DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17502	Posted - 2015.02.17 05:46:00 - [1] - Quote 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 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. 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! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 1035	Posted - 2015.02.17 05:56:00 - [2] - Quote Using a fan-run site to allow the community to fuzz-test new features instead of just dropping untested changes into Dust? This post just made me shed a tear. And that tear is for Rattati to lick. BAN ADVANCED GEAR FROM PUBS \| Mass Driver Advocate
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 683	Posted - 2015.02.17 05:58:00 - [3] - Quote everything looks good, the changes should make the maddy competitve, I especially like you'll removing stacked hardeners :). The damage increase to blasters? is it for both small and large? isk cost of new hulls? (expensive as it is) OFF TOPIC in the future can we get ads hull progression? (n`-´)+Æ;;; shotgun blast yo ASs
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4972	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:00:00 - [4] - Quote Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17506	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:06:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2196	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:19:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Shouldn't that be left to that guy that breaks stuff? The one hardener limitation on proto fits doesn't seen to show for shields. My initial thoughts are that heavy shield boosters use way too much pg, but I'm not entirely certain how stuff came about. I also think that base armor rep might be just a little low, but once again just an initial impression. Will there be module re-introductions? I'd love to have pulsed shield boosters (3 boosts, 2 seconds apart each). I'm happy to see fittings go back to being more like assaults and less like sentinels. SHAVs are a happy compromise. I'll also poke you towards the taxonomy thread. Things have petered out a bit there, but I want to be driving a Komodo Cv.0 around and delivering nasty bites. I also have some concerns with the rail still being a hideous instagank weapon still, I feel it might be more balanced if it shot twice as fast but did half as much dmg (appropriate ammo/mag increases & heat reductions). Plz fix forums so I can stop posting from phone. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
DRT 99 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 115	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:20:00 - [7] - Quote on regular HAVs, what tier will the 'force-fitted' guns be? will militia vehicles be of the HAV or SHAV variety? or both flavours available? will SHAVs cost less ISK? EDIT: is large blaster anti infantry ability being reduced to compensate its increase in AV ability?
Avallo Kantor 453	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:21:00 - [8] - Quote Would it be possible to add passive modules that increase the err... "hardness" of that single hardener module? The basic idea is something akin to the Shield Boost Amplifier from EVE. Link: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Shield_Boost_Amplifier_I In this way players can fit a tank to be far better in it's hardened state, without allowing for the possibility of rotating the hardeners to have them always up. As I understood it, the initial idea with hardeners was that players would stack them, instead of rotating them, so this would allow that functionality without allowing for the "loophole" that emerged.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2196	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:24:00 - [9] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: Would it be possible to add passive modules that increase the err... "hardness" of that single hardener module? The basic idea is something akin to the Shield Boost Amplifier from EVE. Link: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Shield_Boost_Amplifier_I In this way players can fit a tank to be far better in it's hardened state, without allowing for the possibility of rotating the hardeners to have them always up. As I understood it, the initial idea with hardeners was that players would stack them, instead of rotating them, so this would allow that functionality without allowing for the "loophole" that emerged. Tbh I wouldn't mind seeing passive hardeners return, it alleviates feeling weak 'constantly' Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17507	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:27:00 - [10] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Shouldn't that be left to that guy that breaks stuff? The one hardener limitation on proto fits doesn't seen to show for shields. My initial thoughts are that heavy shield boosters use way too much pg, but I'm not entirely certain how stuff came about. I also think that base armor rep might be just a little low, but once again just an initial impression. Will there be module re-introductions? I'd love to have pulsed shield boosters (3 boosts, 2 seconds apart each). I'm happy to see fittings go back to being more like assaults and less like sentinels. SHAVs are a happy compromise. I'll also poke you towards the taxonomy thread. Things have petered out a bit there, but I want to be driving a Komodo Cv.0 around and delivering nasty bites. I also have some concerns with the rail still being a hideous instagank weapon still, I feel it might be more balanced if it shot twice as fast but did half as much dmg (appropriate ammo/mag increases & heat reductions). Plz fix forums so I can stop posting from phone. We didn't change the hardeners, just use your imagination Any further new or re-introductions come after we balance these hulls and turrets. Rail dps will be considered in the turret proposals. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 407	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:27:00 - [11] - Quote Happy to help o7, If something's broken let me know, I'll get on it ASAP. www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 202	Posted - 2015.02.17 06:52:00 - [12] - Quote Cyrus Grevare wrote: Happy to help o7, If something's broken let me know, I'll get on it ASAP. both a question for you and Rattati...What is the real 80GJ Particle Cannon Damage...the client lists it as a lower value than what is listed on protofits (as I brought up a lot in the previous threads...). This can lead to inaccurate assumptions about the overall DPS of the weapon platform Back to responding to the OP: Other Than that...the Gladius looks like an awesome shield tanker for now...just adapting my current fitting onto it... Also...to Rattati...I understand why you're limiting the hardeners, but I will still protest it for the final HAV rebalance. [email protected] was seeing two fits simultaneously...and getting the gallente regen on the caldari hull? (Possibly just a fun glitch) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 409	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:00:00 - [13] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cyrus Grevare wrote: Happy to help o7, If something's broken let me know, I'll get on it ASAP. both a question for you and Rattati...What is the real 80GJ Particle Cannon Damage...the client lists it as a lower value than what is listed on protofits (as I brought up a lot in the previous threads...). This can lead to inaccurate assumptions about the overall DPS of the weapon platform Back to responding to the OP: Other Than that...the Gladius looks like an awesome shield tanker for now...just adapting my current fitting onto it... Also...to Rattati...I understand why you're limiting the hardeners, but I will still protest it for the final HAV rebalance. [email protected] was seeing two fits simultaneously...and getting the gallente regen on the caldari hull? (Possibly just a fun glitch) I'll do a quick check on the current turret damage values mine might be off, that data (turret damage) is unfortunately not on the SDE and any updates on it I have to do manually, sometimes I loose track Give me a few mins www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 202	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:01:00 - [14] - Quote Cyrus Grevare wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Cyrus Grevare wrote: Happy to help o7, If something's broken let me know, I'll get on it ASAP. both a question for you and Rattati...What is the real 80GJ Particle Cannon Damage...the client lists it as a lower value than what is listed on protofits (as I brought up a lot in the previous threads...). This can lead to inaccurate assumptions about the overall DPS of the weapon platform Back to responding to the OP: Other Than that...the Gladius looks like an awesome shield tanker for now...just adapting my current fitting onto it... Also...to Rattati...I understand why you're limiting the hardeners, but I will still protest it for the final HAV rebalance. [email protected] was seeing two fits simultaneously...and getting the gallente regen on the caldari hull? (Possibly just a fun glitch) I'll do a quick check on the current turret damage values mine might be off, that data (turret damage) is unfortunately not on the SDE and any updates on it I have to do manually, sometimes I loose track Give me a few mins Quite alright, and thanks Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8772	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:08:00 - [15] - Quote While I agree with Pokey that limitations are always sort of gimmicky, the one (1) Hardener limitation is great. Nothing more cookie-cutter than a multi-hardener Shield HAV running around. Really like that CCP is being more intuitive with the tools that the community is using, now if only we had a "sample battle" mechanic with which to pit two fits against each other. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4972	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:49:00 - [16] - Quote Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17509	Posted - 2015.02.17 07:51:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. They will all come with std turrets, even prototype and only get a fitting "bonus" equivalent to those. Good point though, but I had already "seen that coming" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4972	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:27:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. They will all come with std turrets, even prototype and only get a fitting "bonus" equivalent to those. Good point though, but I had already "seen that coming" Good to hear, just wanted to make sure it had been thought of. Also looking over some fits for the MBTs and SHAVs...have you decided on how to handle the UHAV's defensive bonus? The reason I ask is that if it ends up being a significant resistance bonus, you may run into some issues with the Passive Armor Repairers if they are left as is. The base 30HP/s + 137HP/s armor repairer puts the Madrugar at 167HP per second. Since Passive reps effectively negate portions of incoming DPS, putting a heavy resistance on top of that is going to push the effective regen rate....very high. I'm concerned that the UHAV bonus, + a hardener + heavy passive reps will lead to HAVs that can basically negate large portions of incoming DPS to a point where they're nearly unkillable in typical situations. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17511	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:44:00 - [19] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Rattati just a fair warning on something with the MBTs. They will come fit with small turrets with the resources in place to run them, as not to give them and advantage or disadvantage over SHAVs. That's fine. I think it's also important to allow players to swap the turret types out or some other type if they so chose. This much is good. However, if a Prototype MBT is fit with prototype small turrets, I will totally swap those smalls for Standards, in order to squeeze more resources out by freeing up some of the resources the proto smalls were using by replacing them with standards (which subsequently use less resources). Prevent me from doing this. They will all come with std turrets, even prototype and only get a fitting "bonus" equivalent to those. Good point though, but I had already "seen that coming" Good to hear, just wanted to make sure it had been thought of. Also looking over some fits for the MBTs and SHAVs...have you decided on how to handle the UHAV's defensive bonus? The reason I ask is that if it ends up being a significant resistance bonus, you may run into some issues with the Passive Armor Repairers if they are left as is. The base 30HP/s + 137HP/s armor repairer puts the Madrugar at 167HP per second. Since Passive reps effectively negate portions of incoming DPS, putting a heavy resistance on top of that is going to push the effective regen rate....very high. I'm concerned that the UHAV bonus, + a hardener + heavy passive reps will lead to HAVs that can basically negate large portions of incoming DPS to a point where they're nearly unkillable in typical situations. I will be happy to entertain such theorycrafting, just like now, but in the future, when we have balanced HAV's and are trying to add UHAV's, using ProtoFits. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17169	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:56:00 - [20] - Quote Well just when I thought we'd avoid the native reps..... you just tossed them in there and buggered it all up. Honestly CCP Rattati in terms of vehicle I think if they want Armour Reps they should have to FIT armour reps. None of this passive bullcrap. If Armour vehicles want better than worthless (and I hope you drastically reduced the shield stats on armour vehicles) shield regen values we should have to FIT FOR THEM! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4972	Posted - 2015.02.17 08:58:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I will be happy to entertain such theorycrafting, just like now, but in the future, when we have balanced HAV's and are trying to add UHAV's, using ProtoFits. Well try not to take it as an attempt to derail the thread, the reason I bring it up is because if the solution ultimately ends in a fundamental change to Armor Repairers, that is critical in the proper balance of the MBTs and SHAVs. I would hate to get the MBT's balanced, only to have to come back and reevaluate them again due to a core change in module function. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17170	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:08:00 - [22] - Quote Also I don't know if I am doing this right but it seems like I can make an 8400 Shield Proto Tank before hardeners...... Comparatively when I tried the Min Max the "Marduk"..... I could manage a very modest raw HP value. Gotta admit though the Marduk is looking pretty decent with a 3 high slot set up. Can get my Damage Mods, Nitrous, and Scanners in there plus a decent armour tank. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9594	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:22:00 - [23] - Quote I'm really liking my Marduk but True is making me nervous about this god shield tank with 8000+ shields. My measly 2700 413 hp/s Marduk with 25% resistance probably couldn't survive that. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17170	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:24:00 - [24] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: I'm really liking my Marduk but True is making me nervous about this god shield tank with 8000+ shields. My measly 2700 413 hp/s Marduk with 25% resistance probably couldn't survive that. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to fit turrets. If that's the case then it would be 8400 shielding...... but still..... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9594	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:30:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: I'm really liking my Marduk but True is making me nervous about this god shield tank with 8000+ shields. My measly 2700 413 hp/s Marduk with 25% resistance probably couldn't survive that. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to fit turrets. If that's the case then it would be 8400 shielding...... but still..... I'm a little worried about the speed too. Are Caldari tanks still going to have faster acceleration over madrugars? I'm sure they aren't but if they do, the Gallente HAV having 3 more m/s over the Caldari isn't going to cut it. With my Gallente HAV fit speed and repair is key to it's success so if the Caldari still has its lightning fast acceleration and rail/missile turret turn speed that's a insta kill for this suit. Of course this is just keeping the Gallente mantra in mind with fittings. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 849	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:35:00 - [26] - Quote great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17170	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:42:00 - [27] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: I'm really liking my Marduk but True is making me nervous about this god shield tank with 8000+ shields. My measly 2700 413 hp/s Marduk with 25% resistance probably couldn't survive that. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to fit turrets. If that's the case then it would be 8400 shielding...... but still..... I'm a little worried about the speed too. Are Caldari tanks still going to have faster acceleration over madrugars? I'm sure they aren't but if they do, the Gallente HAV having 3 more m/s over the Caldari isn't going to cut it. With my Gallente HAV fit speed and repair is key to it's success so if the Caldari still has its lightning fast acceleration and rail/missile turret turn speed that's a insta kill for this suit. Of course this is just keeping the Gallente mantra in mind with fittings. Okay going on record to say I read the Protofits statistics wrongly. The Shield value of my Proto HAV is 7500 and 900 Armour. This included 4x Heavy Complex Shield Extenders and 1x Complex Hardener, a PG upgrade, and a Railgun Ammunition Expansion Unit. 80Gj Particle Cannon, 2x 29Gj Railguns with those values I theoretically depending on what is done with the Shield Hardener could have somewhere between 9750 (assuming 30%) and 10500 Shield eHP. That's not over the top per se..... but it leaves a lot of be desired of the Gk.0 Marduk's from where I am sitting right now. Also I think I estimated a full passive regen of all eHP should take about 90 seconds now that the passive stuff is in place (I beg you please don't do this) with the armour in this fit taking 90 seconds to regenerate and the shields taking 60 seconds. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17170	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:44:00 - [28] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2988	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:45:00 - [29] - Quote 1) Will the native armor repair be applied to other vehicles as well? Is so when? 2) Has the turning speed of the Gallente tanks been increased? Or handling at all been modified (hint hint, buff Gal turn speed)? Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 849	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:48:00 - [30] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17170	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:55:00 - [31] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. I seem to be able to fit that quite comfortably. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17514	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:00:00 - [32] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. I seem to be able to fit that quite comfortably. That looks like a pretty nice fit. I could probably tier up further. EDIT: Yes it seems currently on my Protofits that I can fit a Complex Shield Booster as well. Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9594	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:02:00 - [33] - Quote It's also note worthy that Caldari HAVs don't have many choices to choose from for their lowslots if you don't count armor mods so why not use CPU and PG mods to your advantage. I've got a tasty looking Caldari HAV....but it's making my Marduk look like he's lacking. Really, I just need to know what the acceleration and handling is on these tanks before I make a verdict. If the Caldari turrets have slow turn speed and the Caldari handle generally like the Madrugar did while the Marduk gets more aggressive speeds then Caldsri being able to tank as much as they can may be forgiven. When it comes to tank, in an ideal racially correct world, the races progress from higher main hp to lower hp in this order: Amarr Caldari Gallente Minmatar At the same time maneuverability goes in this order: Minmatar Gallente Caldari Amarr If HAVs are following this progression (of course with room for variation and customization) we should be fine. But if not, we have an issue. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17171	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:03:00 - [34] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. I seem to be able to fit that quite comfortably. That looks like a pretty nice fit. I could probably tier up further. EDIT: Yes it seems currently on my Protofits that I can fit a Complex Shield Booster as well. Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Apologies. Is it possible to add these into the Protofits library so we can play around with them? Right now it just makes it look like I can have all the fruit in the basket including that red apple for no cost. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9595	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:08:00 - [35] - Quote This would be a grand time for the Power Diagnostic unit to make a return. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 849	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:13:00 - [36] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: great work. I like limiting active harderners A preliminary concern is that the CV.0 now has limited fitting options compared to the GV.0 . As in the frist few fits i've tried i always need a pg or cpu enhancer to get above three complex HP modules and a proto missile turret. The GV.0, can fit near everything complex with an ion turret. Would like to see other fits before i pass any real judgment, i'm not a PG/CPU numbers type of guy. I don't know about you but I'm able to fit a XT-201 and 4x Complex Extenders with an Advanced Hardener pretty easily. What is your fit? 2 complex extenders Complex hardener Enh heavy Shield booster enh damage mod XTs complex PG upgrade and thats it. Protofits is buggin out for me, so if you can verify i'd be much obliged. I seem to be able to fit that quite comfortably. That looks like a pretty nice fit. I could probably tier up further. EDIT: Yes it seems currently on my Protofits that I can fit a Complex Shield Booster as well. Cool, then its seems the issue was on just my end. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2989	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:16:00 - [37] - Quote http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17172	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:21:00 - [38] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8773	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:33:00 - [39] - Quote So, something I've noticed between the Marduk and the Madrugar is that (for the moment) the only real difference between them in the PG/CPU values (presumably because the Marduk has to fit small turrets). Out of curiosity, based on something Pokey brought up, I looked into what the 'butter zone' was considered when it comes to what power levels of small turrets you could afford just with the Marduk's increased PG/CPU over the Madrugar. Since they have the same exact fitting, bar the PG/CPU, it's a fairly important distinction that the Marduk should be able to play around with it's small turrets. Here's the results NOTE: I've only done blasters and the two Gallente tanks right now. So, it seems that if you go into a Marduk without investing any skills, you're only going to be able to fit Standard turrets. But if you skill up to level 5 in -everything-, you can fit up to two Advanced turrets without going over the additional PG/CPU given by the hull itself. Shouldn't this be a bit more, if the tank itself is required to have turrets? On the assumption that a new player is jumping into the thing, he's already getting -4 PG than what the 'show info' says if he's fitting standard blasters. But the more I think about this balance mechanism, the more I can't seem to wrap my head around how this is all supposed to work. If the only difference between the MBT and the SHAV is that one has higher PG/CPU for the sake of forced-fitted small turrets... What benefit is there at all to use the SHAV? If the MBT is designed to -use- it's small turrets, why can't a Max Skilled Proto Marduk be able to fit two prototype small turrets with the spare PG/CPU given by it's role? Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 849	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:39:00 - [40] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7241	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:45:00 - [41] - Quote If I may interject as an antitank berserker? Im on a phone so checking is hard. Please tell me that the armor hardeners will be at least slightky upgraded from 25% if only one can be fit. the armor hardeners frankly suck. AV
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2989	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:48:00 - [42] - Quote Oh, one more thing. PLEASE DONT TOUCH PG MODS. They are absolutely crucial in literally ALL my DS fits, ADS and STD alike. I can't speak for CPU mods, but I know I have tight fits on all my vehicles as is. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9595	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:55:00 - [43] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Oh, one more thing. PLEASE DONT TOUCH PG MODS. They are absolutely crucial in literally ALL my DS fits, ADS and STD alike. I can't speak for CPU mods, but I know I have tight fits on all my vehicles as is. Same here, a touch to PG mods will destroy all of my grimsnes fits. It's bad enough that it was slow but at least it could tank but it can only tank with the use of a PG mod. My LAV fittings also require a PG mod. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7243	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:56:00 - [44] - Quote So if I put two plates. A rep and a hardener on a marduk I can't fit a proto turret. That leaves three high slots open Before we even consider a PG mod. This strikes me as somewhat troublesome. I haven't even touched the two small turret slots at all. Methinks we might need a little more fitting or a fitting buff. On my dropsuits if I fill the primary tank slots proto, then stack a proto primary weapon, I at worst have the ability to fit standard everywhere else. I'm leaning towards recommending a bit of a reduction in PG/CPU to modules here but I have only poked a gallente tank so far. AV
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8773	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:56:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s.... It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands. I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7243	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:59:00 - [46] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s.... It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands. I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing Once I'm off work I can do a worst-case scenario for HAVS vs. aV since I fixed all the damn math errors. I read light damage mods as 8%, not 7%. Cat Merc hit me until I fixed it. Then I skinned him. Click my sig for complete breakdowns of all AV weapons. Anything labeled proposal is me d*cking around wwith theoretical numbers and is not valid for these HAVs yet. AV
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9595	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:08:00 - [47] - Quote As awesome as having 500 hp/s sounds it doesn't sound viable to me with only 2700 armor. Sure if it was the old HP value of 4000 id go ahead but in this scenario you may be resistant to a single AVer but once there's more or a Railgun comes around you're done for without the extra 2,300 HP that we had. Once I wake back up in the morning ill be able to get the math down but a complete rep build is not sounding too good for HAV warfare. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 851	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:10:00 - [48] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s.... It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands. I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing Thats the nature of an anti-shield AV weapon vs Armor, Swamers run into similar trouble vs shields. You have to bring the right weapon for the right job. A slow firing anti shield weapon against a rep stacked madrugar is going to have a rough time of it. That same maddy would get eaten alive by any high alpha when you look at the base stats. 4 reps but 3900 hp, its lunch meat for any other tank. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8775	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:24:00 - [49] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s.... It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands. I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing Thats the nature of an anti-shield AV weapon vs Armor, Swamers run into similar trouble vs shields. You have to bring the right weapon for the right job. A slow firing anti shield weapon against a rep stacked madrugar is going to have a rough time of it. That same maddy would get eaten alive by any high alpha when you look at the base stats. 4 reps but 3900 hp, its lunch meat for any other tank. Yeah? And what do you have to say about a Prototype Forge Gun (no damage mods) only doing 107.2 DPS against that same tank? I haven't even checked against Tank Turrets but against anti-infantry, a x4 Complex Heavy Rep tank sounds like hell to deal with for the solo AVer. EDIT: Best case scenario is a Proto Swarm Launcher on a MinMando with x2 Complex Damage Mods and all skills level five and on paper that deals out 1,870.39 DPS.... but that's not including -any- flight time at all, which only four seconds of flight time completely invalidates any of that damage. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 851	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:38:00 - [50] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11751 I don't like the trend this is going. Tanks seem to be trending toward repair fitting where they need to be buffer fit. When repair oriented, they take damage and come back moments later; even ignoring them for 5s and all you've done to them is repaired. Buffer fits force the pilot to choose between staying and finishing off threats (and having to take more time to repair) or to fall back and try something else. It also increases TTK for high alpha weapons, providing more interesting engagements. Not to mention that this severely favors armor fits over shield. I know they need a buff but let's strive for balance. I mean seriously that thing reps from zero in 15s... Also, I hope you introduce AV small missile turrets with this iteration as well as a buff to small rails, because, as you claim, if ADSs are supposed to be a counter to tanks, they'll need it. Not sure I'm convinced of that yet. Neither tank however interests me greatly though the Caldari HAV still seems to be my go to choice this build even though I despise shield tanking. Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s.... It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands. I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing Thats the nature of an anti-shield AV weapon vs Armor, Swamers run into similar trouble vs shields. You have to bring the right weapon for the right job. A slow firing anti shield weapon against a rep stacked madrugar is going to have a rough time of it. That same maddy would get eaten alive by any high alpha when you look at the base stats. 4 reps but 3900 hp, its lunch meat for any other tank. Yeah? And what do you have to say about a Prototype Forge Gun (no damage mods) only doing 107.2 DPS against that same tank? I haven't even checked against Tank Turrets but against anti-infantry, a x4 Complex Heavy Rep tank sounds like hell to deal with for the solo AVer. EDIT: Best case scenario is a Proto Swarm Launcher on a MinMando with x2 Complex Damage Mods and all skills level five and on paper that deals out 1,870.39 DPS.... but that's not including -any- flight time at all, which only four seconds of flight time completely invalidates any of that damage. Wrong again, Wyrokami breach prof. 5 does 2,700 damage per shot without damage mods. GV.0 with 4 reps has 2700 armor. Thats a two shot, one for the shields, the second shot hits armor and bye bye tank. 2700 armor is much easier for swarms to deal with. Two wryokami armor hits and the tank, again, is dead. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8775	Posted - 2015.02.17 11:48:00 - [51] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Yeah? And what do you have to say about a Prototype Forge Gun (no damage mods) only doing 107.2 DPS against that same tank? I haven't even checked against Tank Turrets but against anti-infantry, a x4 Complex Heavy Rep tank sounds like hell to deal with for the solo AVer. EDIT: Best case scenario is a Proto Swarm Launcher on a MinMando with x2 Complex Damage Mods and all skills level five and on paper that deals out 1,870.39 DPS.... but that's not including -any- flight time at all, which only four seconds of flight time completely invalidates any of that damage. Wrong again, Wyrokami breach prof. 5 does 2,700 damage per shot without damage mods. GV.0 with 4 reps has 2700 armor. Thats a two shot, one for the shields, the second shot hits armor and bye bye tank. 2700 armor is much easier for swarms to deal with. Two wryokami armor hits and the tank, again, is dead. I wasn't wrong and please don't insinuate that I'm "wrong" when you're talking about a completely different weapon. I said a Prototype -FORGE GUN- not a Prototype -BREACH FORGE GUN-. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17520	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:00:00 - [52] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4031	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:01:00 - [53] - Quote Kudos for all the people who made this possible! I've fitted a couple of new tanks and i must say i'm happy about them, there is still some work to do on module variety, but i guess it's already in your plans. Some have luck, some have money, trading is not a crime. Minmatar omni-merc
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 880	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:31:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. 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. lmao. you cant be serious. the whole point of fitting mods is for noobs without skills to be able to use them to fit stuff on their vehicles. your proposal is counter productive in all areas. you proposal aims to nerf shield tanks in particular, but it doesnt solve the root cause of the issue. the question that needs answered is the cause for shield tanks using fitting mods in the first place. if fitting mods are so great, then howcome no one used them on maddys when they had no fitting capacity? its because maddy had other modules that were "better" in terms of use. shield tanks have no other modules that are functionally "better" than fitting mods. thats your fault not ours. if we had something of greater use then we wouldnt be filling our low slot with fitting mods. you make attempt to NOT solve the problem, and further the divide between noobs trying to get into tanking. this is what the maddy should have been capable of at max skills, and the turret fitting bonus hopefully will allow it. http://www.protofits.com/fittings/view/1134/7028 the problem is that a shield tank will still have higher eHP because we'll still be using fitting mods since theres nothing else in the lows to use this shield fit beats your fitting nerf propsal, and allow for more eHP than your new proposed armor HAV http://www.protofits.com/fittings/view/1134/6066 a adv PG and basic cpu makes it work, but check the math as i threw it together fairly quickly. i have 1362/1370 cpu and 1340/3237. this is before turret fitting bonuses yes? in the end, armor tank STILL are not "stand and deliver" compared to shield tanks.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:35:00 - [55] - Quote What the hell is the point of a shield tank now? Its regen is very crap now... Molestia approved
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 851	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:41:00 - [56] - Quote ...And if i picked the Proto assualt will you say i diddn't say ASSAULT FORGE GUN Here is the regular proto Kalikiota Forge. 1862.66 PRF 5 Charge time 3 seconds. First hit shields gone, 622.66 armor damage Second hit 3 seconds later, Armor full but shields aint kicked in yet, factor in 10% bonus to armor 2700 - 2048.92 = 652.8 armor left. Third hit 3 seconds later, 1506 Armor repped leaving the tank at 2158.8 2158.8 - 2048.92 = 109.88 Armor left. Fourth hit 3 seconds later, 1506 Armor repped leaving the tank has 1615.88 armor left - 2048.92 Thats it, tank is kill. 4 shots from a standard prototype, maybe 3 shots in your version of the breach and thats all it takes. The adv breach does more damage than the standard proto . Add in the other ineveitable AV guy and that tank dies alot faster. Factor in Two forgunners (i know, i know, blasphemy) and that guy is down in 3 hits. That tank is only good against low level swarms, and maybe a similarily fit blaster tank. Dangerous only in OMS against an unorganized bunch of newberries. Otherwise, its BBQ. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7243	Posted - 2015.02.17 12:50:00 - [57] - Quote Proto breach forge fires every 5.5 seconds after the first shot. There's a 1 second refire delay between shots. so at proto it hits for over 2656 to armor every 5.5 seconds with 3 damage mods at max skill. IAFG for over 2k every 3.25 seconds. Pure reps is a losing proposition long term. The breach WILL 2-3 shot a quad rep gallente HAV. One for shields, one to kill. So please run a quadrep near me. I won't butcher you, honest. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2910	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:06:00 - [58] - Quote Well, I know that anything I reply with, will get me banned and the post will be deleted. Congratulations, infantry, those of you who don't use vehicles, you've won. I won't bother commenting if and unless Rattati gives me a go-ahead to start tearing everything apart. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15188	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:07:00 - [59] - Quote 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? Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17522	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:14:00 - [60] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Well, I know that anything I reply with, will get me banned and the post will be deleted. Congratulations, infantry, those of you who don't use vehicles, you've won. I won't bother commenting if and unless Rattati gives me a go-ahead to start tearing everything apart. 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8779	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:14:00 - [61] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: 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? Basically, you pay in PG/CPU for the ability to not have other people in your tank. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:15:00 - [62] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: 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? SHAV should be unlocked with the skill that unlocks pro hulls, as it's just for solo players. Molestia approved

