Blasters for infantry and shield tanks, (HMG equivalent)
Railguns for tank to vehicle and armor, (Forge Gun equivalent)
missiles for mid range and hybrid dmg. (AR equivalent)

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.

Well last I checked, putting regulators in was on Rattati's plan, which is why I used it as an example.

And yes i would like the return of many of those old low slot modules. I miss my Nano fit vehicles.

But yes, I want valuable low slot modules so there are more options besides more resources.

I think those OH guys I faced last night in PC would beg to differ on that nitro. Worked well on those hovering ADS as well:)

Ok...Starting to do some comparisons for people to reference

I use two General Defense types for Gunnlogi fits
Type 1s are dual extender, single hardener
Type 1 R/R
Type 1 R/B
Type 1 R/D

These are the three I run most often, mostly because they're what my usual squadmates like to use

I also will occassionally run a type 2 fitting (Dual Hardener, 1 Extender or utility mod)
Type 2 R/D-s

Ok...those are for a frame of reference of where I'm coming from, I prefer Tank to Gank on my HAVs...and currently stand a solid chance in any HAV v HAV engagement...

Here are some of the fittings I've been cooking up for the Gladius:
R/R-T - The Raw HP this beast can get is impressive to say the least, but requires extremely high skills to achieve...although the ADV extender can be dropped for a utility module instead (Damage AMP and the like)
R/B-B Fair HP, with a booster and Nitro to help it in sticky situations, I wouldn't want to use it HAV v HAV without fire support, and the Booster hits your overall fitting potential by a ton.

R/D-TsA Tanky Gladius, where I drop a little bit of the HP to gain a mCRU, should prove useful as a forward fire base (If it had more seats, blues know to hop out of the turrets, or people could spawn outside the vehicle)

Those are some of the things I've been messing around with, the small turrets remain largely interchangeable, so picking the right smalls for the job (or your squadmates) should be pretty easy...just wish they could get ADV gun fitting on there at the least

I'm looking at fittings for the Marduk right now, but my initial fittings say it's low a tad on CPU (Not nearly to the degree they used to be) and a bit short on PGU...and extra 35-40 CPU and a 40-50 PGU boost would help them immensely

That is something I'm not aware of. I know the passive players have issues with stacking.....but not active hardeners since I never use them.

Not possible to fit on my ships.

I use either a speed tanked Slicer or smaller ships like the Tormentor/Coercer. (the former being passive tanked for a really nice allotment of eHP for Scrambrawling, the latter actually being Shield Tanked to allow for increased DPS and range in fleet ops).

Y'know one day I dream of having to load tanks with Ancillary Charges, Ammunition, Flares or ECM Scripts, Cap Boosters..... etc

So that tanks actually function like terrestrial EVE ship counterparts

REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing.

That's the plan if they ever get put in the game. Oh how I fantasise over that beautiful tank.

- Rolled Homogeneous Tungsten Carbide Armour
- 180mm Graphene Layered Armour Plates
- Reduced Antimatter Reactor Systems
- Modified Tesserect Capacitor Resevoirs
- Dual Focused Pulse Lasers
- LADAR ECM Modules

((According to CCP Falcon Amarr use this stuff on ships.... I'd assume they used similar tech on their ridiculously supped up vehicles)

*Dribbles a bit....

To be fair to Sparky, there's not much of a difference. Yea, you can still 4 shot a maxed out Maddy. That is a thing now.

After the balance pass, no. And To be fair to you and Breakin, a PROTO Swarm fired at a Soma should break easily.

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.

Up to halfway through Codex, and then again for like a week in Chromo. And you could argue 1.7

Im not sure what fit you're using for your Madrugar but its obviously a bit different from mine.

Complex Armor Hardener
Complex Armor Repairer
Enhanced 120mm Armor Plate
Enhanced 120mm Armor Plate

Basic Fuel Injector
Enhanced Damage Mod
Complex Scanner

Proto Large Blaster

1200 Shield HP
5600 Armor HP
7000 Armor eHP (Hardened)

That's quite a bit more than 4k-4.5k armor, are you only using one plate? Looks like 1 Complex Plate pushes you around 4.5k armor or so.

Yes i try and teleport away but can't remember the button.

Gee that sounds super complicated, tanks go backwards?


On a serious note, AV infantry sometimes wait till you drive past them to step out of a building, sometimes there two behind you, sometimes they have friends up on towers.. try coming out of your redline now and then on north American servers.

same.. more slots= more isk = surviveability as now.

Go to protofits and test the stats for the madrugar, gunnlogi, marduk and I fforget the caldari one. They are the proposed stats for the gallente and caldari main battle tanks.

Rattati wants critique. I personally think they're pretty damn good overall, certain design decisions notwithstanding.

The pg/cpu mods that are proposed are also in there.

The proposal is one hardener only (If this happens then armor hardeners need to be buffed to 30-35% in order to keep parity with shields if we get proper parity for turrets and AV).

But if you find any giant holes in the proposed stats post them.

mostly the discussion dicdiverged to why everyone disagrees on balance points and design philosophy after what, page 5?

So I recommend getting your own impressions and giving input on your thoughts. Talk to pokey dravon if you're having trouble with figuringbout the fits.

I personally think the pg/cpu mods need to not eat so many resources. The cost/benefit is not a great ratio.