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?

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?

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.

A) fixing the fitting of Gallente HAVs making them competitive

Can be done with the Chrome - Uprising 1.6 slot layout and restoring the CPU and PG skills to 5% per level.

B) introducing HAV progression

You could just give back the old Marauders, and much improved Enforcers, because the Enforcers of old were completely useless and were a huge SP and ISK sink.

C) tweaking fitting styles that are not intended

Could say the same for far too many infantry fits. HP tanks scouts, speed Min assault with shotguns, using REs as the primary weapon, other things I can't think of at the moment because work in a bit, but it's sandbox, so it's not like it's unfair.

D) making blasters competitive AV weapons

They're not that bad if you know how to use them.

E) adding slots to HAV's to make them more fun and versatile to fit.

They were fun and versatile to fit when we had the slots and variety. They were also far stronger than they are now.

Gallente Marduk and the Caldari Gladius.

This isn't directly related to the hulls so whatever.

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.

Why not limit suits to one recharger/energizer each? This is supposed to be sandbox, where we can fit things the way we want, not be restricted because infantry can't wait for the right time to strike. The only limits infantry has are PG and CPU. Now we're getting a hard limit on more than one module. Nice

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.

I'll say it again, and I know you're going to get real angry: you're giving us literal cookie cutter fits. I don't care about native reps. Cal tanks fit plates, not armor. We need the armor as a last resort, because shield can't stand up to one lone PRO AV.

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

They already can.

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.

I don't think there's any CPU cost to PG upgrades for infantry. Dunno why now that's being raised for vehicles, as well as the CPU upgrade now getting a PG fitting cost. You're essentially nerfing our ability to fit vehicles the way we want, despite it being sandbox.

Nope,

I expect a proposal from Dropship pilots for additional PG/CPU or EHP to make up for any such knock-on effects.

For Upgrade mods these are numbers I was thinking of. Don't panic too much but they will be much more difficult to use as the current ones are terrible.

PG GainCPU Cost
5%35
12%100
20%190

CPU GainPG Cost
7%150
10%220
15%400

Armor Hardeners can be upgraded if I get any simple proposals. What do they need to do to be "fittable" by expert pilots.

Nope,

I expect a proposal from Dropship pilots for additional PG/CPU or EHP to make up for any such knock-on effects.

For Upgrade mods these are numbers I was thinking of. Don't panic too much but they will be much more difficult to use as the current ones are terrible.

PG GainCPU Cost
5%35
12%100
20%190

CPU GainPG Cost
7%150
10%220
15%400

Armor Hardeners can be upgraded if I get any simple proposals. What do they need to do to be "fittable" by expert pilots.

Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers.

And yes, it really does come down to blaming infantry, because pilots have always been ignored and marginalized all to make infantry happy, while we wrack our brains to come up with the best compromise, actually achieve it, have fun for a bit, and then that gets nerfed, despite having figured out a workaround for the latest vehicle nerf.

Now something more ontopic;

the matter of active vs passive regeneration.

Many players are poking me and those who can post here are pointing out that unless the speed or AV that they're going to be excessively difficult to kill as the window of opportunity to kill them is more immensely smaller than infantry can provide. Infantry do not have the same mobility capabilities of an HAV.

I know momentum is being added to help with acceleration and primarily deceleration the question remains are there going to be any other speed changes? or is it looking like that the regen issue will have to be continued to be addressed.

I was always a strong believer that active systems the ones you have to manage and be mindful of to be more effective because you choose when to use it; which then becomes a skill in module management something the more favored era of tanks had. As it stands now the natural armor regen and the passive reppers alone are fairly strong to be 'combat' viable.

I would like the notion to shift from combat viable to wounds licking. Combat viable belongs in the realm of active modules such as an active armor repairer, and a multiple cycle booster.


As far as Vehicle vs Vehicle is concerned this seems fine and fair.

Nope,

I expect a proposal from Dropship pilots for additional PG/CPU or EHP to make up for any such knock-on effects.

For Upgrade mods these are numbers I was thinking of. Don't panic too much but they will be much more difficult to use as the current ones are terrible.

PG GainCPU Cost
5%35
12%100
20%190

CPU GainPG Cost
7%150
10%220
15%400

Armor Hardeners can be upgraded if I get any simple proposals. What do they need to do to be "fittable" by expert pilots.

Oh if we go with passive there is a solution for AV. Some assembly required.

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.

Shield boosters are very...temperamental broken

...
Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers.

...

they arent temperamental they are flat out broken, or if its intentional that they dont activate while under fire, atleast make them recharge faster if they fail to activate.

They shouldn't fail to activate in the first place. They should give me the HP boost when I want it, which is almost always when I need it most.

Sadly extenders are just flat out superior to shield boosters. They promote passive buffers while I like the concept of module management that comes with active tanking (shield boosters). Also, extenders cost roughly half the PG of a booster while giving more than half the HP of a booster. And finally, extenders are 100% reliable; they are always there, no activation required without a chance of failure.

Shield booster PG cost needs to be about equal to extender PG cost. Yes boosters give more shield, but they are active modules, which I feel is a balanced tradeoff on its own. No need to make boosters harder to fit.

they arent temperamental they are flat out broken, or if its intentional that they dont activate while under fire, atleast make them recharge faster if they fail to activate.

I have a workaround idea to fix them :
Make shield boosters have around 5 pulse spaced 0.2 seconds away from each other and split the shield bonus into those pulses. This way you would still get the same HP in 1s, but if one pulse fails, its not that much of an issue.

They get stopped for the full recharge delay which is usually longer than remaining pulses

There is no point, except that I don't want players that don't fit turrets to get free PG/CPU. I would completely skip it, but I am nice guy like that so pilots can drive solo, but they aren't getting the capacity on top.

Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers.

And yes, it really does come down to blaming infantry, because pilots have always been ignored and marginalized all to make infantry happy, while we wrack our brains to come up with the best compromise, actually achieve it, have fun for a bit, and then that gets nerfed, despite having figured out a workaround for the latest vehicle nerf.