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17522	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:15:00 - [63] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: 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? 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:18:00 - [64] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Well, I know that anything I reply with, will get me banned and the post will be deleted. Congratulations, infantry, those of you who don't use vehicles, you've won. I won't bother commenting if and unless Rattati gives me a go-ahead to start tearing everything apart. 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. Unless the UHAVs are coming when these are deployed and have higher base regen rates, there isn't really a point to shields now, unless you completely rely on shield boosters. armor reps faster now. Although people are using 2 reps with 4.5k armor, they can have higher hp and regen than shield tanks... also, shield tanks already lose enough vs blasters....I don't think the damage mod bypassing damage redhction is a good idea. Unless you plan on adding a shield regen mod, then I'm fine. Molestia approved
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2911	Posted - 2015.02.17 13:26:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.17 14:31:00 - [66] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. 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. This will probably require a new sticky, so this thread doesn't get derailed from tanks to dropships. Off the cuff, some things you may want to keep in mind: - Pythons are entirely dependant on PG upgrades. - Incubus might get by without them, but that depends on a reasonable Armor hardener proposal. Would rather have a good hardener than the complex 120mm armor plate i lugg around. - CPU upgrades are mostly used by the transport ships to squeeze something extra out of them. I'll leave their fitting comments up to them Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Varoth Drac State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 586	Posted - 2015.02.17 14:49:00 - [67] - Quote Are you still planning low slot shield regulators? I think we need low slot alternatives for shield HAVs. Also please be careful not to make CPU and PG upgrades useless, your proposal looks like it might nerf them a little too much. Bare in mind my knowledge of vehicle fitting is pretty limited though. From what I can see the distinction between Gal and Cal tanks looks good. Looks like Gal will be more focused on damage and regen, whereas Cal looks to have generally better defence. There looks to be a lot at potential variety too, which is great.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2327	Posted - 2015.02.17 14:58:00 - [68] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. 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. The way I look at PG/CPU upgrades is that you give up a module slot so that you can fit better modules elsewhere. Also as someone else pointed out earlier, there are no other useful low slot modules for shield vehicles. If PG/CPU mods are going to cost as much as armor mods, I'd be better off fitting armor mods to my Caldari HAV for far higher gains than being able to upgrade one or two shield modules from enhanced to complex. Plus, in all the time I played EVE, fitting enhancers cost next to nothing. Neither do dropsuit fitting enhancers. So why do this to vehicles? Nobody will be using fitting enhancers on Caldari vehicles because armor modules will be more beneficial. Fitting enhancers the way they are now allow shield vehicles to basically give up a low slot to be able to upgrade their high slot modules. But with your proposed nerf, you'll be gaining almost nothing from them (gain CPU but lose PG, and vice versa, preventing you from upgrading) and will simply be better off armor tanking your already shield tanked vehicle. Which will then lead to crying and nerfs. I don't want that. Leave fitting enhancers as they are so we can focus on shield only. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7246	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:31:00 - [69] - Quote You still going to add the theoretical 10% passive damage mods to lows? AV
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18677	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:34:00 - [70] - Quote After looking at the steep costs of CPU and PG mods to fit; I thought of the possibility of killing two birds with one stone. Vehicle Engineering Reduce CPU costs of Powergrid upgrades by 10% Vehicle Electronics Reduce PG costs of CPU upgrades by 10% Now I know that fitting is typically higher tier notion of skills in the skill tree instead of being offered early but If there must be a proficiency skill added as a tier after the base one please note that generally the module will continue to be fitted for its primary benefit so the effect of having the higher primary is more of a higher value skill and thus could be equated to the end result of a fitting optimization skill. For example: Vehicle Electronics Optimization 1% additional CPU from CPU upgrades. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17539	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:39:00 - [71] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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. So no "useful" feedback, no numbers. I believe you wanted, 7 slots, you have them, you also wanted more fitting space and progression, and no extra skills for SHAVs. Where's the love? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 270	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:40:00 - [72] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: After looking at the steep costs of CPU and PG mods to fit; I thought of the possibility of killing two birds with one stone. Vehicle Engineering Reduce CPU costs of Powergrid upgrades by 10% Vehicle Electronics Reduce PG costs of CPU upgrades by 10% Now I know that fitting is typically higher tier notion of skills in the skill tree instead of being offered early but If there must be a proficiency skill added as a tier after the base one please note that generally the module will continue to be fitted for its primary benefit so the effect of having the higher primary is more of a higher value skill and thus could be equated to the end result of a fitting optimization skill. This move would reduce the uselessness of the entire vehicle skill tree by 10% (includes command upgrades and turrets) so that's a significant amount of skill points recouped. For example: Vehicle Electronics Optimization 1% additional CPU from CPU upgrades. Finally I too support a separate thread for discussion on the fitting modules requiring fits. I like this idea Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18680	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:48:00 - [73] - Quote 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. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 270	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:05:00 - [74] - Quote Heres my fit (I name all my proto tanks after my favorite Metallica songs if your wondering) There's only one (lol) problem I have with Cal vehicle fitting. I can't get a heavy booster on there, no matter what, if I want a full Proto tank. I believe if i put BOTH of my low slots into fitting stuff, I should be able to put whatever I want on the high slots, but I cant. Heavy Booster PG requirements need to be brought down please. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7247	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:10:00 - [75] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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. Oh if we go with passive there is a solution for AV. Some assembly required. AV
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 412	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:15:00 - [76] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Please take into account my comments of PG and CPU mods. They will cost heftily in the opposite direction. Has it already been implemented? If so i couldn't tell, as soon as i got proto fits to work again i have made a pretty beasty CV.0, and double checked the Python and Incubus as they both rely on PG mods to make sure they aren't too adversely affected.(they're not) If it has not been implemented, please take said dropships into consideration. 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. I'll go ahead and add these, change the numbers if necessary. o7 www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18680	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:16:00 - [77] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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. Oh if we go with passive there is a solution for AV. Some assembly required. Something but right now thinking in the current realm of mechanics available the toolbox is rather smallish. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7248	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:20:00 - [78] - Quote I think rattati should bring back the passive resist mods. AV
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 202	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:44:00 - [79] - Quote 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. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:53:00 - [80] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. Yeah, a 30% DR should be fine. Molestia approved

DRT 99 Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 118	Posted - 2015.02.17 16:55:00 - [81] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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.
The-Errorist 1055	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:07:00 - [82] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: ... Nothing needs to be changed from Chrome numbers. ... What about the prices and base shield recharge rates? What numbers specifically do you want? There was so much stuff back then and not everyone remembers all the numbers. It would be very helpful if you can give specifics, so people can know what those numbers are and talk about re-adding them. Suits, Tanks, a mode
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2327	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:07:00 - [83] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7254	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:09:00 - [84] - Quote Harpyja wrote: DRT 99 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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. I'm having a hard time finding fault in this post since boosters can get stalled by recharge delay. AV
The-Errorist 1055	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:10:00 - [85] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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. Suits, Tanks, a mode
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:18:00 - [86] - Quote A few quick dropship fits I pulled together. You can see where the CPU issues are. These are, in my opinion, the best fits for each of the ships: Grimsnes: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11589 Myron: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/9188 Incubus: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11794 Python1: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11793 Python2: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11795 Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:19:00 - [87] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: DRT 99 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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 AV
The-Errorist 1056	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:30:00 - [88] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The-Errorist wrote: DRT 99 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Shield boosters are very...~~temperamental~~ broken 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 Think of it this way: if you're hit at the same time you activate the booster, it gets stopped, but another pulse before you get hit simultaneously while the next pulse is activating, would probably work. CCP should add a test shield booster to so we can know for sure if it'll work. Suits, Tanks, a mode
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15190	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:31:00 - [89] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Cat Merc wrote: 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? 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. I see, thanks for the clarification. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15190	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:33:00 - [90] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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. Not being able to nuke the entire map is a compromise for you Spkr? Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*

Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:38:00 - [91] - Quote Not a huge fan of this fit: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11796 3k damage per shot (2 shots virtually any dropship) 6k ehp It just screams redline camper Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:45:00 - [92] - Quote http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/138/11775 caldari vehicles need more cpu. If I use cpu mod, I need more pg. If the caldari is going to have low regen and zero regen During combat, it needs to have something better than the maddy, and there is no way in hell I'm fitting a basic booster instead of adv or a pro booster, screw 70 second cooldowns. not hsving an adv hardener, cooldown is too long already with low duration. Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:45:00 - [93] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Not a huge fan of this fit: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11796 3k damage per shot (2 shots virtually any dropship) 6k ehp It just screams redline camper. Oh, and all complex mods without a fitting mod. That's also dead in two shots from any proto AV it looks like. Or a JLAV with STD REs. That's not a good fit. AV
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:47:00 - [94] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Not a huge fan of this fit: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11796 3k damage per shot (2 shots virtually any dropship) 6k ehp It just screams redline camper. Oh, and all complex mods without a fitting mod. That's also dead in two shots from any proto AV it looks like. Or a JLAV with STD REs. That's not a good fit. That's why its a redline sniper. It had enough ehp to back up far enough into its redline to be safe. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:51:00 - [95] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/138/11775 caldari vehicles need more cpu. If I use cpu mod, I need more pg. If the caldari is going to have low regen and zero regen During combat, it needs to have something better than the maddy, and there is no way in hell I'm fitting a basic booster instead of adv or a pro booster, screw 70 second cooldowns. not hsving an adv hardener, cooldown is too long already with low duration. Seriously, it should have been one or the other, not both long cooldown short duration. 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. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 17:58:00 - [96] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: duster 35000 wrote: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/138/11775 caldari vehicles need more cpu. If I use cpu mod, I need more pg. If the caldari is going to have low regen and zero regen During combat, it needs to have something better than the maddy, and there is no way in hell I'm fitting a basic booster instead of adv or a pro booster, screw 70 second cooldowns. not hsving an adv hardener, cooldown is too long already with low duration. Seriously, it should have been one or the other, not both long cooldown short duration. 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. No extender downgrade, the caldari no longer hage regen, they have hp can't downgrade tye booster, too little in a fight, not going basic, way too long, need booster to compemsate for lack of regen. They need to reduce costs of boosters, or something. Caldari have 126 reps 9er second, out of combat only. gallente now have it all. They got an upgrade from current maddy. Gunlogi got a downgrade. Molestia approved
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:05:00 - [97] - Quote 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. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:08:00 - [98] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: 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. I'll use that then... Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:10:00 - [99] - Quote 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. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:12:00 - [100] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blaster vs a armor tank. Especially since blasters will be buffed I think. Molestia approved

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:12:00 - [101] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blastet vs a armor tank. 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" and this is a stand-off rail fit. Why would I fit blaster fits the same as a railfit? AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:16:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blastet vs a armor tank. 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" 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:17:00 - [103] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blastet vs a armor tank. 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" 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. triple repper? HAHAHAHAHA. that;s the definition of a sh*tfit And let's postulate that I have no intention of getting into a blaster fight with a railgun and your assertion becomes irrelevant. This is intended to be a long range killer not a knife fighter. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:18:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blastet vs a armor tank. 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" 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. triple repper? HAHAHAHAHA. that;s the definition of a shitfit I saw a tank with 2 reps at 305 reps...anyways the main point is armor will always regen more than shield...nno delays, in comabt, seems broken to me. Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:19:00 - [105] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: I saw a tank with 2 reps at 305 reps...anyways the main point is armor will always regen more than shield...nno delays, in comabt, seems broken to me. all regen, no buffer means my forge gun's going to net me THOUSANDS of warpoints. it's a stupid build. AV
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:22:00 - [106] - Quote Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. Edit: also I'm copyrighting the dual light booster fits. I think they'll be really good (in fact, I know so since I already use them on my Myrons). Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:24:00 - [107] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. I want to fight that AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:26:00 - [108] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: I saw a tank with 2 reps at 305 reps...anyways the main point is armor will always regen more than shield...nno delays, in comabt, seems broken to me. all regen, no buffer means my forge gun's going to net me THOUSANDS of warpoints. it's a stupid build. Yeah, not really. Nitro and that regen with higher hp than current maddy? the proposed numbers allows more hp and regen than the current maddy, or just more hp. plate rep rep hardener Nitro damage mod maybe. Also, I'm on mobile, any new skills to increase cpu or pg? Molestia approved
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2990	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:28:00 - [109] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. I want to fight that That's too bad because it probably won't stick around and fight back. Nitro AWAAAAAAAAY! Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:28:00 - [110] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. I want to fight that That's too bad because it probably won't stick around and fight back. Nitro AWAAAAAAAAY! To the batcave! Molestia approved

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:30:00 - [111] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. I want to fight that That's too bad because it probably won't stick around and fight back. Nitro AWAAAAAAAAY! To the batcave! I HOPE you run away! Gives me a clear shot at your tailpipe. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:33:00 - [112] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Got one more: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799 "Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close. I want to fight that That's too bad because it probably won't stick around and fight back. Nitro AWAAAAAAAAY! To the batcave! I HOPE you run away! Gives me a clear shot at your tailpipe. Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY. Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:39:00 - [113] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY. Don't worry, I'm surprisingly gentle. on another note, wasn't the PG mod supposed to be a high slot item? AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:41:00 - [114] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY. Don't worry, I'm surprisingly gentle. on another note, wasn't the PG mod supposed to be a high slot item? ...since when is this 4chan? If it was, I'm going to buy a respec next month from some players and spec into the almighty armor tank. If it was a high slot item, I'd he able to fit anything I want. Molestia approved
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2991	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:43:00 - [115] - Quote BRB, writing a new fanfic. I'll call it... Fifty Shades of Gunnlogi Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:45:00 - [116] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: BRB, writing a new fanfic. I'll call it... Fifty Shades of Gunnlogi It will be a masterpiece AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7255	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:46:00 - [117] - Quote But on a serious note, the Madrugar is still suffering some severe fitting limitations right now. I can fit a full armor tank and a proto gun, but I cannot fit anything in the highs. and I have asstons of CPU remaining AV
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2991	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:47:00 - [118] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY. Don't worry, I'm surprisingly gentle. on another note, wasn't the PG mod supposed to be a high slot item? I hope not, lows have nothing as is. One thing I've noticed is that the Madrugar has a 3/4 slot layout where the Gunnlogi has a 5/2. Really the Madrugar needs a 2/5 since a) It really only needs two utility highs max, having to choose between nitro, damage, and/or scanner and b) the extra low will really help fit a respectable tank but allowing the use of a fitting mod. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7256	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:49:00 - [119] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY. Don't worry, I'm surprisingly gentle. on another note, wasn't the PG mod supposed to be a high slot item? I hope not, lows have nothing as is. One thing I've noticed is that the Madrugar has a 3/4 slot layout where the Gunnlogi has a 5/2. Really the Madrugar needs a 2/5 since a) It really only needs two utility highs max, having to choose between nitro, damage, and/or scanner and b) the extra low will really help fit a respectable tank but allowing the use of a fitting mod. 2/5 is reserved for the amarr HAV AV
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 3313	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:52:00 - [120] - Quote Still playing with numbers, but I just want to say THANK YOU CCP for allowing the community to tinker with protofits first before releasing them on the server <3 I love this idea. Also thank you for more slots and thus more diverse builds <3 "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire

Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2995	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:58:00 - [121] - Quote Real quick Breaking Stuff, what heavy suit do you forge with? Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:00:00 - [122] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: BRB, writing a new fanfic. I'll call it... Fifty Shades of Gunnlogi Fifty shades of amarr empress anyone? How about 50 shades of alex mercer? 50 shades of maddyrugar. Molestia approved
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 322	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:00:00 - [123] - Quote 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7257	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:03:00 - [124] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Real quick Breaking Stuff, what heavy suit do you forge with? all of them AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4975	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:03:00 - [125] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:04:00 - [126] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: 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. And then hiding for awhile because someone thought it was funny to have a high cooldown too. Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:05:00 - [127] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, 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. Caldari and amarr are the cqc ones, having the most hp... Molestia approved
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 880	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:06:00 - [128] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blaster vs a armor tank. Especially since blasters will be buffed I think. 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7257	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:08:00 - [129] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, 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. Caldari and amarr are the cqc ones, having the most hp... Caldari aren't the CQC ones. AV
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 989	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:09:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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.

