Oh I found out you can't interrupt shield boosters. they only get one pulse for the listed amount.

if you take damage, it just eats part (or all) of that benefit entirely.

so instead of 5 pulses that result in say 1950 HP repped to shields it just does it all at once, rather than spacing it out over 10-15 seconds.

So I dunno what people are thinking whern you say you can "interrupt" the regen.

Edit: misquote because phone.
If the bonus 'doesn't do anything' why keep it? The suit is being used for some kind of reason.


http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties

Triple modded assault is 18.04% (7, 6.08, 3.99, these are multiplicative)

Base wiyrkomi dmg is 312, after 3mod assault it's 368.27~

Commando has an un penalized 10%, which makes that first mod a 17.7% dmg and the second dmg mod is penalized to 6.08. Total damage bonus is ~1.2485... A lot higher than the 3% you claim.

Base wiyrkomi is 312, 2x modded minmando is 389.55 dmg... Before proficiency or the swarm actually doing 1.3x vs armor instead of the 1.2 its supposed to.

24.85 - 18.04 = 6.81 almost a full 7%, close to double the 3.6 you're claiming.

So if this bonus "doesn't do anything" why don't we remove it? If you're opposed to it the bonus must clearly do *something*

Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment.

Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon?

I like the idea of this, but after playing with the possible fits, I believe the rebalanced CPU and PG upgrades should take less of the opposite. I feel it removes fittings for the gunnlogi that should be possible. Also the PG/CPU seems a little too low for the Gallente HAV and same for the Caldari. With the new PG/CPU system, fittings are hard to make workable if someone has proto. So seeing this, either PG/CPU should be buffed slightly or skills should be available to vehicle specialists to increase their PG/CPU output like before.

i believe the intent was that you can not fit full proto anymore. you must make some trade off, either the quality of the modules or the quality of turrets used.

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.

Inb4 it's op even though python is an easy kill.

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!

Dear players,

This is the first step, which entails

A) fixing the fitting of Gallente HAVs making them competitive
B) introducing HAV progression
C) tweaking fitting styles that are not intended
D) making blasters competitive AV weapons
E) adding slots to HAV's to make them more fun and versatile to fit.


I am very happy to announce that ProtoFits.com has offered it's assistance in the final phase of HAV and SHAV progression analysis.

They have added the proposed hulls to their site, for us to break

The new hulls will be named G-1, G/1 and Gv.0 to clearly show progression, and allow targeting intel to assist with enemy capability recognition.

1)
Two new hulls with placeholder names, but I like them, have been added in the

Gallente Marduk and the Caldari Gladius.

We therefore have HAV's and SHAV's, SHAV's are simply HAV's with no small turret slots and less PG/CPU due to that, for those pilots that prefer solitude.

2)
Please note that with this new progression, Hardeners will be limited to one per fitting, one of each. Triple hardening is not going to be an option any more. I would prefer that if hardeners are activated, the enemy tank has a way to bypass those, by using dmg mods to counter. More on that later.

3)
We are also adding native repair rates, again so shield tanks aren't forced to fit repairers to have some form of rep rate, thereby reducing the chance of cookie cutter fits. This was also done for dropsuits a little while back.

4)
Blasters will be increasing in damage, so they can break through the shield regen of a hardened shield tank.

5)
Furthermore, we will be adding a PG cost to CPU upgrades, and CPU cost to PG upgrades. The utility of using CPU mods to massively boost fitting capabilities of shield tanks will be severely reduced.



The actual numbers will be posted on the forums when we are ready plus any skills. Right now we are leaning towards unlocking them at HAV operation 1,3 and 5, for simplicity's sake.



Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible!

Using a rail, if you are good enough a blaster won't be able to get near you, nitro helps.

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)

5. Thanks for breaking quite a few vehicle fits but this is also another bad idea and i shall explain why.

PG/CPU modules are there to add variety to fits or to squeeze a bit more juice out so you can add something else or upgrade to a higher tier module.

The shield vehicles would always benefit more from this due to having nothing worthwhile for shields in the low slots since PDS, nanofibers, damage mods etc removed or moved to a different slot hence why a few made the Gunnlogi to dual tank so they whack on an armor plate in the lows where as armor would be sacrificing tank.

The Python is a prime example, i need a complex PG expansion unit on every fit and you adding a 200CPU penalty to it means it breaks every fit i have and i need to reduce all the modules to a lower tier and thus makes the PG module useless and not worth it.

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.

So it essentially stays the same. Why buff Python fitting if the PG mod will just use more CPU?

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).

But its an option i should be allowed to have

Back in the day we had low slot modules, dmg mods, nanofibres, power diagnostic systems etc and overnight its gone

I can do the same in a Caldari suit and put extra CPU in the lows and not get punished for it

Yes i can also put regulators in aswell but i might not want to and that is my choice but it is no reason to jack up the fitting requirements by a factor of 10

If he does go this route I can see that these modules will die a death and not be used because i dont think any vehicle will generally have enough to fit them and if you do stick in an armor module because its cheaper to fit and then what happens? Dual tanking is promoted again on the shield vehicle which i think we are trying to avoid

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?

You want a PG module to give you x% more PG for a tradeoff of something like -% CPU?

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 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 the option that is posted is the worst kind of option since a module like that does not exist and i hope it doesn't

What you mean is basically 'more options for low slots' so you dont have to fill it with resource modules unless you want to

Many moons ago we did have more modules for low slots and they got taken away, i wouldn't be suprised if they were buried in the code somewhere but until then if i can improve my tank by using resource modules then i will do it

Resource modules have always given PG/CPU by %, frankly i do not want to see them changed