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 284	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:10:00 - [131] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blaster vs a armor tank. Especially since blasters will be buffed I think. 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. I put shield boosters because shields get thier regen lowered...while armor got a regen buff. Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 284	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:10:00 - [132] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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. Shield hardener cooldown time would be a better buff. Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 284	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:12:00 - [133] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, 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. Caldari and amarr are the cqc ones, having the most hp... Caldari aren't the CQC ones. They have more hp than minmatar, they just can't regen, but blasters should be viable on shields, like a RR is on armor suits. Molestia approved
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property Negative-Feedback 858	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:14:00 - [134] - Quote How are you guys generating a share link for the fits? I can't see the option on proto fits.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 284	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:16:00 - [135] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: How are you guys generating a share link for the fits? I can't see the option on proto fits. Fittings, detailed option, click share, copy the link below the name of the fitting. Molestia approved
Varoth Drac State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 587	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:17:00 - [136] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Have you taken into account Rattati's CPU and PG mod changes? I don't think they are on protofits yet.
The-Errorist 1057	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:19:00 - [137] - Quote Here's my standard gunnlogi (Gladius) fit: Cpx light shield booster - 900 HP every 40s which is better than an extra extender. Cpx shield hardener 3 Bsc shield extender Cpx railgun ammo expansion Cpx blaster ammo expansion Std St-201 missile launcher 20GJ railgun 20GJ blaser 4214 shields and 900 armor (5114 HP total). Suits, Tanks, a mode
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property Negative-Feedback 858	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:23:00 - [138] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Foundation Seldon wrote: How are you guys generating a share link for the fits? I can't see the option on proto fits. Fittings, detailed option, click share, copy the link below the name of the fitting. Thank you kindly~ Here's what I'm looking at it in terms of a Pro Maddy ... http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/136/11803 2x Complex Blaster Damage Mod, Basic Nitrous Complex 120mm Plate, Enhanced Heavy Armor Rep, Complex Light Armor Rep, Enhanced Armor Hardener Shield - 1200 Armor - 5785 Rep. - 236.25 (with maxed repair skill) It's sort of terrifying? Depending on the state of Missiles in the next hotfix I could just as easily swap out the Enhanced Heavy Armor rep and Complex Plate for 2x Enhanced 120mm Plates.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7257	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:24:00 - [139] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: They have more hp than minmatar, they just can't regen, but blasters should be viable on shields, like a RR is on armor suits. 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. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 322	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:25:00 - [140] - Quote Ratatti: Nerfing both shield regen and stacking hardners breaks shield tanks. Shield tanks will sit in the redline, as per this double nerf. Unless you plan on releasing a low slot module that nearly triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near 0, shield tanks will not be able to compete with armor tanks outside of the redline. It would have made more sense to buff armor hardeners to a respectable level as ARMOR HARDENERS ARE THE ONLY THING KEEPING TANKS OUT OF THE REDLINE.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7257	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:30:00 - [141] - Quote shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4975	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:30:00 - [142] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at. shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS. Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates. maddy will always win a blaster fight. Your edit: I was commenting on HAV's in general, 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. Caldari and amarr are the cqc ones, having the most hp... So by that logic Gallente and Minmatar should be long range. Lemme know how that works out with a Blaster. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:32:00 - [143] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: They have more hp than minmatar, they just can't regen, but blasters should be viable on shields, like a RR is on armor suits. 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. I don't like it, shields won't have a chance... Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:34:00 - [144] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. Exept armor is getting buffed, and shields getying a regen nerf, like they needed it at all, sooo... Molestia approved
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 323	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:35:00 - [145] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. Shield tanks will be 100% easier to kill. Shield reps nerfed Shield damage unable to be mitigated by alternating hardeners or activating more than one. Shield EHP nerfed per engagement. How have shields not been nerfed?
Foundation Seldon Heaven's Lost Property Negative-Feedback 858	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:42:00 - [146] - Quote 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.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:45:00 - [147] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: 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. I'm only using small boosters until they lower the large fitting costs. Molestia approved
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7257	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:46:00 - [148] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. Shield tanks will be 100% easier to kill. Shield reps nerfed Shield damage unable to be mitigated by alternating hardeners or activating more than one. Shield EHP nerfed per engagement. How have shields not been nerfed? 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. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7258	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:56:00 - [149] - Quote Serious post time: Please buff armor hardeners to 30% Sincerely, The AV psychopath. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:56:00 - [150] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. Shield tanks will be 100% easier to kill. Shield reps nerfed Shield damage unable to be mitigated by alternating hardeners or activating more than one. Shield EHP nerfed per engagement. How have shields not been nerfed? 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. Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Molestia approved

DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15788	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:56:00 - [151] - Quote Please make sure blaster optimal isnt too great. They have excellent elevation and tracking so if the range is too high, the added damage could make them too efficient vs dropships that try to anything anywhere near the ground. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7258	Posted - 2015.02.17 19:58:00 - [152] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Oh no! Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots! AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:00:00 - [153] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Oh no! Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots! It gets damage mods with high tank... Molestia approved
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4977	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:05:00 - [154] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: shield tanks aren't going to become less hard to kill from what I'm seeing here. Shield tanks will be 100% easier to kill. Shield reps nerfed Shield damage unable to be mitigated by alternating hardeners or activating more than one. Shield EHP nerfed per engagement. How have shields not been nerfed? Just did a mockup fit for a Proto Gunnlogi No fitting modules were used 6228 Shields +40% Hardener 8719 Shield eHP 900 Armor 9619 Total eHP 49 + 4 seconds to fully regain shield eHP 90 seconds to fully regain armor eHP Proto Railgun Low can be fit with Fitting Modules or Ammo Caches Dropping the tier of Railgun/playing with fitting mods allows for more raw shield HP. Similarly with Proto Madrugar 1200 Shields 6035 Armor +25% Hardner 7546 Armor eHP 8746 Total eHP Proto Blaster Highs can be fit with fuel injector, damage mod, & scanner. Dropping tier of Blaster or utility mods allows for more raw armor HP. (18 + 6) 24 seconds to fully recharge shield eHP (18 + 11) 29 seconds to fully recharge shield eHP (from depleted) 36 seconds to fully regain armor eHP "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7264	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:10:00 - [155] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Oh no! Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots! It gets damage mods with high tank... sure. exclusively in knife fighting (for tanks) range. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:17:00 - [156] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Oh no! Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots! It gets damage mods with high tank... sure. exclusively in knife fighting (for tanks) range. Same for everything else. Missile tanks can't kill my me when I'm infantry, and I oh so rarely die by rails. Molestia approved
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15789	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:19:00 - [157] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff. Oh no! Now trending at #itsunfairthatamaddygetsbetterrepsbysacrificing25%ofitstankslots! It gets damage mods with high tank... sure. exclusively in knife fighting (for tanks) range. Hit and run isnt exactly hard though, and we're supposed to be getting HAVs specifically made for hit and run. Just saying, its not so black and white as "tanks never get close to each other" My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7265	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:21:00 - [158] - Quote 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 AV
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15789	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:28:00 - [159] - Quote I'll hold my excitement for when ALL vehicles receive this sort of treatment, and unfortunately not a second before. Overall it seeems a step in the right direction though. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 285	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:29:00 - [160] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ Molestia approved

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7265	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:31:00 - [161] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of amazing. AV
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18683	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:41:00 - [162] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 325	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:51:00 - [163] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 286	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:52:00 - [164] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. I agree with you on that. I raise you one Luna clapping gif here and one curior in power armor (forgot the spelling.) Molestia approved
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2996	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:55:00 - [165] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. I agree with you on that. I raise you one Luna clapping gif here and one curior in power armor (forgot the spelling.) http://i.imgur.com/87xOC.gif Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 286	Posted - 2015.02.17 20:57:00 - [166] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. I agree with you on that. I raise you one Luna clapping gif here and one curior in power armor (forgot the spelling.) http://i.imgur.com/87xOC.gif Huzzah! the fun hath been doubled! Shield tanks need the old regen back, 168 Reps per second. Molestia approved
The-Errorist 1057	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:01:00 - [167] - Quote 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. Suits, Tanks, a mode
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15790	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:02:00 - [168] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. Missiles are actually the most threatening AA in most cases, so long as the HAV knows when to strike. My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 287	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:07:00 - [169] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: 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. Meh, I don't use rails.And tanks shouldn't be restricted to weapons so I use blasters. Molestia approved
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18684	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:11:00 - [170] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~ 1/10 your sarcasm is obvious. Besides, my pony had a minigun harness, and is awesome beyond the boundaries of 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. I agree with you on that. I raise you one Luna clapping gif here and one curior in power armor (forgot the spelling.) Courier Six btw https://derpicdn.net/img/view/2013/3/4/262706.png anyways I have to agree that having the two HAVs be very equal footing against each other is a key critical thing that needs to happen because this allows us to create an 'anchor' point to which all other changes can revolve around such as AV, Turrets, other racial tanks and even the HAV traits themselves like max speed if both are brought down relative to each other in power check still. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4978	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:12:00 - [171] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: 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. There are some variants yeah. I really wish they would put Rattati's Shield Regulators in there, because those are going to be key for the Caldari MBT. If they use the same values as dropsuit regs, the Caldari MBT will be looking at a 1.8 second recharge delay which will actually allow it to rep in between volley's of AV damage. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7265	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:15:00 - [172] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline. 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. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:50:00 - [173] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline. 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. 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.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 271	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:52:00 - [174] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline. 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. 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. Gallente Tanks will have 4 low slots, not 5. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 287	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:53:00 - [175] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline. 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. 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. *305 hp/s Molestia approved
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:53:00 - [176] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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. HAVs need good elevation for several reasons - to fight back against AV, who for the most part, are in elevated positions. - to pick of roodtop campers - to fight against tanks on uneven terrain - to fight back against elevated redline turrets. - and yes to defend an area against low flying dropship In an assault dropship, i can out manuever a solo tank pretty well. Bu if they have range, are in a good position where i don't see them, or have two tanks covering each other, they should be able to shoot me down. The only real bane of dropships is the redline rail, and as much as i hate them, nerfing them to the point where they couldn't hurt my dropship would punish all tanks significantly more than necessary. Also missile are very good against dropships, but require more steady aim and leading your target, rather than the spray and pray of large blasters, or the high alpha of a rail turret. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7268	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:54:00 - [177] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter. 4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%. Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you. Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down. If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is. But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline. 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. 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. Actually your assumption that I don't understand what's going on is laughable. I've been planning for vehicles to do pretty much what the fits are showing. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4979	Posted - 2015.02.17 21:57:00 - [178] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:00:00 - [179] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! Slotception! Molestia approved
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 271	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:03:00 - [180] - Quote All I know, is that I am now going to make shield tanked Maddies be a feared force on the battlefield. GG guys, I have already won. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....

LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 197	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:04:00 - [181] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KNSdD8PYgY Ignore pyrex ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9602	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:05:00 - [182] - Quote Doc DDD hasn't trained Reading Comprehension to level 3 yet. Cut him some slack. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7270	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:06:00 - [183] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Doc DDD hasn't trained Reading Comprehension to level 3 yet. Cut him some slack. He's been on the forums long enough that there is no excuse for having that maxed AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:09:00 - [184] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7271	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:11:00 - [185] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 3 reps and a plate is 4 shots from an IAFG. that fit is only good vs. swarms AV
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 271	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:12:00 - [186] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:29:00 - [187] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7272	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:34:00 - [188] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits. Rep tanking only works if you are dealing wih swarms and AV nades. Forge guns and heavy rail turrets will ventilate those fits AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:36:00 - [189] - Quote Pokey Dravon] DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits.[/quote] I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7272	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:39:00 - [190] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: [Pokey Dravon] DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits. I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover.[/quote] 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. AV

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 271	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:39:00 - [191] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon] DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits. I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover.[/quote] This would be a problem for any AV'er trying to take down a tank.... It's not just rep fit tanks that can hide behind hills you know... Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:41:00 - [192] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon] DarthJT5 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 3x assorted repairers 2x assorted plates basic railgun assorted nitros etc in highs Doc DDD. So OP he can fit 5 modules into 4 slots! So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5 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. Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits. I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover.[/quote] So you're upset about a vehicle using a fit and cover to be successful and keep itself alive? I have issues with high passive armor repairs in general, but the whole "OMG TRIPLE STACKED VEHICLES PILOTED BY SLAYER LOGIS SHOOTING LOCK ON CLOAKY SWARM SCOUTS WITH RABBID BUTTCRAB PLASMA FORGE CANNONS OHHHMMMYYYGGAAAWWWWWWDDDDDDDD" mentality is getting a little old. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9606	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:41:00 - [193] - Quote I'm a bit confused. Is he having problems with a rep tank taking cover after being shot with a high alpha weapon? *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7272	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:43:00 - [194] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: I'm a bit confused. Is he having problems with a rep tank taking cover after being shot with a high alpha weapon? he is of the opinion that the nerfing of the gunnlogi's stupid native regen was unfair and he's trying to push the triplerep maddy paranoia when everyone knows how to kill the damn things with minimal effort. AV
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18688	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:44:00 - [195] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: 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. HAVs need good elevation for several reasons - to fight back against AV, who for the most part, are in elevated positions. - to pick of roodtop campers - to fight against tanks on uneven terrain - to fight back against elevated redline turrets. - and yes to defend an area against low flying dropship In an assault dropship, i can out manuever a solo tank pretty well. Bu if they have range, are in a good position where i don't see them, or have two tanks covering each other, they should be able to shoot me down. The only real bane of dropships is the redline rail, and as much as i hate them, nerfing them to the point where they couldn't hurt my dropship would punish all tanks significantly more than necessary. Also missile are very good against dropships, but require more steady aim and leading your target, rather than the spray and pray of large blasters, or the high alpha of a rail turret. I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 22:59:00 - [196] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover. 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. Every time I faced you you have done the same thing, LAV behind a hill and shoot through hill, then I rail you in the head.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 204	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:00:00 - [197] - Quote On the subject of shield regeneration. It needs to have a way to happen to where at all times, it is more worth it to leave the vehicle on the field to self-repair than to recall it and then call in it back in again. This is in no way advocating for even longer Recall "Cooldown" timers...as those are already punishing of accidentally calling in the wrong vehicle, but rather a chance to talk about time to recharge and time in-between "Waves of Opportunity" I personally am for the implementation of either a recharge time model (Which would take too much of a development undertaking) or a Psuedo Recharge Time (Similar to how the Concentric Circle sensor system was a psuedo falloff system for sensors) by adding a shield regen bonus to hardeners (along with a change of regen rates of the HAV hulls to maintain the recharge time etc etc etc) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 271	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:03:00 - [198] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover. 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. Every time I faced you you have done the same thing, LAV behind a hill and shoot through hill, then I rail you in the head. While that is irrelevant, what if anything hits you in the weak spot and gets you before you can get to cover? That's where the buffer fits have an advantage over Regen fits dude, they can take alpha and escape. Regen fits can take a little alpha, and then get easily destroyed by anything with good alpha. Balanced. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9607	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:04:00 - [199] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: I'm a bit confused. Is he having problems with a rep tank taking cover after being shot with a high alpha weapon? he is of the opinion that the nerfing of the gunnlogi's stupid native regen was unfair and he's trying to push the triplerep maddy paranoia when everyone knows how to kill the damn things with minimal effort. I am now dumbfounded about him being paranoid at the proposed armor stats when he himself takes a ton of damage, reps back up at 100% in seconds and runs to the redline after a tick of damage. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7273	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:07:00 - [200] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover. 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. Every time I faced you you have done the same thing, LAV behind a hill and shoot through hill, then I rail you in the head. 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. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:26:00 - [201] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. 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. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:33:00 - [202] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't think you are following the conversation. The build is vs an isukone assault forge gun that hides behind a hill while the tank has similar cover. 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. Every time I faced you you have done the same thing, LAV behind a hill and shoot through hill, then I rail you in the head. 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 Well polish up your bpo LAV and bpo suit, the redline tank population is about to increase 10 fold when tankers realize it'sthe only place they won't pop before thier one hardener runs out.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8783	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:34:00 - [203] - Quote Few things: 1) Can you bring up the profile on these tanks? Little weird that (base) Commandos can't pick up a tank on their passive scans. 2) What are ISK prices looking like for the newer tanks? Having more slots but less base durability seems like they should be cheaper if we want them to match current prices through module expenditure. 3) Think you should look at another method of balancing the MBTs' and the SHAVs' fitting costs. Seems like I'd always just slap on some standard turrets and use the extra PG/CPU on the MBT over the SHAV - just get more as a whole. Just as well, I'd be getting more assist points anyway on the off-chance they actually do kill anything with the small guns. 4) What are the bonuses going to look like, if any? Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7275	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:34:00 - [204] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Well polish up your bpo LAV and bpo suit, the redline tank population is about to increase 10 fold when tankers realize it'sthe only place they won't pop before thier one hardener runs out. no worries, I'm prepared for this eventuality. Just like in every other build when someone thought the redline was a safe place. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 326	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:36:00 - [205] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. 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. How will the caldari be better at long range fights? There will be zero benefit short of uhav defensive bonuses which will probably be nerfed before implementation.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7275	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:37:00 - [206] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Few things: 1) Can you bring up the profile on these tanks? Little weird that (base) Commandos can't pick up a tank on their passive scans. 2) What are ISK prices looking like for the newer tanks? Having more slots but less base durability seems like they should be cheaper if we want them to match current prices through module expenditure. 3) Think you should look at another method of balancing the MBTs' and the SHAVs' fitting costs. Seems like I'd always just slap on some standard turrets and use the extra PG/CPU on the MBT over the SHAV - just get more as a whole. Just as well, I'd be getting more assist points anyway on the off-chance they actually do kill anything with the small guns. 4) What are the bonuses going to look like, if any? 1) I haven't had this problem 2) Rattati hasn't released ISK costs yet. 3) if you leave the MBT turrets as standard every other thing they can fit is identical. I've been testing this. MBTs don't get extra fitting by cheaping out on turrets. If you can fit it on an SHAV you can fit it on an MBT, you just can't necessarily upgrade the smalls. 4) also not yet released. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7276	Posted - 2015.02.17 23:39:00 - [207] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. 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. How will the caldari be better at long range fights? There will be zero benefit short of uhav defensive bonuses which will probably be nerfed before implementation. 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. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 327	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:00:00 - [208] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. 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. How will the caldari be better at long range fights? There will be zero benefit short of uhav defensive bonuses which will probably be nerfed before implementation. 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. Exactly why I said caldari has no advantages. Nothing about weathering a storm of av and rail turrets, simply that the gallente hull has advantages tower the caldari. The Caldari has no advantages over the gallente, which is why the majority of tanks not sniping from the redline if the proposed numbers go through will be gallente. The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7276	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:03:00 - [209] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am saying needs to be more in a thoughtful manner instead of screwing one entire race's of HAVs out of elevation. IE shift them to turrets so we can ideally balance them there. However this may not deem possible as the vehicle body seems most responsible for limiters. Either way both Shield HAVs and Armor HAVs need to have the same area of coverage to begin with atm the armor one has a slight advantage. 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. How will the caldari be better at long range fights? There will be zero benefit short of uhav defensive bonuses which will probably be nerfed before implementation. 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. Exactly why I said caldari has no advantages. Nothing about weathering a storm of av and rail turrets, simply that the gallente hull has advantages tower the caldari. The Caldari has no advantages over the gallente, which is why the majority of tanks not sniping from the redline if the proposed numbers go through will be gallente. The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline. right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:23:00 - [210] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 327	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:28:00 - [211] - Quote So don't pay attention. It speaks volumes. That doesn't change the fact that shield tanks are being double nerfed at the same time armor tanks are being buffed. Both sides of the equation are being altered simultaneously. Meanwhile shield boosters are still broken. Shield tank fitting diversity will suffer, cookie cutter extender stacking becoming the norm or just switching over to armor tanking so you can get out of the redline and nitro back if you haven't popped.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 327	Posted - 2015.02.18 00:42:00 - [212] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline. 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. Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:02:00 - [213] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:16:00 - [214] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. 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. How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Molestia approved
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2203	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:18:00 - [215] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. I feel about the same and largely it translates into feeling like you're constantly engaging a really fast sentinel that has scout level hp regeneration - if it gets out of your sight for a little bit has all of its hp back. You never encounter a tank that isn't dead or isn't at full hp. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:19:00 - [216] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 206	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:20:00 - [217] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. 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 Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:28:00 - [218] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. 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 Call in, then recall right after you press on your vehicle, so you call it in and recall at the same time... Molestia approved
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 288	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:30:00 - [219] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. But thej blueberries will steal my vehicles and I can't move...and I don't really trust most blues to do anything. Small blaster still needs a range and accuracy buff, and more damage to vehicles. Molestia approved
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:32:00 - [220] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. With one hardener, for 24 seconds shield hardners need the old 60% reduction, and armor tankers need the old 35 second 40% reduction. Again, the 4 second shield delay, depleted shield delay, and damage threshold was the trade off for not needing a module to start shield reps. If there is a low slot module introduced that triples shield reps and reduces repair delay to near zero seconds then there would be some parity. As it is proposed a shield tank with blaster VS an armor tank with blaster of equal skill will have the shield tank lose badly every time. Armor will rep through damage. 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've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. The proposed changes force 'caldari' shield tanks into the redline unless they fit a damage modded missile turret to beeline towards an armor tank and pop it in one clip, then beeline back to the redline while reloading. Leaving 'caldari' shield railtanks patroling the redline. Thus Caldari = sits in redline Gallente = nitro all over map

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 329	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:35:00 - [221] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How would you have range and be able to kill infantry? Against non noob infantry the rail won't do mich, missiles are lol. Well, small turrets should be tuned to deal with infantry, that's kinda what they're there for. And when the range gap is eventually broken the tank sits in the redline behind a rock to sustain it's range advantage.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2914	Posted - 2015.02.18 01:56:00 - [222] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: So no "useful" feedback, no numbers. I believe you wanted, 7 slots, you have them, you also wanted more fitting space and progression, and no extra skills for SHAVs. Where's the love? I already did my numbers. I think that counts as feedback. All pilots want the base core skills to be 5% for shield, armor, CPU and PG per level. Infantry CPU enhancers don't require any PG to use. Why are you going to introduce that, and at such a high fitting cost? And why increase the CPU cost of PG modules? These constitute more nerfs, which is what vehicles don't need. One hardener? The game is supposed to be a sandbox. If someone wants to use dual SMGs on a sentinel, there's nothing stopping them. Why can I not fit two hardeners on a vehicle? Because people complain that they have to reload to destroy a vehicle? That's too bad. Chrome was far better as far as hulls went. Uprising 1.0 turret damage was also superior to Chrome turret damage, as the TTK was extended, making for more exciting tank fights. What we have now is essentially what we had in Chrome, albeit slightly longer. Uprising required incredible module management to survive one battle after another, especially if you find yourself taking on two tanks. As far as PC goes, they're kinda useless, as it's better to have more infantry running around to drop links and hack objectives, rather than have someone sitting in a tank twiddling their thumbs, waiting for some action. An ADS is far more useful, actually able to rapidly fly two people where they're needed, along with attacking and defending objectives that don't have a roof over them. What passives can a solo tank have? If it's just HAV operation to have access to them, then there's no passive bonus. The DHAVs and UHAVs I'm unsure about, will absolutely have passive bonuses, likely two each; one role, one racial. If we had 5% to shield, armor, CPU and PG per level now, vehicles would be in a much, much better place. Armor tanks wouldn't be next to useless, though they would still certainly be outclassed by shield tanks. Instead of nerfing shield tanks to the level armor tanks are at, buff armor tanks to the level shield tanks are at. They should be their own best counters, rather than AV being so much damn better at destroying tanks than another tank is. You could avoid so much unnecessary work by just copying and pasting a lot of the Chrome stats, reworking the turret skills, adding in the old core skills, as well as keeping core grid management and calibration, and giving the destroyers decent hulls and good damage. The Sagaris and Surya must be really hard to kill. There's also no way that someone on any given team will have 0 SP into vehicles at all. I recently saw a Sica with a Gomorrah cannon, taking out other vehicles. That's large turret operation and large rail to 3. Vehicles shouldn't be balanced around one person being able to solo them. Ask any old pilot that's been here for a long time. Vehicle play was far more fun when we were actually able to take out other vehicles without having to worry about AV. Why bother taking out your own vehicle when AV is far more effective for less than 1/3 the price? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Banjo Robertson Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 460	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:00:00 - [223] - Quote I just wanted to say, in the large blaster turret changes, maybe dispersion can be tweaked so that they are less effective against infantry? Or a slight RoF decrease with a compensation of that-much-more damage to keep the DPS to the higher level you want it to be. I feel like, yes, large blasters should be better at blasting tanks, because you've stated thats the main purpose of large turrets, but they are also running around mowing down infantry. Small blasters should also have their dispersion reduced to help them against infantry, I just wanted to say and remind you of this in case it hasnt been written down. Or to at least hear back that it hasnt been forgotten.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2914	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:05:00 - [224] - Quote Nearly forgot about the shield mods. Why make them much harder to fit? Again, this is supposed to be sandbox, not pigeonholing us into only a few viable fits, which is what we have now. We want variety, not a total of 5 or 7 accepted fits. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 329	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:56:00 - [225] - Quote UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ). How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV hardened with 3 people inside? What about 3 forgers? 3 DHAVS? With the proposed tank nerfs, three organized players would put themselves at a disadvantage if they bring thier tank out of the redline without some sort of damage mitigation buff.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:06:00 - [226] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that *** up and wear it. Doc DDD wrote: shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. 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. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2915	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:08:00 - [227] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: UHAVS ( 3 infantry ) are going to need built in perma hardeners ( at least 25% ) or else their TTK will be laughable versus any group of organized AV ( 3 infantry ). How long would it take 3 full proto commando swarmers to pop a full proto UHAV hardened with 3 people inside? What about 3 forgers? 3 DHAVS? With the proposed tank nerfs, three organized players would put themselves at a disadvantage if they bring thier tank out of the redline without some sort of damage mitigation buff. Don't you understand? If one Minmando can't make mincemeat out of that ultimate super glorious most extreme of heavy tanks to the max tank, then that's unfair and it needs to be nerfed. I'm a fan of both of them having at least 12,000 base HP, largely modifiable with HP mods. If they don't have that as a starting point, then they may as well be scrapped completely, as anything less is not an "ultra heavy vehicle." Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 331	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:16:00 - [228] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I've offered a tangible solution regarding hardners and hull parity about 20 times. Well I wasn't talking about you but if the shoe fits, feel free to lace that *** up and wear it. Doc DDD wrote:** shield hardeners- 24 sec 60% Armor hardeners -35 sec 40% Cpu/pg buff to gallente vehicles. Introduce low slot shield module to bring shield reps over 200 hps and reduce recharge delay to near zero. 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. Difference = Massive Duration Difference Difference = Slot module variations Difference = Immediate high armor reps vs shield recharge delay/damage threshold/depleted recharge delay This is not eve.... ---- 'Because Eve' is not an excuse. Try pushing right on the Dad, that's how you call in vehicles.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:24:00 - [229] - Quote Um no, I cite EVE because it works in EVE, and it's not working right in Dust. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:31:00 - [230] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Not most people, just 3 people that spend more time posting on the forums then calling in a tank in- game. Nevermind time posting, they need to actually play often enough to know what they're talking about. Numbers on a page mean little when it comes to battle conditions. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:32:00 - [231] - Quote Pokey: So when you are done advocating all the vehicles being nerfed to behave like those in EVE, will you move on to nerfing all the infantry to behave like the ships in eve? Get rid of passive infantry armor and shield reps because Eve? Rebalanced suits once again so Ehp of all the races suits are exactly the same because Eve? Make sure a shield modules are required to have reps anywhere near armor levels because Eve? I don't even play Eve yet I am fairly certain armor reps are lower than shield reps in Eve yet you never bring that point up. Shouldn't armor levels be much much higher and armor reps much much lower because Eve? Or is it that you prefer the high reps in this completely different game. This is not Eve and we need to work with what we have so that people actually want to play.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:33:00 - [232] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. He at least plays the game, in a tank. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2916	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:36:00 - [233] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. It's not working right because everybody else wants to ignore lore. If we had active reps for armor, it would be a lot better. If shield had constant recharge, and the old booster, but better, shield would be in a good position. But no, throw it all away in favor of destroying a playstyle that some want, because the rage of the many outweighs the desire of the few. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:04:00 - [234] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. You... realize this isn't Eve right ?? Short of taking place in the same universe the game play has nothing in common. Can you jump out of a blaster tank in Eve, flux a point to clear remotes, start hacking, switch to a forge to shoot at the dropship hovering overhead, jump back in you blaster tank, drive to a supply depot, swap into a link outfit and scatter them around the point, recall your blaster tank and call in a rail tank to counter the rail that the recently downed dropship pilot just called in, blow his tank up, then recall, drop an Orbital on the other side of the map and call your blaster tank in to try and supress the influx of infantry trying to counter hack the point you just flipped? I am guessing you don't do that in Eve which is why ' because Eve' doesn't work And if I have to explain shield delays and lower recharge limits affecting only shield tanks in a negative way then I am afraid we just can't see eye toeye.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:23:00 - [235] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey: So when you are done advocating all the vehicles being nerfed to behave like those in EVE, will you move on to nerfing all the infantry to behave like the ships in eve? Get rid of passive infantry armor and shield reps because Eve? Rebalanced suits once again so Ehp of all the races suits are exactly the same because Eve? Make sure a shield modules are required to have reps anywhere near armor levels because Eve? I don't even play Eve yet I am fairly certain armor reps are lower than shield reps in Eve yet you never bring that point up. Shouldn't armor levels be much much higher and armor reps much much lower because Eve? Or is it that you prefer the high reps in this completely different game. This is not Eve and we need to work with what we have so that people actually want to play. Doc, I'm not saying make the modules behave exactly like EVE, because you're right, it's not the same game. However, there IS a reason why they behave similarly in EVE, because large differences cause balance issues. My point is simply that I think they need to be more similar, but not necessarily identical. Also, as for how armor and shields work in EVE I'll try to give you a really simply explanation as not to get into the nitty gritty of it all. Shields do indeed regen constantly in EVE, but very VERY slowly, We're talking unmodded it takes upwards of 15 minutes for passive regen to completely recharge your shields. Even if you speed that time up for the sake of gameplay pace difference between Dust and EVE...you're looking at very long regen times in Dust. That being said, passive regen is very rarely used as the primary means of HP regeneration. The few cases where you do use passive regeneration, are typically on ships which have bonuses to push resistances very high, so you can focus most of your slots and modules on buffing the natural recharge very high. The high regen + high resists allows a 'Passive Shield Tank'. The typical sort of fit you'll seen for both armor and shield are active fits, which use either armor repairers or shield boosters to repair/recharge armor/shield quickly. Active modules. You then have two setups, Cap Stable, and Non-Cap Stable. Cap stable basically means that it can run constantly, and Non-Cap Stable means you have to pulse your repper/booster to deal with damage but are then forced to let your capacitor recharge before you can keep doing it.... So for Dust Passive Regen would be Cap Stable, and Active Regen would be Non-Cap Stable (I'm simplifying this greatly but thats the general idea.) Passive Regen is always slower than Active regen, typically by a fairly large margin. Truth be told, you'll rarely see viable Cap Stable (Passive) PvP fits because when you need HP, you need it NOW, not spread out over large periods of time. However, in Dust we have PASSIVE reps which perform at rates more similar to how ACTIVE reps should be behaving, because they need to be able to actually tank incoming DPS. The issue however is that because it's still repping even after the engagement at the same rate, which leads to a very frustrating gameplay of "If he gets away, he's going to be at full health and back here in 30 seconds" which is an understandable frustration from the AV perspective. As for how the Reppers perform against one another.... Shield Boosters use cap faster but also have higher regen rates. So in Dust terms, short duration, high regen/cycle Armor Repairers use cap slower but have slower regen rates. So in Dust terms, long duration, lower regen/cycle That being said I agree that shield vehicles with active modules should rep faster than armor repairers, but also be more moment to moment with spikes of regeneration, rather than the slower sustained burn of armor repairers. It is important to note however that the sustained HP per minute between the two does not differ that much, it's just a matter if you want it all in big chunks (shields) or more spread out (armor) As for how hardeners work..... Nearly identical in every way. They both offer 30% resistance typically and have very similar capacitor usage, so in Dust terms the duration/cooldown would be nearly identical. The reason for this is that eHP differences are tied to the modules with their respective downsides, but because hardeners are percentage based instead of absolute value, things quickly get ugly if they start to differ too much, even with stacking penalties. You begin to run into situations where the burst tank of the higher resist becomes so great that sustained tank of the other quickly becomes meaningless. In which we arrive at the issue we have in Dust right now...since one can simply burst tank through just about anything and then zip off to the redline to wait for cooldowns. I think the dichotomy of shields being slightly higher resist with shorter duration and longer cooldowns and armor being lower resist, longer duration, and shorter (relative) cooldown is a find concept....if not taken too far. The differences between the two are too great, and should be pushed closer to one another. Putting armor resist at 30% and maybe easing up on the Shield Hardeners duration/cooldown a bit would a good start....but I think maintaining a 15-20% difference between the two is going in the wrong direction. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:23:00 - [236] - Quote And another thing, what we should try to avoid is a game where shield and armor vehicles are completely equal in every way with either the shield bar being really big or the armor bar being really big with non existent secondary defenses. If it comes to that point you might as well have one type of tank and you just select different skins. That way it's fair for everyone, everyone has the exact same EHP, takes the exact same damage from every type of weapon, does the exact same damage to every other vehicle.. That's the direction you are pulling us in, not improving on whats not working (ie armor hardeners) to make them more balanced, but nerfing the benefits of what is working (shield hardeners) to the point that it makes more sense to run infantry AV then call a tank. The whole idea was to give HAVS something to do, to give them purpose, instead we get HAVS with lower base EHP, one race gets nerfed modules, nerfed hull functionality, while the other hull gets buffed in every way.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 334	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:34:00 - [237] - Quote Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4981	Posted - 2015.02.18 06:11:00 - [238] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17176	Posted - 2015.02.18 06:29:00 - [239] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge Honestly tanks in Dust should operate more like ships in EVE.... None of this arcade passive regeneration bullshit. None of these lame ass disparities between certain kinds of hardener, etc. I'm just horribly despondent that CCP Rattati is doing what he can without back up from his company. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:11:00 - [240] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. He at least plays the game, in a tank. Are you capable of talking to someone without trying to browbeat them? Not impressed with you or Doc right now. There's almost nothing constructive between the two of you. AV

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9616	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:47:00 - [241] - Quote This thread stopped being constructive once he got in here. As always, I have the same mindset as True in this one. I don't want passive armor regen. I really don't want it to be a thing. How armor repairs worked back in the day was damn near perfect even though they were supposedly messed up. If they did want to instate passive regen make it a low costive module with low values and then have a main active armor repair. But at this point I don't even feel like it's worth it to bring all that up or the numbers. What CCP is making vehicles into is far too gone from what original players liked about tanking in CCPs first vision. *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2204	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:59:00 - [242] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: This thread stopped being constructive once he got in here. As always, I have the same mindset as True in this one. I don't want passive armor regen. I really don't want it to be a thing. How armor repairs worked back in the day was damn near perfect even though they were supposedly messed up. If they did want to instate passive regen make it a low costive module with low values and then have a main active armor repair. But at this point I don't even feel like it's worth it to bring all that up or the numbers. What CCP is making vehicles into is far too gone from what original players liked about tanking in CCPs first vision. I don't mind small amounts of passive armor rep, but hell I'd almost prefer dropsuits have active armor rep. I liked old shield recharge (though the numbers needed fixing) and I didn't hate old armor rep (though they were repping for 3x the intended amount). Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4982	Posted - 2015.02.18 08:23:00 - [243] - Quote Well back on topic, my general feel on the Madrugar. i wont get into the nitty gritty with the numbers, as I've made it pretty clear my thoughts on regen, hardeners, and the sort...so I'll focus on general fitting concepts. I really like how this is shaping up. I can fit a full rack of the utility mods I'd want to have on a Madrugar (Damage Mod, Scanner, and Nitro) while maintaining a full lineup of defenses (typically Hardener and 2 Plate + Repper or 1 Plate + 2 reppers). It's not the tankiest thing in the world...the Amarrian HAV will trump it easily with another low, but for a UtiliTank, it's looking really good. At standard level I like that I can fit the above fit with all Standard modules. It's a very tight fit but it's doable. At proto, you can't fit full main-rack defenses (typically you have to drop the 2 plates from Proto to Advanced to get the PG to fit) if you want a proto turret. Dropping the turret down a notch frees up a good chuck of resources, but even if all the utility modules are fixed at Standard, you can't upgrade those plates to Complex without exceeding the PG limit, so you would really only downgrade the turret if you wanted a better Nitro (Downgrading the turret to upgrade the damage mod is a poor choice, as the damage difference between turrets is +10% but the higher tiered damage mod only nets +5% additional.) As for the numbers, I'll at least look at a comparison between the typical old Maddy (which was way underpowered). The New Maddy will: Be slightly slower due to a second plate, but offset by addition of Nitro module. Have slightly higher eHP if Enhanced or Complex turret is used. Basic turrets will allow for a little more HP. More DPS output overall due to better turrets and a damage mod. Have enough CPU to run a really nice scanner on many fits which will help a lot in spotting threats in close quarters. Rep faster with the 30HP/s base armor repair rate Regenerate shields ~30% slower Overall fitting the Madrugar feels more enjoyable and more like it should be. It's an armor tank with good potential for utility and will be a very flexible. Aside from some minor tweaks here and there, it's looking really good. Note that I still think Hardeners and regen modules need to be looked at though, but that's for another thread. Any chance we can get the Protofit Bros to put your Vehicle Shield Regulators in there? I feel like I cant properly review the Gunnlogi until I can see them in there. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17177	Posted - 2015.02.18 08:43:00 - [244] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well back on topic, my general feel on the Madrugar. i wont get into the nitty gritty with the numbers, as I've made it pretty clear my thoughts on regen, hardeners, and the sort...so I'll focus on general fitting concepts. I really like how this is shaping up. I can fit a full rack of the utility mods I'd want to have on a Madrugar (Damage Mod, Scanner, and Nitro) while maintaining a full lineup of defenses (typically Hardener and 2 Plate + Repper or 1 Plate + 2 reppers). It's not the tankiest thing in the world...the Amarrian HAV will trump it easily with another low, but for a UtiliTank, it's looking really good. At standard level I like that I can fit the above fit with all Standard modules. It's a very tight fit but it's doable. At proto, you can't fit full main-rack defenses (typically you have to drop the 2 plates from Proto to Advanced to get the PG to fit) if you want a proto turret. Dropping the turret down a notch frees up a good chuck of resources, but even if all the utility modules are fixed at Standard, you can't upgrade those plates to Complex without exceeding the PG limit, so you would really only downgrade the turret if you wanted a better Nitro (Downgrading the turret to upgrade the damage mod is a poor choice, as the damage difference between turrets is +10% but the higher tiered damage mod only nets +5% additional.) As for the numbers, I'll at least look at a comparison between the typical old Maddy (which was way underpowered). The New Maddy will: Be slightly slower due to a second plate, but offset by addition of Nitro module. Have slightly higher eHP if Enhanced or Complex turret is used. Basic turrets will allow for a little more HP. More DPS output overall due to better turrets and a damage mod. Have enough CPU to run a really nice scanner on many fits which will help a lot in spotting threats in close quarters. Rep faster with the 30HP/s base armor repair rate Regenerate shields ~30% slower Overall fitting the Madrugar feels more enjoyable and more like it should be. It's an armor tank with good potential for utility and will be a very flexible. Aside from some minor tweaks here and there, it's looking really good. Note that I still think Hardeners and regen modules need to be looked at though, but that's for another thread. Any chance we can get the Protofit Bros to put your Vehicle Shield Regulators in there? I feel like I cant properly review the Gunnlogi until I can see them in there. We won't know until we drive them. I can theory craft with the best..... but I wouldn't mind field testing. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8789	Posted - 2015.02.18 09:02:00 - [245] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Few things: 1) Can you bring up the profile on these tanks? Little weird that (base) Commandos can't pick up a tank on their passive scans. 2) What are ISK prices looking like for the newer tanks? Having more slots but less base durability seems like they should be cheaper if we want them to match current prices through module expenditure. 3) Think you should look at another method of balancing the MBTs' and the SHAVs' fitting costs. Seems like I'd always just slap on some standard turrets and use the extra PG/CPU on the MBT over the SHAV - just get more as a whole. Just as well, I'd be getting more assist points anyway on the off-chance they actually do kill anything with the small guns. 4) What are the bonuses going to look like, if any? 1) I haven't had this problem 2) Rattati hasn't released ISK costs yet. 3) if you leave the MBT turrets as standard every other thing they can fit is identical. I've been testing this. MBTs don't get extra fitting by cheaping out on turrets. If you can fit it on an SHAV you can fit it on an MBT, you just can't necessarily upgrade the smalls. 4) also not yet released. 1) Oh, you haven't? Well, that's good, glad your experience matters more than the painfully obvious math behind a Tank having 50db Profile and a Commando having 55db Precision. 2) You don't say? Couldn't have had anything to do with why I asked what they were looking like. 3) Wrong. With all skills level five you get significantly more PG/CPU by fitting standard turrets just because of the reduced fitting costs on the small turrets. 4) Also why I asked. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.18 09:40:00 - [246] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Few things: 1) Can you bring up the profile on these tanks? Little weird that (base) Commandos can't pick up a tank on their passive scans. 2) What are ISK prices looking like for the newer tanks? Having more slots but less base durability seems like they should be cheaper if we want them to match current prices through module expenditure. 3) Think you should look at another method of balancing the MBTs' and the SHAVs' fitting costs. Seems like I'd always just slap on some standard turrets and use the extra PG/CPU on the MBT over the SHAV - just get more as a whole. Just as well, I'd be getting more assist points anyway on the off-chance they actually do kill anything with the small guns. 4) What are the bonuses going to look like, if any? 1) I haven't had this problem 2) Rattati hasn't released ISK costs yet. 3) if you leave the MBT turrets as standard every other thing they can fit is identical. I've been testing this. MBTs don't get extra fitting by cheaping out on turrets. If you can fit it on an SHAV you can fit it on an MBT, you just can't necessarily upgrade the smalls. 4) also not yet released. 1) Oh, you haven't? Well, that's good, glad your experience matters more than the painfully obvious math behind a Tank having 50db Profile and a Commando having 55db Precision. 2) You don't say? Couldn't have had anything to do with why I asked what they were looking like. 3) Wrong. With all skills level five you get significantly more PG/CPU by fitting standard turrets just because of the reduced fitting costs on the small turrets. 4) Also why I asked. 1) tanks have a 200DB profile anda 50 DB precision. There are no "stealth" tanks. 2) The hulls are still listed at 97,000 which IMO should remain at. More slots means modules to fit, leading a direct added cost to field a tank. Proto fit tanks are running at about +700,000 isk, roughly double the ADS. Thats a high enough investment to deter proto tank spam. 3) Aint come out yet, but i would prefer if the Solo tanks had the same PG/CPU as MBTs that downgrade small turrets by one tier. As in PRO SHAV < Pro MBT with Pro turets, Pro SHAV = Pro MBT with ADV turrets, ADV SHAV = ADV MBT with STD turrets, then the STD SHAV < PG/CPU than STD MBT with Std turrets. On fitting advantages, its a massive SP sink to get all fitting optimizations for each small turret, its something i am willing to concede to MBT drivers if they do it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17583	Posted - 2015.02.18 09:56:00 - [247] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4034	Posted - 2015.02.18 10:23:00 - [248] - Quote I have a question: if hardeners will be blocked at 1 per type, what stops people from stacking damage mods? Some have luck, some have money, trading is not a crime. Minmatar omni-merc
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.18 10:29:00 - [249] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. This is both directed towards rattati and Pokey, where do the Assault dropships fit into this? Are they going to have the same modifications as tanks, in regards to shield/armor reps? Could we see dropships being given the same treatment as tanks? the ADS is listed as advanced, perhaps we can have pro dropships as well with an slightly improved slot layout? Perhaps 5-1 version of the Python and a 2-3 version of the incubus 3-2 Minmatar and a 1-5 Amarr? Paint over the skins, use the tank fitting template downgraded for dropships? On shields: Pythons that don't use a shield booster rely on high regen to get them back into the action. Incubi could use high burst regen sure, yet after giving it some though i'm not sure that only a 5% increase to armor hardeners may be suffecient. Moslty because minandos have 10+ prof 5 15% damage bonus before damage mods, I have some doubts that a 5% damage resistance really going to be enough as a defensive measure. I know its not meant to completley nullify incoming damage, but since fitting a hardener means droping hp, its a question of can i tank shots better with a brick or better with a hardener? Can that 5% make hardners a better fitting option? Or will the 30% + Active high regen make incubus balanced? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 12:14:00 - [250] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. would introducing pilot suits with modules that allow you to convert low-power passives into high-power actives be helpful? I mean realistically it wouldn't be hard to put a multiplier on a passive effect for what, 5-15 seconds? Also I'd like to talk to you about a bug in the plasma cannon that is kinda painful that I can't see a way to fix by tweaking the PLC itself. AV

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 12:15:00 - [251] - Quote 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. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.18 12:30:00 - [252] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continous damage. You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break inbetween shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances. Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster instalation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 12:34:00 - [253] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continous damage. You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break inbetween shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances. Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster instalation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage. you sure it's just not eating the booster damage?I mean if you're eating fire it's not going to top you off while ignoring the incoming and then retroactively apply the damage. If you're running a booster and during that second you eat 7 proto blaster shots, that's well over 700 damage. Which comes right off the top of the regained HP.So yeah it's going to appear to "interrupt" AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.18 12:44:00 - [254] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 when you say you can "interrupt" the regen. Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continuous damage. You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break in between shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances. Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster installation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage. you sure it's just not eating the booster damage?I mean if you're eating fire it's not going to top you off while ignoring the incoming and then retroactively apply the damage. If you're running a booster and during that second you eat 7 proto blaster shots, that's well over 700 damage. Which comes right off the top of the regained HP.So yeah it's going to appear to "interrupt" now if you're running a complex heavy booster for 1950 and you take the 800 ish damage but you only rep 300 in that time then yeah I can see a problem. I'm sure. From you're description, ideally the heavy shield booster should at least go near the top underfire and then cut out. From my observations, a booster taking hits will simply stop at what ever stage a round hits it. A pulse lasts a second, so the interruption window is still very small. The only weapon with a high enough ROF to break that is the blaster. Getting your booster interuped by the other weapons is more or less the dice rolling against you. Best bet vs blaster tanks is to either break LOS, hope they over heat (most inexeperinced tankers do), then kick in booster and force the blaster to start from scratch. Hardeners are more relaible. My new tanks might have a good combination of the two. Hardener, two extenders, perhaps a light and heavy booster. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17584	Posted - 2015.02.18 13:01:00 - [255] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. This is both directed towards rattati and Pokey, where do the Assault dropships fit into this? Are they going to have the same modifications as tanks, in regards to shield/armor reps? Could we see dropships being given the same treatment as tanks? the ADS is listed as advanced, perhaps we can have pro dropships as well with an slightly improved slot layout? Perhaps 5-1 version of the Python and a 2-3 version of the incubus 3-2 Minmatar and a 1-5 Amarr? Paint over the skins, use the tank fitting template downgraded for dropships? On shields: Pythons that don't use a shield booster rely on high regen to get them back into the action. Incubi could use high burst regen sure, yet after giving it some though i'm not sure that only a 5% increase to armor hardeners may be suffecient. Moslty because minandos have 10+ prof 5 15% damage bonus before damage mods, I have some doubts that a 5% damage resistance really going to be enough as a defensive measure. I know its not meant to completley nullify incoming damage, but since fitting a hardener means droping hp, its a question of can i tank shots better with a brick or better with a hardener? Can that 5% make hardners a better fitting option? Or will the 30% + Active high regen make incubus balanced? If making a HAV progression works, and it seems it's working overall, even with some slight issues that can be fixed, nothing is stopping us from doing more later. ADS's need to be able to kill these new ADV and PRO MBT's, so keep chiming in with what's necessary. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2501	Posted - 2015.02.18 13:35:00 - [256] - Quote Just an idea: if we're looking for a way to balance shield tanking vs. armor tanking we need to find a way to effectively compensate shield tanks for armor tank's regenerating shield buffer. We could make passive regen rate increase as shield health dropped. This would mean a lower refraction time for shield tanks vs. armor tanks. We could also or alternatively make passive regen rate increase with total shield hp. These buffs wouldn't have to be much, just enough to ensure that in a game of cat and mouse the shield tanks had a definite long-term advantage. Passive shield regen coupled with greater mobility(acceleration, max velocity, turn rate) could easily be made to nullify any advantage armor had in a typical engagement. It would make shield tanks more frustrating for infantry AV to deal with but tbh until infantry has a way to catch or slow vehicles the game will be permanently broken. It's a mistake to allow the lack of an infantry tool distort the design of vehicles. PSN: RationalSpark
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2917	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:00:00 - [257] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: right, so your entire point is based on supposition and tinfoil. and what you yourself intend to do. Right, done paying attention to you, moving along. He at least plays the game, in a tank. Are you capable of talking to someone without trying to browbeat them? Not impressed with you or Doc right now. There's almost nothing constructive between the two of you. So when I tell people they should actually play the game so they know, through experience, what they're talking about, that's being insulting; but when a lot of people, including you, start insulting me, calling me a redline tanker, when 98% of you don't play with any regularity, yet I'm on practically every day, that's all fine and dandy. Am I right? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2917	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:02:00 - [258] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. See? You don't use vehicles. If you used shield vehicles, and used a booster, and saw that the slightest damage stops it completely, you wouldn't've had to say anything about that at all. It doesn't get "interrupted," it stops completely and starts the cooldown. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2917	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:07:00 - [259] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: This thread stopped being constructive once he got in here. Heaven forbid I should have a different opinion and actually voice that opinion. Maybe I should go back to my 15g of chocolate a week. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
DUST Fiend Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 15793	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:12:00 - [260] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. This is both directed towards rattati and Pokey, where do the Assault dropships fit into this? Are they going to have the same modifications as tanks, in regards to shield/armor reps? Could we see dropships being given the same treatment as tanks? the ADS is listed as advanced, perhaps we can have pro dropships as well with an slightly improved slot layout? Perhaps 5-1 version of the Python and a 2-3 version of the incubus 3-2 Minmatar and a 1-5 Amarr? Paint over the skins, use the tank fitting template downgraded for dropships? On shields: Pythons that don't use a shield booster rely on high regen to get them back into the action. Incubi could use high burst regen sure, yet after giving it some though i'm not sure that only a 5% increase to armor hardeners may be suffecient. Moslty because minandos have 10+ prof 5 15% damage bonus before damage mods, I have some doubts that a 5% damage resistance really going to be enough as a defensive measure. I know its not meant to completley nullify incoming damage, but since fitting a hardener means droping hp, its a question of can i tank shots better with a brick or better with a hardener? Can that 5% make hardners a better fitting option? Or will the 30% + Active high regen make incubus balanced? If making a HAV progression works, and it seems it's working overall, even with some slight issues that can be fixed, nothing is stopping us from doing more later. ADS's need to be able to kill these new ADV and PRO MBT's, so keep chiming in with what's necessary. Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? My YouTube (currently inactive) Homeless Dropship Enthusiast "See You Space Cowboy"

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 338	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:14:00 - [261] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Thank you for the Eve lesson, but it really shows how different the games operate. Short of both games having 'shields and armor' we should really work on making what we have now fair on both sides. ie, armor always has the advantage of a shield buffer, if shields tanks get down to its armor buffer it's game over with these new numbers. Well let me lay out a general sense of what I would like to see overall given some of the design points Rattati has laid out Shields Recharge Slowly, but naturally with recharge delay Armor Recharge even slower (not a huge fan of this but Rattati seems set on on it) Shield Recharge on Armor HAVs should be equally as low as armor repair on Shield HAVs Shield Boosters Boost for 5 seconds, High HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Armor Repairers Repair for 15 seconds, Moderate HP/s (Primary means of HP regeneration for most fits) Shield Hardeners 40%, slightly better duration/cooldown than current Armor Hardeners 30%, same duration/cooldown as current Shield Rechargers, increase Natural shield recharge (High Slot) Shield Regulators, decrease shield recharge delay (Low Slot) Stable Armor Repairer, Low armor HP/s, constant recharge EDIT: And honestly the point I was trying to get across is that many elements pre 1.7 behaved more like EVE than they do now, a time in Dust's history that many vehicle pilots often references as being a better system. 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. The active reps for shields are broken. If the recharge pulse is activated while under fire, the pulse will repair zero shields. if the recharge pulse is activated under cover or timed between impact of damage then it works. For the cpu/pg cost of the booster which can only be depended on when you are in cover, it is more effective to add another extender at lower cpu/ pg costs for additional EHP stacking.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4299	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:16:00 - [262] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 when you say you can "interrupt" the regen. Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continuous damage. You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break in between shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances. Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster installation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage. you sure it's just not eating the booster damage?I mean if you're eating fire it's not going to top you off while ignoring the incoming and then retroactively apply the damage. If you're running a booster and during that second you eat 7 proto blaster shots, that's well over 700 damage. Which comes right off the top of the regained HP.So yeah it's going to appear to "interrupt" now if you're running a complex heavy booster for 1950 and you take the 800 ish damage but you only rep 300 in that time then yeah I can see a problem. No, shield boosters actually force a regen pulse for 1950; they can be cancelled. They are garbage against everything except missiles. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:17:00 - [263] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. See? You don't use vehicles. If you used shield vehicles, and used a booster, and saw that the slightest damage stops it completely, you wouldn't've had to say anything about that at all. It doesn't get "interrupted," it stops completely and starts the cooldown. shut up spkr. n o one cares what your opinion of me is. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:18:00 - [264] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 when you say you can "interrupt" the regen. Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continuous damage. You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break in between shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances. Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster installation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage. you sure it's just not eating the booster damage?I mean if you're eating fire it's not going to top you off while ignoring the incoming and then retroactively apply the damage. If you're running a booster and during that second you eat 7 proto blaster shots, that's well over 700 damage. Which comes right off the top of the regained HP.So yeah it's going to appear to "interrupt" now if you're running a complex heavy booster for 1950 and you take the 800 ish damage but you only rep 300 in that time then yeah I can see a problem. I'm sure. From you're description, ideally the heavy shield booster should at least go near the top underfire and then cut out. From my observations, a booster taking hits will simply stop at what ever stage a round hits it. A pulse lasts a second, so the interruption window is still very small. The only weapon with a high enough ROF to break that is the blaster. Getting your booster interuped by the other weapons is more or less the dice rolling against you. Best bet vs blaster tanks is to either break LOS, hope they over heat (most inexeperinced tankers do), then kick in booster and force the blaster to start from scratch. Hardeners are more relaible. My new tanks might have a good combination of the two. Hardener, two extenders, perhaps a light and heavy booster. gotta wonder if the server is seeing what we do. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2922	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:22:00 - [265] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 338	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:27:00 - [266] - Quote Shield boosters need to repair more shield over more time to be more useful then just stacking another extender. Especially if hardeners will be limited in effectiveness to only one. With current cpu/ pg costs, large proto shield boosters should be repairing over 2000 shields, something like 500 hps over 5 seconds. It's downtime would coincide with the downtime of the hardener and make up for not being able to stack said hardener.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7281	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:31:00 - [267] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. AV
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4299	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:40:00 - [268] - Quote right, so I've just built a Cv.0 with just under 5k shields, a hardener, a nitrous (I used to swear by the thing back in Uprising) and a proto railgun. I didn't require any CPU or PG modules like I do right now; instead I've got a complex light plate and an ammo mod. Now, as a tanker this seems almost too good to be true; my fitting is pretty balanced and manoeuvrable (and therefore hella fun) but the forge-gunner in me is weeping in agony. How am I expected to deal with a monster like that? 8k shield EHP plus a nitrous and a damage mod? And hell, True's 7500 base shield behemoth? 12500 EHP of shields; slow, I admit, but impenetrable with or without shields up. The only thing capable of taking down an HAV will be another HAV. This isn't Uprising anymore, and I don't see the value in that meta anymore; too much has changed since then. Well, here goes nothing!!!
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 852	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:43:00 - [269] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? How about a comprimise? Introduce the new tanks, see how they perform vs AV and buff AV accordingly? The tanks are getting more slots, better fits, but a much, much lower base HP. Since all of the thoery crafting is centered around proto tanks, currnt AV might just annihilate the std/ adv fits for all we know. Then we could see via in game feedback the kind of buffs AV will need if they are found lacking. PLC might need a projectile speed buff insead of a raw DPs buff. Certain Forge variants might need a decreased charge up time, or better damage profile. Swarms....well screw swarms Not every buff is a damage buff. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4300	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:54:00 - [270] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: if fitting mods are so great, then howcome no one used them on maddys when they had no fitting capacity? its because maddy had other modules that were "better" in terms of use. shield tanks have no other modules that are functionally "better" than fitting mods. thats your fault not ours. if we had something of greater use then we wouldnt be filling our low slot with fitting mods. Just wanted to comment on this; to what point in time are you referring? If I remember correctly the best Scattered Ion Madrugar fitting in Uprising had two PG modules. Well, here goes nothing!!!

Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 9617	Posted - 2015.02.18 15:04:00 - [271] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: if fitting mods are so great, then howcome no one used them on maddys when they had no fitting capacity? its because maddy had other modules that were "better" in terms of use. shield tanks have no other modules that are functionally "better" than fitting mods. thats your fault not ours. if we had something of greater use then we wouldnt be filling our low slot with fitting mods. Just wanted to comment on this; to what point in time are you referring? If I remember correctly the best Scattered Ion Madrugar fitting in Uprising had two PG modules. Lol what!? When, I've must have missed that fitting? Although to the previous post, that's why I want Power diagnostic units to come back so badly. Shield vehicles are suffering from the same issue armor dropsuits have. Lack of diverse modules in the opposite slot. Besides armor modules what modules do shields have? Ammo increase, and PG/CPU enhancers.... #BringbackPDUs Also damage control units for low slots.... *~New Eden's #1 Gallente Arm's Dealer*
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4300	Posted - 2015.02.18 15:20:00 - [272] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: if fitting mods are so great, then howcome no one used them on maddys when they had no fitting capacity? its because maddy had other modules that were "better" in terms of use. shield tanks have no other modules that are functionally "better" than fitting mods. thats your fault not ours. if we had something of greater use then we wouldnt be filling our low slot with fitting mods. Just wanted to comment on this; to what point in time are you referring? If I remember correctly the best Scattered Ion Madrugar fitting in Uprising had two PG modules. Lol what!? When, I've must have missed that fitting? Although to the previous post, that's why I want Power diagnostic units to come back so badly. Shield vehicles are suffering from the same issue armor dropsuits have. Lack of diverse modules in the opposite slot. Besides armor modules what modules do shields have? Ammo increase, and PG/CPU enhancers.... #BringbackPDUs Also damage control units for low slots.... Maybe I'm misremembering :{ it was a long time ago. There was definitely one. Well, here goes nothing!!!
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 197	Posted - 2015.02.18 15:42:00 - [273] - Quote Ultimate redline camping tank... http://www.protofits.com/fittings/index/1840/0 ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 416	Posted - 2015.02.18 16:36:00 - [274] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Any chance we can get the Protofit Bros to put your Vehicle Shield Regulators in there? I feel like I cant properly review the Gunnlogi until I can see them in there. Sure I can add things if Rattati gives me some numbers o7 And speaking about numbers, the only stats updated apart from hull names is PG/CPU, slots, armor regen, shield regen and armor/shield values. Other stats like speed or profiles, even cost, remained the same as the old base hull. At this point I don't know if they're to remain the same or not. www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 881	Posted - 2015.02.18 16:37:00 - [275] - Quote Please do not buff AV until after the tanks are out. Madrugars.and Gunnlogis costing half a mil already get outclassed when up against two AV if they are any good and coordinated. A proto tank costing millions should be worth such an isk investment. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7286	Posted - 2015.02.18 17:59:00 - [276] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Please do not buff AV until after the tanks are out. Madrugars.and Gunnlogis costing half a mil already get outclassed when up against two AV if they are any good and coordinated. A proto tank costing millions should be worth such an isk investment. I wouldn't expect AV to be on the table for a review until Rattati's done with the HAV hulls. Nor am I going to push hard to review it until the hulls are done and released, so let's focus on the hulls for now. I would appreciate it if any AVers reading the thread not get overly excited just yet. Tanks first, possible introduction of amarr/min equipment, AV is likely last. If things go the way I expect, especially with the UHAVs bluntly I know what needs to happen with AV but let's face it. It's not going to happen or need to happen until HAVs are fixed. Cart before the horse and all. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4983	Posted - 2015.02.18 18:59:00 - [277] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: This is both directed towards rattati and Pokey, where do the Assault dropships fit into this? Are they going to have the same modifications as tanks, in regards to shield/armor reps? Could we see dropships being given the same treatment as tanks? the ADS is listed as advanced, perhaps we can have pro dropships as well with an slightly improved slot layout? Perhaps 5-1 version of the Python and a 2-3 version of the incubus 3-2 Minmatar and a 1-5 Amarr? Paint over the skins, use the tank fitting template downgraded for dropships? On shields: Pythons that don't use a shield booster rely on high regen to get them back into the action. Incubi could use high burst regen sure, yet after giving it some though i'm not sure that only a 5% increase to armor hardeners may be suffecient. Moslty because minandos have 10+ prof 5 15% damage bonus before damage mods, I have some doubts that a 5% damage resistance really going to be enough as a defensive measure. I know its not meant to completley nullify incoming damage, but since fitting a hardener means droping hp, its a question of can i tank shots better with a brick or better with a hardener? Can that 5% make hardners a better fitting option? Or will the 30% + Active high regen make incubus balanced? Well I wont pretend to know much about dropships, but what i will say is that even light vehicles need to have enough time to get their active defenses online before being blapped out of existence. That being said I think it still applies in that active modules allow a vehicle to remain in a high DPS hot-zone for a short period of time or quickly recover from surprise damage in case of emergencies. Passive regeneration serves as maintenance to recover small amounts of HP constantly, so you don't have to waste your booster/repairer to recover small amounts of damage. Note that passive shield should be a bit faster than armor, as to compensate for its lack of constant regen. Cyrus Grevare wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Any chance we can get the Protofit Bros to put your Vehicle Shield Regulators in there? I feel like I cant properly review the Gunnlogi until I can see them in there. Sure, I can add things if Rattati gives me some numbers o7 And speaking about numbers, the only stats updated apart from hull names is PG/CPU, slots, armor regen, shield regen and armor/shield values. Other stats like speed or profiles, even cost, remained the same as the old base hull. At this point I don't know if they're to remain the same or not. Thank you and keep up the good work. I can't tell you how much Protofits makes my life much much easier. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2928	Posted - 2015.02.18 23:40:00 - [278] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 291	Posted - 2015.02.18 23:44:00 - [279] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game. Av doesn't need to be toned down. Minmando with damage mods needs to be fixed. Molestia approved
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4986	Posted - 2015.02.18 23:49:00 - [280] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Please do not buff AV until after the tanks are out. Madrugars.and Gunnlogis costing half a mil already get outclassed when up against two AV if they are any good and coordinated. A proto tank costing millions should be worth such an isk investment. Sorta. Some AV is overperforming, some AV is underperforming. Same goes for some vehicles performing better than others. We need to get Shield and Armor vehicles balanced against each other, then get AV balanced against each other. Once they're balanced amongst themselves in a vacuum, you can "slide the bar" for AV up or down to properly match the vehicles. The first two steps can more or less be done on paper, but the last step really requires field testing to see where things land. Chances are Vehicle/AV balance will be a bit mucked up for a bit at that state, but that's just how things go when you don't have a test server. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 273	Posted - 2015.02.19 00:12:00 - [281] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game. Says the guy who thinks tanks with 12,000 HP before modules is balanced.... Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18694	Posted - 2015.02.19 02:39:00 - [282] - Quote After conversing with a few folks I think the 10% per level fitting for engineering and electronics on the upgrades is far too generous, 1% CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution 41	Posted - 2015.02.19 02:57:00 - [283] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: After conversing with a few folks I think the 10% per level fitting for engineering and electronics on the upgrades is far too generous, 1% 1% skills are usually not worth, 3% or 5%. Born Ammatar, Caldari at heart.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4986	Posted - 2015.02.19 03:20:00 - [284] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: After conversing with a few folks I think the 10% per level fitting for engineering and electronics on the upgrades is far too generous, 1% 1% doesn't really feel rewarding in terms of a skill, particularly when the Infantry version is so much larger. 2% at a minimum, 5% at a maximum. 10% per level is absurd. If you're concerned about resource creep, balance the final intended fits around max skills. Or are you talking about buffing the bonus the module provides? In that case I ask...why different from infantry? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 853	Posted - 2015.02.19 05:13:00 - [285] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: After conversing with a few folks I think the 10% per level fitting for engineering and electronics on the upgrades is far too generous, 1% Why do you think 1% is enough an 10% too much? Please show your work, very little has been accepted here without numbers to back up "feelings" Frankly, 1% bonus for anything is absurd. There is a 1% skill on the Dropuit core skills, and i had a hard time justifying taking that to level 3. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 853	Posted - 2015.02.19 05:45:00 - [286] - Quote On a different note, i've noticed Armor reps have been nerfed a small amount to make up for native tank armor regen. However Armor dropships aren't getting this native regen yet, so it losing those reps is a negative side effect. Less so on the Incubus, which only has room for one Rep, more so on the grimesnes who rely more on stacking reps. Still, losing 20 reps per second is alot when you only have 100 reps or so after the bonus to work with. Shield pilots would also love to have some native reps, seeing as they have to sacrifice all their lows for PG/CPU modules. Also, landing a damaged shield ship can be very tricky, as they take more than thier fair share of imapct damage. The 10 hp/s would go a long way towards improving the survival of pilots who just survived an encouter e.g. verses a rail bus like mine, and need to land next to a supply depot to get thier armor back. Over all, I'm asking for a return to the current meta for Armor dropship repair, and a slight quality of life buff for shield dropships. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4991	Posted - 2015.02.19 06:58:00 - [287] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: After conversing with a few folks I think the 10% per level fitting for engineering and electronics on the upgrades is far too generous, 1% Why do you think 1% is enough an 10% too much? Please show your work, very little has been accepted here without numbers to back up "feelings" Frankly, 1% bonus for anything is absurd. There is a 1% skill on the Dropuit core skills, and i had a hard time justifying taking that to level 3. Well at the very least the Dropsuit Core skill buffs multiple stats at once, so the 1% feels a little more worth it. I don't have an issue with lower gain skills, but for something as core as Engineering and Electronics should feel substantial. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7294	Posted - 2015.02.19 07:32:00 - [288] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game. Av doesn't need to be toned down. Minmando with damage mods needs to be fixed. Minmando with damage mods gives a 3.6% benefit to alpha over a triple mod assault. The benefit is purely ppsychological. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7294	Posted - 2015.02.19 07:39:00 - [289] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Sooo...does that mean you're buffing AV to handle tanks, effectively killing dropships, or leaving AV as is, effectively killing AV vs tanks? AV needs to be toned down. you're hilarious. Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game. So were you intending to be constructive at all in this thread or is this just you running your mouth because rattati hasn't officially put the warning order out to play nice in this particular thread? I find Doc DDD's logic annoying but at least Doc brings points that can be verified and need considering to the table occasionally. So far you've provided a bunch of nothing generated on the basis of not seeing me in dev hangout for a couple months, a channel I closed a couple months ago because it was functionally useless by and large. So are you going to contribute, or are you going to sh*tpost about the other players? so far you're choosing the latter AV
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2015.02.19 08:24:00 - [290] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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! I could actually have various fits again for my tank like pre 1.7?! And no more hardener stacked crutches?! I approve of this!!! CEO of Knights of Ender Corporation Recruitment Channel: Ender's Keep One of the best tankers out there.

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 345	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:20:00 - [291] - Quote I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse. I would recommend starting at 10% if it has already been added, if not yet added then anywhere from2% to 5%; per level would be enough on both armor and shield builds. oh and shield booster functionality and stats need to be fixed to be useful over stacking extenders.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7296	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:43:00 - [292] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse. I would recommend starting at 10% if it has already been added, if not yet added then anywhere from2% to 5%; per level would be enough on both armor and shield builds. oh and shield booster functionality and stats need to be fixed to be useful over stacking extenders. Did rattati say 10% was happening? If so please quote Because I missed it. If not don't treat it like it's going to be a thing. 10%/level to PG/CPU will make it so no HAV needs to make any sacrifices on any fit. I can already hotrack the proposed HAVs with full proto in their main tank slots usually with a proto gun. Adding 50% would make all-slot proto a thing and allow for things like putting a pair of extenders in the highs to maxbrick a maddy. This strikes me as a bad thing. AV
TerranKnight87 Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 188	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:41:00 - [293] - Quote Nice!. "Tech you're in a max suit, you have 15 mins to unfk yourself or you can fk off." - Stumpycat C/O of Goon Brigade.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 855	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:11:00 - [294] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse. I would recommend starting at 10% if it has already been added, if not yet added then anywhere from2% to 5%; per level would be enough on both armor and shield builds. oh and shield booster functionality and stats need to be fixed to be useful over stacking extenders. Did rattati say 10% was happening? If so please quote Because I missed it. If not don't treat it like it's going to be a thing. 10%/level to PG/CPU will make it so no HAV needs to make any sacrifices on any fit. I can already hotrack the proposed HAVs with full proto in their main tank slots usually with a proto gun. Adding 50% would make all-slot proto a thing and allow for things like putting a pair of extenders in the highs to maxbrick a maddy. This strikes me as a bad thing. It probably isn't going to be a thing, but if it were, 3-5% is the most sensible option. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7299	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:13:00 - [295] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse. I would recommend starting at 10% if it has already been added, if not yet added then anywhere from2% to 5%; per level would be enough on both armor and shield builds. oh and shield booster functionality and stats need to be fixed to be useful over stacking extenders. Did rattati say 10% was happening? If so please quote Because I missed it. If not don't treat it like it's going to be a thing. 10%/level to PG/CPU will make it so no HAV needs to make any sacrifices on any fit. I can already hotrack the proposed HAVs with full proto in their main tank slots usually with a proto gun. Adding 50% would make all-slot proto a thing and allow for things like putting a pair of extenders in the highs to maxbrick a maddy. This strikes me as a bad thing. It probably isn't going to be a thing, but if it were, 3-5% is the most sensible option. I would agree. While I don't think HAVs need full slot proto, they're still extremely restricted. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2207	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:00:00 - [296] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Minmando with damage mods gives a 3.6% benefit to alpha over a triple mod assault. The benefit is purely ppsychological. 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 Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4993	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:17:00 - [297] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Minmando with damage mods gives a 3.6% benefit to alpha over a triple mod assault. The benefit is purely ppsychological. 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 To be fair, the Gallente Commando offers a massive bonus to DPS (though through the reload bonus mainly) for the Plasma Cannon. I guess for me I've always considered the Commando to be the Light AV specialist, and given the downsides thy suffer from in general, the 10% damage bonus is pretty reasonable. To me it sounds like there is more an issue with the swarms themselves than the Commando, which in all other situations performs reasonably (if not a little underpowered) However....should this discussion not be moved to a different thread entirely? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2207	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:24:00 - [298] - Quote It never seems to get any traction in other threads or often (like with breakin has been doing in this thread) it is hand-waived and pooh-poohed aside. While the bonus to the plasma cannon might be incredibly significant that weapon is difficult to use. Swarms certainly have problems but part of the issues is with a single suit that so long as a bonus can and will throw numbers out of whack. Either these numbers are relevant to TTK and screw things up, or they're irellevant to TTK and could be removed without any consequence aside from hurt/salved feelings. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4993	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:27:00 - [299] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: While the bonus to the plasma cannon might be incredibly significant that weapon is difficult to use. Swarms certainly have problems but part of the issues is with a single suit that so long as a bonus can and will throw numbers out of whack. Well to me that says that the issue more lies in the Swarm being too easy to use then. Because you're right, the Plasma cannon is difficult and risky to use, but with the right setup really kicks ass. I think a similar line of thinking could be applied to the swarms. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2207	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:34:00 - [300] - Quote So I don't to derail the thread much more, but here's a thought what if swarms fired relatively similarly to plasma cannons but when the missile got close to a vehicle it started using av grenade style homing to 'lock on' to the vehicle. This leaves it still being relatively easy to use, puts it into a position where be used against infantry similarly to a plc and actually allows it to 'miss'. Make it a single projectile weapon. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

Operative 1174 Uuali Y.A.M.A.H 455	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:06:00 - [301] - Quote Hmm, where would missile gunnies fit into all this? Missile tank needs to be less of a tricky, specific thing and more a general AI/AV long range area denial thing. Less direct damage for a wider range of situations. Death is a serious business. So is running a shoddy, half-baked game company.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 206	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:31:00 - [302] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Which is why I say they are temperamental rather than broken... There are sometimes (although I can't reliably reproduce the behavior) where taking only slight damage will keep the full amount from being provided...additionally, they can sometimes provide no benefit at all even when not taking damage, but again, I have found this difficult to reproduce, as it just seems to happen at random, or there are too many things going on for me to be able to list all of what was affecting it Additionally, on the shield booster itself, it is too fitting intensive to really make it a valuable mod, even without the temperamental behavior (Particularly on the PGU side of things)...if there was an advanced fitting optimization skill that reduced the opposite fitting stat for both armor and shield (so, Advanced Shield Fitting Optimization affects Shield PGU cost and Advanced Armor Fitting Optimization affects Armor CPU cost) it might be usable...or if it had a reduced PGU cost. (Note: that this was a problem even before the proposed changes to fitting mods are taken into account). Alternatively, the boost amount could be increased to try to make it worth fitting, but I find that: in general, the fitting cost is still going to be the big sticking point (adjusting Cooldowns accross all tiers is an option, as currently there is little incentive to not proto out most vehicle modules...the difference is just so drastic) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7303	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:42:00 - [303] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Minmando with damage mods gives a 3.6% benefit to alpha over a triple mod assault. The benefit is purely ppsychological. 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 You're doing the math wrong You check the final damage of both, then divide the lower of the two into the higher. In this case: Minmando alpha: 1849.68 Assault triple mod: 1767.94 divide the lower of the two by the higher to determine what percent the lower damage is doing compared to the higher. .955300 so the assault is doing 95.5% of the minmando's damage. 4.5% difference. I didn't recalculate after I fixed the light damage mod numbers in the calculation. Still under 5%. Not enough to change TTK Also as a side note, the Calmando and Minmando can do comparable or higher damage than the galmando with a PLC because more damage mods and they share the same reload bonus. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4993	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:11:00 - [304] - Quote Lets move the Commando discussion elsewhere, https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2634177 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 348	Posted - 2015.02.20 03:07:00 - [305] - Quote Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment. Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon?
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2941	Posted - 2015.02.20 03:19:00 - [306] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment. Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon? 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. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender RISE of LEGION 151	Posted - 2015.02.20 09:38:00 - [307] - Quote 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. CEO of Knights of Ender Corporation Recruitment Channel: Ender's Keep One of the best tankers out there.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7306	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:40:00 - [308] - Quote Yeah fitting is a bit too constricted. But since it's the Chinese new year don't expect to see much of anything from the devs for about a week. Government mandated holiday. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3931	Posted - 2015.02.20 12:07:00 - [309] - Quote A) All the Gallente HAV needed was more CPU. C) I thought this was supposed to be a sandbox? D) They were in Chrome and espc in Uprising - It helps when i can hit what i am aiming at and not having dispersion send my shots out at 30deg angles which miss a LAV at 50m. E) I shall get on to this later on but as far as i can tell i have less variety that now with your changes. 2. 1 hardener - That is just so bad on so many levels and let me explain why. So the hardener is key for any and all pilots, it allows us to actually leave the redline mainly because we have AV which is so powerful it will melt any vehicle without a hardener, we have installations which have over 10k HP base which can put a dent into us which always need removing 1st because blue dots dont use them or protect them and lastly we have the enemy vehicles which AV generally takes care of before i get there. Now i use the hardener alot, like i said it is key to any and all fits because pure HP does not cut it. I have a Myron with 4 Hardeners on it so i can get there and back by bilbo baggins in safety, i have a couple of fits with dual hardeners with one being my PC fit with a dmg mod & 2 hardeners and a railgun or my pub fit which is 2 hardeners and a booster with missiles. On armor tanks i generally only have 1 hardener but because armor hardeners are basically useless and can be replaced with a plate or rep i rarely use them and all AV weapons are armor barring one. So if i use one hardener then it means im stacking pure HP as a result in the case of shields or in the case of armor it will most likely be reps. So if i have to go across the battlefield and encounter AV which melts pure HP and i use my hardener to get through then i have to wait about 45secs before it comes back, it means in shield vehicles espc i have no chance of going around the map to try and take out any vehicles since my booster is broken, the regen is 4sec wait and any damage stops the regen where as the armor can rep through damage and keep on going. With the addition of more slots it means nothing, i can only use 1 hardener so what do i fill the rest up with? Extenders for shields and reps for armor? that less variety than now and giving AV a WP pinata. All other vehicles such as the ADS/DS and LAVs will suffer even more. As for AV weapons which melt anything against pure HP will they be getting nerfed and a big reduction in damage due to the high damage for HAV but DS and everything else die in 2 shots. Also i find this goes against the universe of New Eden where few few modules are restricted to one and espc in EVE the hardener suffers from stacking penalties anyways so why is this not the same in DUST? For infantry they have a sandbox, for pilots we get cookie cutter fits and told what to fit. 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. If I have spare CPU just say 150 and the CPU mod costs 25CPU and the module i want to put on costs 200CPU i can do that, with your system i can't do it. In EVE again CPU/PG modules are low in fitting costs, for infantry in DUST 514 CPU/PG are low in fitting costs but yet again for pilots throwing the sand out of the sandbox seems to be the answer. Advanced & Prototype vehicles - Unfortuantly they are only Advanced & Prototype in name and not in nature. My Infantry suits all go up in tiers and in those tiers the higher i go the more slots i get given from basic to advanced to prototype but yet again for pilots this is not the case. Are you trying to tell me that a meatbag suit can progress with more PG/CPU and slots but a vehicle which weights 50tonnes, requires an engine to move it and has far more PG and CPU which requires heavy modules and turrets which come from installations cannot improve in the slot layout from basic to advanaced to prototype? Summary This is getting worse and worse for me as a pilot, i am getting advanaced and prototype hulls but only in name, i am being told how to fit my tank and that i only need 1 hardener at any one time and that PG/CPU expansions are too good so they will be nerfed into the upper atmosphere where they will no longer be used. I will have more slots but less variety in how to fit them, i will have a shield tank that will cower in the redline because its hardener is off for most of the match and a speedy rep armor tank because it can at least survive outside of the redline but any other vehicles will suffer 100x fold. This used to be my fit in Chrome and also on a std madrugar in Uprising 1x 180 Poly armor plate - 3200HP roughly so i have over 6k in armor after adding one module 3x 25% Complex armor hardener - Stacking penalties roughly 25%, 22%, 13% 1x Heavy armor rep - Long pulse, long activation time, could easily repair 5k armor 1x Heat sink 1x Nitro That fit above can blast every other fit that can be made using these new vehicles, it could also stand upto swarms back in the day when 3k per volley was common. Vehicles are going backwards while infantry is taking the place of vehicles more and more and these changes are currently speeding that change up.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 881	Posted - 2015.02.20 12:08:00 - [310] - Quote MRBH1997 wrote: 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.

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2941	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:03:00 - [311] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: MRBH1997 wrote: 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. I'm surprised they're still letting us have vehicles with how much infantry cries about them. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 293	Posted - 2015.02.20 15:48:00 - [312] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment. Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon? 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. Molestia approved
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2952	Posted - 2015.02.20 15:56:00 - [313] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah look in the Commando thread for commando enlightenment. Has there been anymore information regarding fragmented small missiles? Other than maybe soon? 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. It'll be OP because it could one shot scouts. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:16:00 - [314] - Quote 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! Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 293	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:42:00 - [315] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: 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! Using a rail, if you are hood enough a blaster won't be able to get near you, nitro helps. Molestia approved
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 78	Posted - 2015.02.20 16:53:00 - [316] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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! a fun idea (but one that would require at least light av to see racial parity, and ideally heavy av as well, and/or racial turret parity) would be resistance plating. exactly the same as eve online with thermal, kinetic, em, and explosive resistance plating, basically making vehicles buffed up vs a certain type of av/turret, but at the cost of being weak vs the other types. this would be a lot of fun, but i see it being an off-in-the-distance thing, as mass driver is broken, swarms and plc are only effective light av atm, forge gun is only heavy av atm, and i cant see any reason to believe we're closer to autocannon turrets/artillery turrets/laser turrets than we were when the game launched. seems like maybe farther
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:25:00 - [317] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: 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) Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 294	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:31:00 - [318] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: duster 35000 wrote: 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) No, just use nitro and range, no matter what he won't be able to do full damage to You. Molestia approved
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5001	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:50:00 - [319] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2960	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:51:00 - [320] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5001	Posted - 2015.02.20 17:56:00 - [321] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 imagine he will either give the Python more PG so you don't need the extender, or more CPU so you can run the extender to get the extra PG. Keep in mind we'll likely see a pass on Dropships as well as LAVs following the HAV rework. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3938	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:07:00 - [322] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Still does not solve Rattati's current train of thought as seen on protofits website. A complex CPU extender requiring a spare 400 PG for 15% more CPU. A complex PG extender requiring a spare 190 CPU for 20% more PG. Are you telling me that this is an improvement? a module with resources so high it is more than most modules requirments, the complex PG extender CPU requirement is over a quarter of a Madruagrs total CPU and near enough half of it. These new stats make the modules next to worthless and for what reason? If he buffs the vehicles PG/CPU then why the need to touch the PG/CPU module PG/CPU requirements? Not to mention that the knock on effect for all other vehicles is even worse, a ADS or DS doesnt have a spare 400 PG left over or 190CPU and forget about using it on a LAV Infantry PG/CPU modules do not have high fitting requirements and its the same in EVE This feels of changing something for changes sake and that was what 1.7 was all about and look how that turned out No one has ever complained about these modules, these modules may have been a must have on the Python but the problem lies with the Pythons PG/CPU stats not with the module
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5001	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:13:00 - [323] - Quote 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). "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3938	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:20:00 - [324] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5005	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:33:00 - [325] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3940	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:44:00 - [326] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5006	Posted - 2015.02.20 18:53:00 - [327] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3941	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:03:00 - [328] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 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
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 294	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:04:00 - [329] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. Molestia approved
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5006	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:07:00 - [330] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 294	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:14:00 - [331] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 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. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. Molestia approved
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2963	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:18:00 - [332] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1276	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:49:00 - [333] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 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. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. 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:) Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:54:00 - [334] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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 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. Yes, nano would make shield vehicles have a speed advantage over armor...I mean we can't reliably use nitro because it's a H-slot mod. 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:) A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. Molestia approved
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2933	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:01:00 - [335] - Quote Finally, I can log in! :D Anyways, two things I want to say: 1: The Blaster prof. skill is still broken. Fix it please? 2: The hardener change puts Gal HAV's into a place where they're more of a Amarrian HAV as far as tanking goes. What I mean by that is that instead of allowing people to use hardeners as your primary tank, you're making people specifically saying that the only way to achieve high amounts of eHP is plate tanking. That would be fine, but that reduces your speed and maneuverability, assuming speed penalties are the same as now. Seeing as Blasters and the rush in, dump damage, and then get out mentaltity is apart of Gallente combat, I would say that hardeners needs to be allowed to still be able to be a primary tank. I've talked with several people, and they claimed that they saw it as hardeners being OP due to having moderately high resistances while having decent reps at the same time, as well as not being able to kill them in a reasonable time, and wanted them to be a sort of turn on when you take damage, like a damage control, but for a specific tank. I simply don't. However, I'd say that having a Flux hardener in which worked similar to that, lasting for a short period of time with a decently long timer, but having a great amount of resistance given and being restricted to only one per fit would be okay to use as this sort of thing (It would help certain combat styles a lot, hell, even entire roles like being a actual transport DS, and being able to Have a certain amount of time where you can Get in and drop them off without worrying too much about being shot down). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 859	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:02:00 - [336] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting. edit: I uderstand how much of a bad ass takahiro makes you feel. bbut takahiro doesn't talk alot of sh-ºT thats why i repspect him as a tanker, and love the duels bewtween me and him, but because your so full of false ego, nobody respects you. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2968	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:05:00 - [337] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 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. Shield vehicles would need a slight resource buff when they add low slow stuff, otherwise you won't be able to fit any proto shield mods In the highs. But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting. Jihad jeep on a regular basis? You have the wrong person there. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 859	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:08:00 - [338] - Quote Spkr4theDead[/quote wrote: But that's fair for infantry. Jesus H Christ its not about the f++++++g infantry!! You think for one flipping second i think about rail f***g rifles vs duvolle ARs when i'm bouncing pythons diving from 600 m to 150m rail turret blazing becuase lol infantry? For all of your BS about tanking, at least i'veseen you in a tank, and a jihad jeep on a regular bais. But really, please ** off with you shitposting.[/quote] Jihad jeep on a regular basis? You have the wrong person there.[/quote] Not when delboy had to convince me you tank, when i popped your jihad jeep on the same day you made a thread about how much you hate jihad jeeping. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1500	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:27:00 - [339] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: 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. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17190	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:58:00 - [340] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Balistyc Farshot wrote: 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. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. If WP are your concern just reduce the WP pay out for doing so that farming them is not worth the time or the risk. Or ask Rattati for a turret reinforcement timer model that means tanks can immobilise them but never destroy them. That way everyone gets more WP. Tanks for destroying and infantry for rehacking once they are reset to neutral ownership. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7343	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:59:00 - [341] - Quote Or reduce yhe HP and re-drop them in 2 minutes. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2934	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:07:00 - [342] - Quote True Adamance wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Balistyc Farshot wrote: 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. No. Never. Turrets need to just be removed, at least the ones in the redline. If WP are your concern just reduce the WP pay out for doing so that farming them is not worth the time or the risk. Or ask Rattati for a turret reinforcement timer model that means tanks can immobilise them but never destroy them. That way everyone gets more WP. Tanks for destroying and infantry for rehacking once they are reset to neutral ownership. I'd like them to be destroyed, but drops in or can be dropped in by infantry via orbital drop menu (maybe make it a lower cost WP award?). This would lead to HAV's having more of a actual role than current, protecting and killing installations. The reinforcement method could be used though for things that really shouldn't be blown up for gamemode's sake (such as NULL cannons) though. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2223	Posted - 2015.02.21 02:20:00 - [343] - Quote I'd like to see purchaseable turret bases. Give them functionally infinite powergrid / cpu and let them fit small and large turrets, if at all possible. Make them purchaseable assets and remove some of the redline crap. Allow them to be called in via menu. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Ralden Caster KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 107	Posted - 2015.02.21 03:28:00 - [344] - Quote Any chance of the return of the logistics MCC? I missed being able to rep people while sitting in a car. Edit: Logistics LAV. As an engineer, your buildings are like your children. You hit them to make them work harder.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5023	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:47:00 - [345] - Quote Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 286	Posted - 2015.02.21 06:14:00 - [346] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." Pineapples are great ya know... #derailed Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Veteran Python Pilot for 1 year. The awnser is always XT missiles....
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2227	Posted - 2015.02.21 08:47:00 - [347] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." ... I have ADHD. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7350	Posted - 2015.02.21 08:54:00 - [348] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Im very confused on how the "HAV and SHAV Progression" thread turned into "Lets talk about installations!" Rattati is going to come back from vacation and be like "Guys..." ... I have ADHD. That's not an excuse. I have ADHD too. So can we find any huge broken holes in the hulls that need addressing besides the madly constricted fitting? Anything that will break when Rattati starts bringing the old modules back? AV
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 208	Posted - 2015.02.21 15:53:00 - [349] - Quote 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 Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:13:00 - [350] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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 All those fits are boring, nothing but railgun turret. also 4 extenders is terrible, since they nerfed the shield regen. Molestia approved

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1760	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:30:00 - [351] - Quote Cool beans but a few concerns: 1) If hardeners are being limited to one, so should damage mods. With 5 slots in highs for Gunnlogis, and 3 for Madrugars, it's going to be too easy to run around with souped up rails and negate that one hardener you get. Not only that, but with that many slots, a lot of people will run 3 complex damage modded railgun redline fit's coming out of the redline for 2 seconds to one shot ADS's. 2) The CPU and PG extender penalties are too harsh. If you put one complex PG and one complex CPU, you go back to square 0 because you have no extra fitting. I suggest reducing them by half. Especially for that flippin 400pg CPU extension. 3) Tanks are going to be a lot more expensive 4) I would really like a slot progression. 5) Heavy Shield booster need PG cut in half. Shield boosters also need a buff. Proposal: After the initial Shields, the booster stay active and boosters shield regen rates by 30% and makes it so no amount of on coming damage can stop the regen. #s can be adjusted 5 secs STD, 7 ADV, 10 seconds PRO and so can percentages.. 20% STD, 30% ADV, 40% PRO 6)If Gåæ isn't happening, then either reduce the 126 shields per sec to 80-90 and make it passive with no delays, or give us back the 168. Why? Because we have a 4 second delay. Armor tanks will be reping huge amounts of HP and in 4 seconds armor tanks could probably rep back 20-30% of total armor. 7) ORRRRRRRRRR Instead of passive armor reps on shields, I rather have passive shield reps like 25-30 passives and after 4 seconds those 25-30 HP passives add on to the 126. I Like this idea Overall, I think tanks again are being nerfed. AV still powerful AF. Swarms too EZ. Hopefully, these expensive tanks will last longer... I feel as if my current tank is more powerful than the ones that are coming up. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 208	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:57:00 - [352] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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 All those fits are boring, nothing but railgun turret. also 4 extenders is terrible, since they nerfed the shield regen. Turrets are fairly easily interchangeable, but I prefer the rail turret personally, and yeah regen can be problematic on shields, given how much has to be sacrificed to fit a Booster....really I'd like to see base regen lowered a bit more, and then add a flat regen bonus to the plates to put in place psuedo-recharge-time system, let's say we go to a 35-45 second recharge (since we're working with a system that has shield recharge delay...without delay I'd put it at a 90 second recharge). Additionally, I've found the Gladius to be too dependent on fitting mods...it also needs its fitting upped slightly...and we also need to have utility mods in the lows. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 119	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:16:00 - [353] - Quote Hmmmmmmmm... Triple hardened dropships still? Only tanks can't have triple harden? It's honestly the only way I can get a Myron in and out the heat for quick extraction/deployment safely. Or the only way i can distract swarmers for my team to rush in for the objective. Or to instill fear into those swarm mk.0's Native rep won't be that bad of an idea though. Just how much are we talking about? Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1787	Posted - 2015.02.22 21:42:00 - [354] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? The answer
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5039	Posted - 2015.02.22 21:44:00 - [355] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17199	Posted - 2015.02.22 22:10:00 - [356] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5040	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:02:00 - [357] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17199	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:16:00 - [358] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 209	Posted - 2015.02.22 23:52:00 - [359] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? Omni-Damage hardeners affect all 4 resistance attributes, so do have stacking penalties with specific hardeners (as it's all about if they affect a certain attribute or not). The exception being the Damage Control Module Series, which do not have stacking penalties (although only one may be fit), except with the armor resistance phasing module Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:15:00 - [360] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? 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. Why don't you use active? Molestia approved

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17200	Posted - 2015.02.23 00:32:00 - [361] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? 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. Why don't you use active? 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). "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:00:00 - [362] - Quote True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Specific kinds of hardeners? Low all round resistance hardeners vs powerful damage type specific ones? For example players might choose to stack say 20% hardeners and one explosive damage resistance modules that provides 35% against explosive weapons? I forget, in EVE do damage specific hardeners stack separately from omni-damage hardeners? 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. Why don't you use active? 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). If I played eve I would use caldari and a active hardener. Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17201	Posted - 2015.02.23 01:11:00 - [363] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: If I played eve I would use caldari and a active hardener. Depending on your fit that would be a good idea. However we're getting off topic. So in this instance is it plausible to keep multiple hardeners in use without the heavy handed arbitrary limit and allow players to specifically stack resistance vs certain damage type or combine the aforementioned hardeners with Omni Hardeners for some middle ground. E.G- I am fitting a Gladius. Lets assume I have the following natural resistances. Expl- -20% Kinetic- -10% Heat- +10% EM- +20% I fit two Hardeners. 1x Omni-Damage Shield Hardener (-25% to all damage types) and 1x EM Ward Screen Shield Thingamywhassit (-40% damage to EM damage) this is because I know I am weakest against EM damage and am moderate against all other damage types. Now I do not have ridiculous damage resistance values against any one weapon BARRING the ones I've specifically invested ISK, SP, and Slot into fitting. When active my profile looks like Expl- -40% Kinetic- -30% Heat- -10% EM- -37.5% (-40% modified by stacking penalties) "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Soul Cairn Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 59	Posted - 2015.02.23 04:05:00 - [364] - Quote Specific damage type hardeners? Yes please. I was so delighted to have these in EVE. Of course, we're going to need anti-shield AV along with this. Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist I need to play more often...
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1513	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:33:00 - [365] - Quote I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Our lives are nothing but a means to an end. AIV member. 21 day EVE trial.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 9660	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:44:00 - [366] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Cough, Cough, add variation. Thermal Swarm Missiles (Hybrid Plasma damage profile) Laser "Forge" Gun (Laser damage profile) have it be a beam that you have to keep on to deal the full damage. It should still be charged shot. At least until we can get actual weapons in the game but with missiles there should be a damage profile for everyone really. Kinetic Swarm Missile Launcher which uses sheer kinetic force to deal damage. It would be the most accurate, longest range and fastest missile (Hybrid Rail Profile) Swarm Missile Launcher with Thermal Warhead (Hybrid Plasma Profile) Swarm Missiles with Explosive Warhead (Explosive Profile) Swarm Missiles with Electromagnetic warheads *As long as 4/5 (80%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17212	Posted - 2015.02.23 08:55:00 - [367] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: I feel the better course of action is to remove damage profiles for vehicles entirely until we can get more variation in AV. Cough, Cough, add variation. Thermal Swarm Missiles (Hybrid Plasma damage profile) Laser "Forge" Gun (Laser damage profile) have it be a beam that you have to keep on to deal the full damage. It should still be charged shot. At least until we can get actual weapons in the game but with missiles there should be a damage profile for everyone really. Kinetic Swarm Missile Launcher which uses sheer kinetic force to deal damage. It would be the most accurate, longest range and fastest missile (Hybrid Rail Profile) Swarm Missile Launcher with Thermal Warhead (Hybrid Plasma Profile) Swarm Missiles with Explosive Warhead (Explosive Profile) Swarm Missiles with Electromagnetic warheads Eh..... really you'd put that kind of douchey ass anti everything power in the hands of a Caldari Kirk? What kind of Gallentean are you? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7358	Posted - 2015.02.23 09:00:00 - [368] - Quote I just want to make an amarr heavy weapon using the forge gun asset until Rattati can kidnap a graphic design nerd. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:12:00 - [369] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:16:00 - [370] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7360	Posted - 2015.02.23 12:58:00 - [371] - Quote What's the projected TTK for each of the heavy turrets vs. A reasonable enemy tank? Assume unmodded, one mod and two mods. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 13:23:00 - [372] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 14:37:00 - [373] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits 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... Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3943	Posted - 2015.02.23 15:05:00 - [374] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits 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... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1774	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:13:00 - [375] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits 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... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem. 3 complex damage mods on a proto rail and you can take 90% of a tanked ADS's HP. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 357	Posted - 2015.02.23 16:53:00 - [376] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Not to mention there is no cap on damage mods Should'nt even be a cap on damage mods I dont have a cap on damage mods on any of my suits 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... Stacking penalty generally makes the 4 and 5th damage mod next to useless and also i find swarms are an ADS enemy since the ADS cannot throw off the SL aim or anything, at least with FG and rail it can dodge shots. The ADS itself needs an overhaul and a buff anyways and also countermeasures. If its redline rail the problem is the redline due to it being far too close to objectives and the gamezone in my book, if the redline and spawns were moved 500m back it would not be a problem. 3 complex damage mods on a proto rail and you can take 90% of a tanked ADS's HP. I wouldn't say 90% of a tanked ads fit, but would defiantly 2 shot most ADS just floating under 300m from the turret. It is a redline issue more than damage mod issue as 2 damage mods will have nearly the same effect. And let's be serious, even one damage mod is going to smash an ADS pretty hard with 2 shots. Shouldn't it?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:36:00 - [377] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Uhg 1 hardener limitation....I hate heavy handed stuff like that....oh well, time to get to work and break things. Well, we can also make them worse or harder to fit. I just want to see how people will fit them with that restriction in mind. How about good old reliable stacking penalties??? We've always had stacking penalties on hardeners. Hence why we do not need a hard cap on hardeners 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3955	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:43:00 - [378] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 19:52:00 - [379] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3956	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:03:00 - [380] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:17:00 - [381] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. I think the Gunnlogi should have a better regen than an armor vehicle, that's the tradeoff for the shield delay. The issue was that they also didn't need to fit a module to do it. A shield vehicle using a regen module should easily outrep an armor repairer. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17216	Posted - 2015.02.23 20:31:00 - [382] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5041	Posted - 2015.02.23 23:33:00 - [383] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.23 23:47:00 - [384] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. 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. With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:21:00 - [385] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:28:00 - [386] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: With boosters being broken for all intents and purposes, both in functionality and extreme cpu/pg costs, all the shield tank has is passive reps. With the hardener nerf and recharge rate nerf (double gunlogi nerf), if low slot shield rechargers/regulators are not released alongside a fix tto shield boosters, then armor repairers are going to have a huge advantage everywhere on the map. One armor repair module with bonuses will rep 500 damage before a shield starts repping at all, that's if the shields don't take any damage past their threshold, which they more than likely will with only one hardener. The armor tank reps damage while taking damage. All shield tanks have are one level of unalterable shield recharge. Those are now being nerfed by 20% while hardner stacking (which armor tanks don't do ) is also being nerfed. Seems a little too aggressive during these changes, would make more sense to try out the new fits with current recharge/hardener values in battle to see if there is need for improvement. Otherwise it's just going to be shield tanks in the redline while armor tanks nitro around repping instantaneously. 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. Which is all well and good if a single shield module could give constant reps with zero delay, and said modules could be stacked. But no such module exists nor will it likely, as such a module would just create shield and armor tank fits inversions of each other rather than different repairing mechanisms that function in different ways, both having different drawbacks.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:49:00 - [387] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 00:53:00 - [388] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:08:00 - [389] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. 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. That would mean armor repairers need a nerf to become active to follow suit. Boosters would need to be fixed to repair damage under fire and cost less cpu/pg. And instead of regulators on my shield tank it will still make more sense to fit a plate.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17228	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:11:00 - [390] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. 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. That would mean armor repairers need a nerf to become active to follow suit. Boosters would need to be fixed to repair damage under fire and cost less cpu/pg. And instead of regulators on my shield tank it will still make more sense to fit a plate. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 358	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:33:00 - [391] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. If the regulators are also rechargers, otherwise the proposed rate will still underperform with one hardener limitation as the shield tank will need to find cover to start repping. If it needs cover then pilots will end up stacking armor plates to ensure they make it to cover in the first place. Basically shields will rep under 1000 hp between Missile volleys if they don't take any damage in between, and 120 damage between rail blasts if one shot misses. I'll take the armor plate thanks. 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. That would mean armor repairers need a nerf to become active to follow suit. Boosters would need to be fixed to repair damage under fire and cost less cpu/pg. And instead of regulators on my shield tank it will still make more sense to fit a plate. 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. Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5044	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:40:00 - [392] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 360	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:49:00 - [393] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed. 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. If complex heavy shield boosters repped 250 every half second over 5 seconds then, 2500 total, then they would work properly and be worth fitting. It's the single boost that gets disrupted with damage. If one 250 hp boost gets interrupted then there is plenty to follow. I am guessing armor should rep lower rates over a longer period.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5044	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:11:00 - [394] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed. 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. If complex heavy shield boosters repped 250 every half second over 5 seconds then, 2500 total, then they would work properly and be worth fitting. It's the single boost that gets disrupted with damage. If one 250 hp boost gets interrupted then there is plenty to follow. I am guessing armor should rep lower rates over a longer period. Well I'm not entirely opposed to a singular pulse of shield HP, and then another type that reps in smaller, multiple bursts over a 5 second period. Even in EVE you have types of shield boosters that work both ways more or less, and they each have their purposes. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17230	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:23:00 - [395] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed. 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. If complex heavy shield boosters repped 250 every half second over 5 seconds then, 2500 total, then they would work properly and be worth fitting. It's the single boost that gets disrupted with damage. If one 250 hp boost gets interrupted then there is plenty to follow. I am guessing armor should rep lower rates over a longer period. Well I'm not entirely opposed to a singular pulse of shield HP, and then another type that reps in smaller, multiple bursts over a 5 second period. Even in EVE you have types of shield boosters that work both ways more or less, and they each have their purposes. Except one is loaded with specific charges that are consumed when used and have insanely long cool downs. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5044	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:42:00 - [396] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Except one is loaded with specific charges that are consumed when used and have insanely long cool downs. Well sure but the rough equivalent in Dust would be similar to the Boosters we currently have. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 360	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:54:00 - [397] - Quote And the problem with Dust us that the single large boost doesn't work if you are taking damage ie. Useless when you need it. I just want something that works that doesn't take the devs 3 years to figure out why it's bugged.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17230	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:55:00 - [398] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Except one is loaded with specific charges that are consumed when used and have insanely long cool downs. Well sure but the rough equivalent in Dust would be similar to the Boosters we currently have. 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 "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 360	Posted - 2015.02.24 02:57:00 - [399] - Quote For one large boosts maybe 10 small boosts over 1 second ( 1/10th sec each ) would work around damage bug.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 295	Posted - 2015.02.24 03:36:00 - [400] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Except one is loaded with specific charges that are consumed when used and have insanely long cool downs. Well sure but the rough equivalent in Dust would be similar to the Boosters we currently have. 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 Legion Molestia approved

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1776	Posted - 2015.02.24 03:44:00 - [401] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Well I would continue to propose until boosters are fixed, regulators/rechargers are released and armor repairers become active, that shield recharge stats/ hardener stacking remain where they are currently. Unnecessary to double nerf one class when it's remaining modules are broken/ non-existent. Armor tanks got thier fittings buffed, all they really needed was for the hardener to be slightly buffed. 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. I proposed Shield booster Ideas up there. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4326	Posted - 2015.02.24 07:54:00 - [402] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: For one large boost to work, try to program it as 10 small boosts over 1 second ( 1/10th sec each ) would work around damage bug. maybe the problem there is that every single repair source in the game runs on a per-second basis i'm assuming that it isn't possible to change that. It may be possible for the booster to momentarily set the amount of damage required to break shield regen to some arbitrarily high number, to make it impossible to deal enough damage to break the regen before the booster fires. (so, for the sake of argument it takes 50 damage to break regen now; make a booster change that number to 5000 for one second, which would be just long enough to force the regen to take place). Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 501	Posted - 2015.02.24 18:19:00 - [403] - Quote I honestly have no preference between lump sum shield boost or progressive, multi-cycle shield boosting. However, in both cases I expect to receive every drop of HP promised. There is no point in breaking it down into many little 250HP increments if you are STILL GOING TO LOSE SOME due to a glitch. Don't band-aid this, find the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4_ohYc3QBM (if you set the video to 720 you can read the HP values to confirm the bug)
Kaeru Nayiri Ready to Play 501	Posted - 2015.02.24 18:29:00 - [404] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Oh, one more thing. PLEASE DONT TOUCH PG MODS. They are absolutely crucial in literally ALL my DS fits, ADS and STD alike. I can't speak for CPU mods, but I know I have tight fits on all my vehicles as is. I have not read through all 22 pages of this thread, but I can confirm that the above is very true. All drop ships without exception from the Viper to the Incubus to the Myron need PG Upgrades, and fill their CPU and PG to the brim. There would have to be a blanket CPU increase to mitigate the new cost in CPU of a complex PG upgrade. Just enough to take on the new PG fitting cost.
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 62	Posted - 2015.02.24 18:49:00 - [405] - Quote I think the new hulls look good. The modules could stand to be expanded to cover more diverse styles (Add some base speed enhancers or fuel injector enhancers like kin cats), but this was about hulls. Is there a plan to change the handling (Turn speed of the tanks) or is that going to be the same for all tanks? Same question for turrets? I didn't see any changes to those stats and wanted to confirm that. Thanks! Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1280	Posted - 2015.02.24 22:50:00 - [406] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 296	Posted - 2015.02.24 23:23:00 - [407] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. Top tier physics. Gunlogi loses a high slot if they fit nitro...less hp, etc.. Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17248	Posted - 2015.02.25 00:53:00 - [408] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 3964	Posted - 2015.02.25 11:28:00 - [409] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. They took away the regen module with the 1.7 vehicle rebalance. Also they removed 2 slots so less variety and more focus on defence and trying to limit the damage, boosters are still bugged and unreliable so the choice is hardeners and something else. CCP actions caused these problems, they were not a problem before 1.7 and any problems that were around were due to swarms and that the Gunnlogi was 2nd best due to 10sec hardeners. 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. It only has a rep/sec rate of 168 IF you are not taking damage. You do not get that rep rate immediately, you have to wait and pray that nothing hits you so essentially it is not there. The complex armor repairer at the time was 150 a sec i think before it got nerfed hard and also it worked all the time. 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. The 5300 HP Gunnlogi was never used in a PC and never will be because frankly it is useless. It is a pub fit at best and also the regen can be stopped and the only way you escape is by hiding in the redline or having AV save you.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4341	Posted - 2015.02.25 14:54:00 - [410] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. The 5300 HP Gunnlogi was never used in a PC and never will be because frankly it is useless. It is a pub fit at best and also the regen can be stopped and the only way you escape is by hiding in the redline or having AV save you. hate to agree with him, but he's right; a combination of damage mods, plates and hardeners tends to be most effective in terms of both raw eHP vs DPS and in terms of regeneration; the 5300 shield fitting can absorb a first strike before you activate hardeners, true, but it prevents you from taking damage mods and complex extenders are extremely resource-intensive and prevent you using your low slots for tank. Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.

Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 65	Posted - 2015.02.25 14:59:00 - [411] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! Great quote! +1 for that. BTW - Like I posted earlier, I would like to see ways to build the solo tanks to be either slow ponderous bricks that can't be blown up but are basically stationary (Resolves our dropping in turrets issue!) or little and lighting fast, like an encased LAV with a Particle Cannon Railgun. See where I am going with this? Then the number of fittings is infinite and tank tactics change a lot. You think your gunlogi is the shizznit, well I go get my zippy railtank, run circles around you hitting your sweet spot till boom. Then I get 2 swarms and I am toast (And I don't complain about AV while being toasted). It could make tanks like the fittings, scout, logi, heavy. Assault/Commando, lets not go there yet. The main concern would be too many tanks on the battlefield. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2999	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:38:00 - [412] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. Top tier physics. Gunlogi loses a high slot if they fit nitro...less hp, etc.. It's exactly that, Tebu. If you tanked, you would know that. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1281	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:38:00 - [413] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 361	Posted - 2015.02.25 18:59:00 - [414] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! 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. Nitro Gunlogis rely on broken mechanics, Tank hits nitro then pushes back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth... Transmission should drop out of tank and explode but instead you often have to aim behind tank to hit as server lag thanks to lame ' tank strafing ' kicks in. It's more useful realistically on a madrugar as they need the acceleration and to escape one AV player. Breaking hit detection doesn't make the game any better, should have inertia when changing directions. It's like saying equiping a module that made you strafe faster than a minmitar assault using keyboard mouse is great defensive ability that is good for the game. As soon as you have to guess where the server thinks your shot is going compared to what is on your screen, due to point blank shots doing zero damage, you are making the game worse.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 361	Posted - 2015.02.25 19:03:00 - [415] - Quote And out of curiousity, will DHAVS be able to fit a Nitro? That could make things pretty silly.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7366	Posted - 2015.02.25 19:18:00 - [416] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: And out of curiousity, will DHAVS be able to fit a Nitro? That could make things pretty silly. Most likely. With the way they're proposed to work they need some way of escaping pissed off ground AV AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17277	Posted - 2015.02.25 19:52:00 - [417] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! 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. That..... response.....was actually in no way as antagonistic as I thought it would be. I have used it by I'm not a fan of light tanks or haven't been since Uprising 1.4. Apologies for the earlier comment. Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.25 20:53:00 - [418] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Nitro Gunlogis rely on broken mechanics, Tank hits nitro then pushes back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth... Transmission should drop out of tank and explode but instead you often have to aim behind tank to hit as server lag thanks to lame ' tank strafing ' kicks in. It's more useful realistically on a madrugar as they need the acceleration and to escape one AV player. Breaking hit detection doesn't make the game any better, should have inertia when changing directions. It's like saying equiping a module that made you strafe faster than a minmitar assault using keyboard mouse is great defensive ability that is good for the game. As soon as you have to guess where the server thinks your shot is going compared to what is on your screen, due to point blank shots doing zero damage, you are making the game worse. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.25 20:55:00 - [419] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: duster 35000 wrote: A gunlogi with nitro is worse than a maddy with nitro. REALLY! That's a new one. Guess that speed is too much to handle for most tankers. Must be a top tier tanker thing. THE ARROGANCE IS OVER 9000! 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. That..... response.....was actually in no way as antagonistic as I thought it would be. I have used it by I'm not a fan of light tanks or haven't been since Uprising 1.4. Apologies for the earlier comment. Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. I like to poke at things here and there but I'm not going to get my balls in a bunch over forums. Your comment actually made me let out a big smile:) Nice one Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5056	Posted - 2015.02.25 20:56:00 - [420] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. I dunno man. Put a nitro on an Amarrian HAV and you might actually see what a flying brick looks like. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 361	Posted - 2015.02.25 21:24:00 - [421] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Nitro Gunlogis rely on broken mechanics, Tank hits nitro then pushes back and forth back and forth back and forth back and forth... Transmission should drop out of tank and explode but instead you often have to aim behind tank to hit as server lag thanks to lame ' tank strafing ' kicks in. It's more useful realistically on a madrugar as they need the acceleration and to escape one AV player. Breaking hit detection doesn't make the game any better, should have inertia when changing directions. It's like saying equiping a module that made you strafe faster than a minmitar assault using keyboard mouse is great defensive ability that is good for the game. As soon as you have to guess where the server thinks your shot is going compared to what is on your screen, due to point blank shots doing zero damage, you are making the game worse. 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. Broken as in having to shoot 10 m behind target to hit, I'm not talking about anticipation of where target will be, but the constant back and forth breaks something... easiest thing to do is not move turret and let nitro tank drive into shot, but for me at least I end up having to guess which vector in time the other tank exists. Much easier to hit other tanks while using nitro personally.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17281	Posted - 2015.02.25 21:28:00 - [422] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. I dunno man. Put a nitro on an Amarrian HAV and you might actually see what a flying brick looks like. 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.... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7367	Posted - 2015.02.25 21:53:00 - [423] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Broken as in having to shoot 10 m behind target to hit, I'm not talking about anticipation of where target will be, but the constant back and forth breaks something... easiest thing to do is not move turret and let nitro tank drive into shot, but for me at least I end up having to guess which vector in time the other tank exists. Much easier to hit other tanks while using nitro personally. Oh Lord confirmation of the strafe strafe wiggledance for tanks. Someone fix the hit detection. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2936	Posted - 2015.02.25 22:55:00 - [424] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Broken as in having to shoot 10 m behind target to hit, I'm not talking about anticipation of where target will be, but the constant back and forth breaks something... easiest thing to do is not move turret and let nitro tank drive into shot, but for me at least I end up having to guess which vector in time the other tank exists. Much easier to hit other tanks while using nitro personally. Oh Lord confirmation of the strafe strafe wiggledance for tanks. Someone fix the hit detection. Blasters in general has bad hit detection, it gets worse the smaller the target gets too. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 306	Posted - 2015.02.26 00:40:00 - [425] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. I dunno man. Put a nitro on an Amarrian HAV and you might actually see what a flying brick looks like. 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.... Carbide armor? Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17288	Posted - 2015.02.26 00:52:00 - [426] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Regardless speed is not generally my thing and likely won't be something I worry about until I can get my hands on an Amarrian HAV because it is coming. I dunno man. Put a nitro on an Amarrian HAV and you might actually see what a flying brick looks like. 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.... Carbide armor? This is apparently what the Amarr use. At the same time this is also what modern KE penetrator rounds are made/tipped with. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:00:00 - [427] - Quote Alright, finally decided to check out proto fits in check these new tanks out. I really really like the 5 slot layout. You wanted to gunnlogis to focus shields and you gave them that ability, something that has been lacking previously. I basically took my current 3 slot layout on my high slot modules I use currently and built out from there. Keep in mind none of these use the new "HAV" tanks as these are not going to be used in the competitive PC environment that. In fact, something to note, gunners tanks (those using smalls) in any iteration will more than likely NEVER be used in PC. That's what I call a Pub Scrub tank:) Also, I DO NOT agree with a single hardener rule. That is just utterly stupid in my book and I AM ignoring it. You should be encouraged to at least use 2 if you want, but 3 should be discouraged. The only option over a shield hardener for D are extenders or boosters. I suggest improving Shield extenders to be more on par with the resistances provided by hardeners to help encourage use over hardeners. But I never will agree with restrictions like that. With this 5 slot layout, you should be able to lower resistance bonuses on hardeners to encourage using more to provide the same bonuses we have now at the cost of more slot space. And honestly, passive resists need to be brought back into play to help discourage the need for multiple hardeners. ------- So, some fits I put up: Hardened booster setup A new setup I've been trying out. Double hardened with a booster (came across a tanker in PC using this setup, VERY much OP). Booster acts like an extra extender. With skills, I managed to tack on an enhanced extender with a complex nitro. Double hardeners with a single booster is already very solid for single engagements. The extender helps maximize the hardeners. The booster does the same thing, but a booster isn't always expected so it creates a shock an awe situation against the other tanker. Let them think they almost have you and pop back up to near full, starting regen, and drastically increasing the life of hardeners to their fullest. Extremely solid setup all around for many engagements. Nitro helps with movement on the field, not to mention breaking engagements to get the full affect of the booster, and maximum hardener potential. (Note: With a 5 slot layout, modules need to be addressed. Many modules will need to have their values decreased. Hardeners down from 40% to 30% for example. Hardener values being decreased will promote a healthy mixing of hardeners and other things like extenders.) DMG speed/armor tanked An ode to the old fits when damage mods were king (or broken I should say). Started with the double damage mods with a nitro (speed is key as this fit is low on the tank). After that I can manage a single complex hardener and a complex extender. Additionally managed to fit a basic plate and armor hardener. Can't say for sure how well this would hold up to my previous fit. My instinct tells me it would struggle even with the damage mods. But the fact that I can put some amount of extra armor on it with some shield D means it might hold up well to the other fit. As it is now, double damage mods don't seem all that viable. Then again, I've moved away from using damage mods for sometime now as they often just can't break the D of most fits in a sufficient time. I'm inclined to say hardeners are a much stronger choice, but if you were to lower hardener resists, this would more than likely change drastically. Heavy extender D I call this one a PUB fit. Works well on AV but I don't know that it would hold against some other tank fits, like my first one posted. My current pub fit (I run double small rails on my current one, this is just with a solo HAV) uses 2 extenders and a single hardener. In this setup I managed to fit an extra extender and a nitro with the help of a PG module. Without field testing I can't determine how this could hold up against another tank. I'm sure it would come close as it does now, but in my experience this will always be bested by my first fit. It would be a strong PUB fit against AV and lesser tankers, and with a gun or two added on (and a few tweaks in fitting) it could be a PUB slayer. Beyond that I don't see it playing out well in the competitive environment. Conclusion All in all, holy OP balls. AV will have to be adjusted or modules adjusted. Shield tanks can already stand up well to AV as is, adding an extra 2 slots PLUS extra PG/CPU puts them WAY over the top. But I guess the trade off is that the solo HAV won't be dealing with too much infantry and more tank v tank focused. I do very much enjoy the higher slot count as well. I hope to see extra modules added in to allow for some extra variety in fitting. You still aren't breaking away from the "cookie cutter" fitting options. That can really only be done with some new modules added in. And NO to a single hardener rule, but agreed that triple hardeners needs to be prevented. But I don't know where you get this idea that triple hardening is a thing, because no good tanker will ever live with triple hardeners! I don't know anyone that actually does that anymore. (extra note: maybe consider scaling modules more in power over time. Keep time the same across tiers, but increase power. This way if I decide to use a lower tier module, I don't just loose in that pretty irrelevant cool down time. EX: Basic hardener 25% enhanced 27% complex 30%) Tanks - Balancing Turrets
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17311	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:06:00 - [428] - Quote In regards to the above post I noted you said something that is very insightful. Tebu Gan wrote: I basically took my current 3 slot layout on my high slot modules I use currently and built out from there. Keep in mind none of these use the new "HAV" tanks as these are not going to be used in the competitive PC environment that. In fact, something to note, gunners tanks (those using smalls) in any iteration will more than likely NEVER be used in PC. That's what I call a Pub Scrub tank:) This I feel is a fundamental design flaw that Rattati is pursuing in the SHAV. An HAV should NEVER be a tool that rewards the selfish solo player mind set. It should always require the fitting of small turrets. Rather than looking for a quick fix solution it would be better to pursue squad and pilot seat locks. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7378	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:17:00 - [429] - Quote no passive resists unless by module. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:26:00 - [430] - Quote True Adamance wrote: In regards to the above post I noted you said something that is very insightful. Tebu Gan wrote: I basically took my current 3 slot layout on my high slot modules I use currently and built out from there. Keep in mind none of these use the new "HAV" tanks as these are not going to be used in the competitive PC environment that. In fact, something to note, gunners tanks (those using smalls) in any iteration will more than likely NEVER be used in PC. That's what I call a Pub Scrub tank:) This I feel is a fundamental design flaw that Rattati is pursuing in the SHAV. An HAV should NEVER be a tool that rewards the selfish solo player mind set. It should always require the fitting of small turrets. Rather than looking for a quick fix solution it would be better to pursue squad and pilot seat locks. Nothing "selfish" about it. Fact of the matter is that a 3 seater tank will NEVER be a viable tank for PC. Those 3 people in a tank can generally slay just as well out of the tank as in it (if not better out of it). And in PC a tank is extremely limited when it comes to point control. Tanks general main role in PC is ADS control. With tank control following behind it as you can't blow up the ADS if you can't keep your tank out long enough to do so. Every now and again you get a point that can be held by a blaster, but it's not often and in my experience not nearly as effective as a man on foot. Sure, in a pub running a 3 seater tank is fun ( and something I do a LOT) and viable. But when it comes to PC, no good team is going to actually sacrifice people on the ground to get into a tank. Every one has a role, and teams aren't simply going to sacrifice 3 people to ONE tank. Maps just don't makes this viable in the least. I understand where you are coming from, and yeah sure it would make sense if we weren't limited by things like map design or the 16 man limit. But with things as they are, multi man tanks are novelties at best and have no place in the competitive PC environment. Still fine for a PUB match, but it must be kept in mind that this will be their ONLY place. Unless of course a UHAV can have a module that decreases dispersion on the large blaster but even still, you would still be running the thing solo in a PC. You would simply be forced to run guns on it, guns that would never get used outside of a PUB match. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:30:00 - [431] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: no passive resists unless by module. Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module. And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there. Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:43:00 - [432] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: no passive resists unless by module. Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module. And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there. Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still. I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs. I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side. I've already done tha calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17318	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:10:00 - [433] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: In regards to the above post I noted you said something that is very insightful. Tebu Gan wrote: I basically took my current 3 slot layout on my high slot modules I use currently and built out from there. Keep in mind none of these use the new "HAV" tanks as these are not going to be used in the competitive PC environment that. In fact, something to note, gunners tanks (those using smalls) in any iteration will more than likely NEVER be used in PC. That's what I call a Pub Scrub tank:) This I feel is a fundamental design flaw that Rattati is pursuing in the SHAV. An HAV should NEVER be a tool that rewards the selfish solo player mind set. It should always require the fitting of small turrets. Rather than looking for a quick fix solution it would be better to pursue squad and pilot seat locks. Nothing "selfish" about it. Fact of the matter is that a 3 seater tank will NEVER be a viable tank for PC. Those 3 people in a tank can generally slay just as well out of the tank as in it (if not better out of it). And in PC a tank is extremely limited when it comes to point control. Tanks general main role in PC is ADS control. With tank control following behind it as you can't blow up the ADS if you can't keep your tank out long enough to do so. Every now and again you get a point that can be held by a blaster, but it's not often and in my experience not nearly as effective as a man on foot. Sure, in a pub running a 3 seater tank is fun ( and something I do a LOT) and viable. But when it comes to PC, no good team is going to actually sacrifice people on the ground to get into a tank. Every one has a role, and teams aren't simply going to sacrifice 3 people to ONE tank. Maps just don't makes this viable in the least. I understand where you are coming from, and yeah sure it would make sense if we weren't limited by things like map design or the 16 man limit. But with things as they are, multi man tanks are novelties at best and have no place in the competitive PC environment. Still fine for a PUB match, but it must be kept in mind that this will be their ONLY place. Unless of course a UHAV can have a module that decreases dispersion on the large blaster but even still, you would still be running the thing solo in a PC. You would simply be forced to run guns on it, guns that would never get used outside of a PUB match. I'm not suggesting you have to mount people in the tank. but I am suggesting regardless of what you want you must fit at least the minimum number of guns. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17318	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:12:00 - [434] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: no passive resists unless by module. Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module. And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there. Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still. I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs. I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side. I've already done the calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon. Before you ask, no, I don't think AV should be balanced to fight UHAVs solo. MBTs yes. UHAVs, no. Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:14:00 - [435] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: no passive resists unless by module. Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module. And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there. Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still. I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs. I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side. I've already done the calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon. Before you ask, no, I don't think AV should be balanced to fight UHAVs solo. MBTs yes. UHAVs, no. I wasn't going to ask, but I will ask if you think DHAV need to be soloed by AV? Tanks that aren't even built around killing infantry. Another note, AV may need some minor tweaks upwards, but the biggest change needs to come from the tank module side. With the added slots, modules need to be toned down to reflect this. Then again, of course we can put it all on the AV side, but you have to keep in mind DS and light vehicles. Don't want to be insta popping things for the sake of tank balance. And your statement that the Uhav can't be soloed, yet the MBTs can seems incredibly wrong to me. Something just doesn't jive with that statement. Something that can easily kill the AV infantry yet remain way stronger just doesn't sit well with me. I have a UHAV now, called a double extender hardener gunnlogi. With gunners, honestly, that's all the defense I would need to be on par and above a solo AV. And by solo, I don't imagine you mean fire one clip and call it done. I imagine it would take some work. Especially if you are taking on something that is limited in engagement against them. And as I said with true, UHAV's or any multi seater tank is useless in PC. Multi man tanks only have a place, and always will, in Pubs. Which by their very nature are unbalanced to start. What do you think of that statement. And I know, lots of ands. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:15:00 - [436] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely? If the winds are blowing the way the aught, they'll be getting a direct resistance to Infantry AV. Which will not apply to heavy turrets. that's really the only way for the DHAV to be a viable counter while still maintaining hardcore resistance to my particular brand of *******. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:16:00 - [437] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: no passive resists unless by module. Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module. And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there. Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still. I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs. I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side. I've already done the calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon. Before you ask, no, I don't think AV should be balanced to fight UHAVs solo. MBTs yes. UHAVs, no. Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely? Nothing solid yet. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17318	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:20:00 - [438] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely? If the winds are blowing the way the aught, they'll be getting a direct resistance to Infantry AV. Which will not apply to heavy turrets. that's really the only way for the DHAV to be a viable counter while still maintaining hardcore resistance to my particular brand of ******. Hmmmm okay that does sound odd. I was simply thinking things like cooldown and duration bonuses.....not actually making the hulls more resistant to damage. I'm assuming the hulls will have better based HP values anyway right? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:39:00 - [439] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: I wasn't going to ask, but I will ask if you think DHAV need to be soloed by AV? Tanks that aren't even built around killing infantry. Another note, AV may need some minor tweaks upwards, but the biggest change needs to come from the tank module side. With the added slots, modules need to be toned down to reflect this. Then again, of course we can put it all on the AV side, but you have to keep in mind DS and light vehicles. Don't want to be insta popping things for the sake of tank balance. And your statement that the Uhav can't be soloed, yet the MBTs can seems incredibly wrong to me. Something just doesn't jive with that statement. Something that can easily kill the AV infantry yet remain way stronger just doesn't sit well with me. I have a UHAV now, called a double extender hardener gunnlogi. With gunners, honestly, that's all the defense I would need to be on par and above a solo AV. And by solo, I don't imagine you mean fire one clip and call it done. I imagine it would take some work. Especially if you are taking on something that is limited in engagement against them. And as I said with true, UHAV's or any multi seater tank is useless in PC. Multi man tanks only have a place, and always will, in Pubs. Which by their very nature are unbalanced to start. What do you think of that statement. And I know, lots of ands. DHAVs are supposed to be glass cannons, so yes. I'm also of the opinion that said glass cannons should be cheaper than MBT and UHAVs because of their intended fragility to offset the odds of me telling it to stay OFF MY UHAV killing YOUR boys. Honestly there's no reason why AV will need an alpha increase. What needs to be done can be done PURELY via rate of fire without tweaking alpha upward. In fact I'm VEHEMENTLY against further increases to alpha damage on the current AV. I said that AV should be able to FIGHT an MBT. I said NOTHING about being able to casually destroy one. My optimal solution would be if the stars align and you never miss it'll take between thirteen and 16 seconds to fight down an MBT. I hope you (AV players) have a clue what you're doing. That's a MINIMUM timeframe assuming you are using a weapon intended to kill the appropriate tank type. So forge guns for armor, some kinda laser for shields, etc. All of my balancing ideas call for the AV gunner to have to reload to land an MBT kill. I'm also in favor of splash going bye bye to make room for actual weapon bonuses. Multiman HAVs have a place, and that place is situational. I think True has the right idea that there should be an option. Party tanks are useful for delivering people directly to open-ground hack points while providing counterfire vs. AV. Do I think they're a "everyone get in and stay in?" Not by a long shot. I believe that True shares my opinion that the SHAV is a bandaid placed on a wound. No PC crew is going to actually have some dipwad loiter in a small turret when he needs to be DOING things. So it's less of a concern given that barring the smalls, both types of tank are limited to more or less identical fits. So it's a yes and no. situationally they are useful. As a general suppression tool, we're going to need to see how the UHAVs play out before calling out fail points. The UHAV will be the useful three-seater if anything. But no, contrary to a lot of what people like to bandy about when referencing me, I am not an advocate of HAVs being one shot kills except when I'm trying to get a rise out of people dumb enough to assume it. I absolutely think AV should threaten a main battle tank, credibly threaten. But honestly I consider the advantage to go to the tank, and the foot soldier with the big gun needing to be slick to pull off a solo. I solo the current generation of sicas and gunnlogis, which are arguably (Depends on who's arguing) OP. The only real efficient defense is pinpoint accuracy with a rail (don't laugh, I've been jacked up by some absolutely lethal gunners with rails today) and jumping out of the tank with an HMG or a shotgun which is arguably the most cheeseass thing this side of the JLAV, which I only use when someone who I know will get buttmad and post about it here is on the enemy team. I'm also actively cooking up proposed stats for a Heavy autocannon, Heavy plasma mortar, heavy laser cannon (scrambler lance) and an amarr Light AV weapon. Having run the numbers any buffs to swarms we have current will sign the death warrant of all dropships and armor HAVs. as it stands swarms will also require reloads to kill madrugars coming down the pipe. Honestly some people have suggested giving the mass driver 100% efficacy versus HAVs, and I'm pretty much pointing and shaking my head because it won't accomplish anything. You'd have to make the Mass driver profile 140% vs. HAVs to do anything other than bust holes in LAVs. Even then it's utility is iffy. You'd need a squad of the damn things to be a credible threat. As far as the new HAVs go I actually like them. They're going to be powerful and scary. They should be. Av should be a threat, absolutely, but within certain boundaries. I deliberately (even on my not-final because I'm dicking around) set even the scrambler lance stats I have poked into my merry little Av database running a bit over 900 DPS. With a full shield tank it'll need a reload before breaching the armor, and will have done somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 damage to the operator if they simply hold down the trigger on a gunnlogi. So again, I'm not interested in HAV EZ-Kill mode. And no, none of the numbers in my AV spreadsheet under proposed are final, just so no one gets too panicky. I am not going to do final numbers until such time as Rattati says "HAV hulls and modules are done." Once we have that, I'll start adjusting recommendations for what we're going to deal with. Until we have that much, there's no point in getting excited. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:40:00 - [440] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely? If the winds are blowing the way the aught, they'll be getting a direct resistance to Infantry AV. Which will not apply to heavy turrets. that's really the only way for the DHAV to be a viable counter while still maintaining hardcore resistance to my particular brand of *******. Hmmmm okay that does sound odd. I was simply thinking things like cooldown and duration bonuses.....not actually making the hulls more resistant to damage. I'm assuming the hulls will have better based HP values anyway right? they're going to have to have better base HP values to make up for the lower slot layout. Otherwise they're a DHAV that makes infantry cry. You might as well just use a gunnlogi/Madrugar AV

LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 202	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:40:00 - [441] - Quote cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 202	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:45:00 - [442] - Quote and NO av dont need to be buffed, maybe plasma cannon but swarms are overkill on min comando allerady.. FG...well it need some love,breach especialy. ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:46:00 - [443] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: and NO av dont need to be buffed, maybe plasma cannon but swarms are overkill on min comando allerady.. FG...well it need some love,breach especialy. I've already said multiple times that swarms need to not be buffed versus the HAVs. the current ones we have will do decently versus HAVs proposed without being utter overkill. Not against shield tanks, but I really would rather have that disparity in place so when we DO get laser and Plasma heavy AV we don't have to redo the balancing and can just tweak the guns to perfection. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17319	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:49:00 - [444] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 202	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:51:00 - [445] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. Why? I fount that in spreaadshit.. What do you think is should be? ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:53:00 - [446] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. I believe the simplest thing would be to flag all infantry AV with some kind of tag and put a resistance bonus against that tag on the UHAVs. I tend to view Tank turrets as the EFFICIENT method of killing vehicles. I tend to view infantry AV as the sloppy, overkill, Do-this-because-it-might-work kind of thing. It's why I want HAVs to have the higher efficiency and lower TTK versus other HAVs overall. But basically I see infantry AV as a means of trying to brute force a solution, and because it's a brute-force thing it can be countered via different materiels and methods than you would use to deflect a rail cannon shot. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17319	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:59:00 - [447] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. I believe the simplest thing would be to flag all infantry AV with some kind of tag and put a resistance bonus against that tag on the UHAVs. I tend to view Tank turrets as the EFFICIENT method of killing vehicles. I tend to view infantry AV as the sloppy, overkill, Do-this-because-it-might-work kind of thing. It's why I want HAVs to have the higher efficiency and lower TTK versus other HAVs overall. But basically I see infantry AV as a means of trying to brute force a solution, and because it's a brute-force thing it can be countered via different materiels and methods than you would use to deflect a rail cannon shot. I get ya. In my mind all I'm saying is that every capacity an infantry mounted AV weapon has a tank mounted one theoretically should have more of in spades. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:00:00 - [448] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. I believe the simplest thing would be to flag all infantry AV with some kind of tag and put a resistance bonus against that tag on the UHAVs. I tend to view Tank turrets as the EFFICIENT method of killing vehicles. I tend to view infantry AV as the sloppy, overkill, Do-this-because-it-might-work kind of thing. It's why I want HAVs to have the higher efficiency and lower TTK versus other HAVs overall. But basically I see infantry AV as a means of trying to brute force a solution, and because it's a brute-force thing it can be countered via different materiels and methods than you would use to deflect a rail cannon shot. I get ya. In my mind all I'm saying is that every capacity an infantry mounted AV weapon has a tank mounted one theoretically should have more of in spades. honestly I'm of the opinion that small turrets and heavy weapons should have similar functionality. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17319	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:01:00 - [449] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl So much fail right here. I believe the simplest thing would be to flag all infantry AV with some kind of tag and put a resistance bonus against that tag on the UHAVs. I tend to view Tank turrets as the EFFICIENT method of killing vehicles. I tend to view infantry AV as the sloppy, overkill, Do-this-because-it-might-work kind of thing. It's why I want HAVs to have the higher efficiency and lower TTK versus other HAVs overall. But basically I see infantry AV as a means of trying to brute force a solution, and because it's a brute-force thing it can be countered via different materiels and methods than you would use to deflect a rail cannon shot. I get ya. In my mind all I'm saying is that every capacity an infantry mounted AV weapon has a tank mounted one theoretically should have more of in spades. honestly I'm of the opinion that small turrets and heavy weapons should have similar functionality. Interesting theory. Btw what is your scrambler lance like? I've been thinking of suggestions for the Large and Small Laser Turrets if they ever are to appear and how they might function. Normally I hate the idea of another hold trigger down laser but after I started thinking about one with twin barrels....... it started to fall into place. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:05:00 - [450] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Interesting theory. Btw what is your scrambler lance like? I've been thinking of suggestions for the Large and Small Laser Turrets if they ever are to appear and how they might function. Normally I hate the idea of another hold trigger down laser but after I started thinking about one with twin barrels....... it started to fall into place. Scrambler lance is kinda like the laser rifle WITHOUT the overheat for more damage mechanic. There's no reality in which that won't be broken and in dire need of an instant nerf. When it overheats it doesn't seize, it just does 100-150 damage per second to the firer. the arc cannon is a charged weapon, you charge the laser and it erupts a 1-second beam of energy that you must hold on the target. when it ends it charges and releases again, and it doesn't overheat (a nod to the amarr commando, who needs something to not suck with). AV

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17319	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:07:00 - [451] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Interesting theory. Btw what is your scrambler lance like? I've been thinking of suggestions for the Large and Small Laser Turrets if they ever are to appear and how they might function. Normally I hate the idea of another hold trigger down laser but after I started thinking about one with twin barrels....... it started to fall into place. Scrambler lance is kinda like the laser rifle WITHOUT the overheat for more damage mechanic. There's no reality in which that won't be broken and in dire need of an instant nerf. When it overheats it doesn't seize, it just does 100-150 damage per second to the firer. the arc cannon is a charged weapon, you charge the laser and it erupts a 1-second beam of energy that you must hold on the target. when it ends it charges and releases again, and it doesn't overheat (a nod to the amarr commando, who needs something to not suck with). Interesting ideas. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:15:00 - [452] - Quote I've had some inspiration from a few people. I'm basically designing weapons based on the idea that heavy weapons should be AV/AI capable rather than being locked to one or the other. That way you can actually balance them vs. infantry without starting them at OMGWHY?? levels of DPS. the scrambler lance will be hard to hold on fast moving infantry, ideally level 5 autocannon should have a reticle the size of an HAV at it's optimal endpoint at level 5, which should make hitting infantry at a distance tricky in both cases. Give the mortar similar limitations to the PLC and you start having things you shouldn't be taking lightly, but not so deadly that you can't fight back. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:35:00 - [453] - Quote Let me just pick out a few things that I want to explore further. Breakin stuff wrote: DHAVs are supposed to be glass cannons, so yes. I'm also of the opinion that said glass cannons should be cheaper than MBT and UHAVs because of their intended fragility to offset the odds of me telling it to stay OFF MY UHAV killing YOUR boys. I just don't like it. I'm of the opinion that your fit, not your tank, determines your role above anything. I mean I get it that, new hull types are cool. But what I don't like is how "stuck" everyone is getting in how they are supposed to work. It's like saying your assault can't stack damage mods and snipe. They have to stack up the Ehp. Coming right out the door and calling a Dhav a glass cannon right away just seems wrong, while saying it's just going to be a cheaper throwaway to compensate. For more SP I can "specialize" into a tank that may or may not be on par. Then theres the targeted resists that are going around, 15% AV resists for a Uhav. Umm ok, so why don't we give the Dhav, you know the tank killer, one as well. Like 15% to vehicle weapons, to offset the smalls from a Uhav as well as the large. I mean in all honestly, sure I haven't seen anything final for these new specialized tanks, but I don't like the sound of how they will work. If I want a glass cannon Dhav, I can easily make that happen through a fit that does EXACTLY what people are expecting it to do in the first place. On the other hand I can make one tankier, that can take more damage from another Dhav. But between them, the battle should come out rather even. I mean tanks, while they do have similarities with infantry, they are not nearly the same. I can drastically alter the functionality of my tank simply based on my fit. I mean in your scenario with a Dhav, why the hell would I need to use one to beat an Uhav. I can handle the AV much better and still run a high output damage fit with an MBT, that will still easily overcome a Uhav. Quote: Multiman HAVs have a place, and that place is situational. I think True has the right idea that there should be an option. Party tanks are useful for delivering people directly to open-ground hack points while providing counterfire vs. AV. Do I think they're a "everyone get in and stay in?" Not by a long shot. I believe that True shares my opinion that the SHAV is a bandaid placed on a wound. No PC crew is going to actually have some dipwad loiter in a small turret when he needs to be DOING things. So it's less of a concern given that barring the smalls, both types of tank are limited to more or less identical fits. So it's a yes and no. situationally they are useful. As a general suppression tool, we're going to need to see how the UHAVs play out before calling out fail points. The UHAV will be the useful three-seater if anything. Situational, sorry I don't know if you can even apply that word to it. Party tanks are NOT used to deliver people to a point, EVER. I can't imagine this is overly viable, as you can only carry two to begin with. Dropships fills this role better than any tank could. I mean with most matches, a 3 man tank just won't work. The other team will run purely dedicated armor busters and absolutely decimate you. In fact every match starts as such. And it's not like "oh I gained vehicle control let's call in a 3 seater tank". It's more like keep out the solo tanks because more are in route. It's not viable and hardly useful and they would NEVER be on the field for long. I mean I understand that if you had a mod to decrease dispersion so your Uhav can hit infantry easier, it might be viable. But in the end I still think those guns just end up as dead weight. PC's just don't work around the idea of a 3 man tank. Quote: I solo the current generation of sicas and gunnlogis, which are arguably (Depends on who's arguing) OP. The only real efficient defense is pinpoint accuracy with a rail (don't laugh, I've been jacked up by some absolutely lethal gunners with rails today) and jumping out of the tank with an HMG or a shotgun which is arguably the most cheeseass thing this side of the JLAV, which I only use when someone who I know will get buttmad and post about it here is on the enemy team. No, I'm laughing. What kind of scrublet are you to let a rail hit you. Ok yes I know they are rather deadly, but often that's such a rare occurrence I can't call it an effective D or a defense at all. More often if I'm facing any AV that moves correctly, any shot landed is one of PURE LUCK. Often though I'm forced back. I've said it before, I'm usually a pretty good shot with a rail, and 8 is my average. And most of those are people standing perfectly still! And totally agreed on those dicks that jump out with a heavy suit and HMG. Nothing pisses me off more when I'm running AV then **** like that. A tank should be your suit for the most part and any functionality outside should be limited to utility, not offense. I've actually taken to doing this recently (never did before) running a "slayer" logi suit. Sorry the only proto suit I have is a min logi so I decided to make it into a "slayer". At least as much of a slayer as it can be. Anyways, I always feel like a douche when I get out and gun down that AV. Fun yes, but it's just not right. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 202	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:37:00 - [454] - Quote Ammar tank turrent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RMZQnWJUSw ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17320	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:43:00 - [455] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: Ammar tank turrent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RMZQnWJUSw I've suggested this before and while I like it I wonder about the practicality of the weapon itself. That for all intents and purposes is a Pulse Laser by the way. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7382	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:46:00 - [456] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Anyways, I always feel like a douche when I get out and gun down that AV. Fun yes, but it's just not right. You know how some people get massively butthurt about the Bolt Pistol? I'm that guy with the bolt pistol. But on a more serious note it's nice to be able to discuss with an HAV driver and disagree along valid point lines rather than people automatically defaulting to reactionary bullsh*t. I'd love to continue, but I work at night, so I need to pass out. I'm looking forward to waking up and logging in to Spkr4thedead and DocDDD ranting about how I'm completely unreasonable, here to ruin the game for vehicle drivers, read my spreadsheet, get butthurt and completely ignore the fact that I've outright said that those numbers aren't intended to be valid yet. When they do, someone please make sure to quote them before they read this post and have a chance to edit their reactionary rants for content. I want to read these tear harvests. It's magic that I really don't want to be deprived of. On a more constructive note, before we pass judgement on the DHAV/UHAV let's see how it plays. Rattati said outright that he wants to put in a module to improve blaster dispersion for the UHAV that MBTs can use as well. Well maybe MBTs I can't recall that. I'm actually an advocate of making heavy turrets kill infantry a bit better than what we have now. What we have now pains me. and I dunno if the one guy who was blapping me consistently was just a badass, or if my crapass internet connection betrayed me. I'm going to opt for assuming he's a badass than try to cop out and blame the ISP for incompetence. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17320	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:47:00 - [457] - Quote Tebu been using 3 man HAV's since the competitive days of FW where it was 16 corpmates vs the 8-10 guys PIE could field. It is inordinately successful with good co-ordination. I don't pretend to know about PC but with two good infantrymen we're more than enough to hold two separate external objectives on almost any map in the game. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:54:00 - [458] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: On a more constructive note, before we pass judgement on the DHAV/UHAV let's see how it plays. Rattati said outright that he wants to put in a module to improve blaster dispersion for the UHAV that MBTs can use as well. Well maybe MBTs I can't recall that. I'm actually an advocate of making heavy turrets kill infantry a bit better than what we have now. What we have now pains me. Of course I can fully judge the Dhav/Uhav, but from my experience there are a few things I think can be done before hand to make the experience better. Those are still a ways out and we haven't even seen numbers on them to make fully informed decisions. I would also rather wait to see what the Devs have in store. So everything else is just speculation and theory crafting. And I would also like to see large turrets being more AI centric, but like to see AV efficiency go down as a result. Then you would see tanks out in every match actually making useful contributions. Now time to go play some games. I appreciate the civil discussion. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.27 00:08:00 - [459] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tebu been using 3 man HAV's since the competitive days of FW where it was 16 corpmates vs the 8-10 guys PIE could field. It is inordinately successful with good co-ordination. I don't pretend to know about PC but with two good infantrymen we're more than enough to hold two separate external objectives on almost any map in the game. Let me put this differently. I agree that there is potential for a multi man tank in PC. But I also see it so situational that it wouldn't have much positive impact on the outcome. Then again, from all my PC's, I've never attempted it nor was anyone else willing to attempt it. Let's take an example of a tank holding an outside objective, homepoint. It would be incredibly hard to dislodge, not to mention the 2 extra guarding HP that can jump in your tank if things get hot. I really think that's pretty viable, as it could hold HP against MANY infantry. So sure it could work to an extent. I mean I know FW can be competitive, but there is nothing like a 16 vs 16 fully prepped and ALWAYS proto team. And not to mention vehicle control, without gunners, you are more than likely dead to any solo tanker. And more often than not you won't have gunners and be shooting at incoming ADS or tanks. I'm just very inclined to say that it just won't be done now or ever. I've done many many a PC, and not once was this EVER done. And I remember this one guy in a PC saying "I can't kill this tank, I need gunners to jump in and I can take it!". He said this multiple times and eventually the FC is like "NOBODYS JUMPING IN YOUR ***** TANK, we don't ***** run pub gunners in PC." It's good for Pubs, but if you need to rely on your gunners to be effective at your job, then it's YOU that will be switching to said guns to get the job done, as everyone else WILL be tied up doing a multitude of other things. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17322	Posted - 2015.02.27 00:28:00 - [460] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: [quote=True Adamance] I mean I know FW can be competitive, but there is nothing like a 16 vs 16 fully prepped and ALWAYS proto team. It was like that at one point. But just like your PC crowd you kinda had to have been there and if you didn't bring your proto you'd get face rolled and fleet fights would happen in the air above out matches. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1282	Posted - 2015.02.27 00:47:00 - [461] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: [quote=True Adamance] I mean I know FW can be competitive, but there is nothing like a 16 vs 16 fully prepped and ALWAYS proto team. It was like that at one point. But just like your PC crowd you kinda had to have been there and if you didn't bring your proto you'd get face rolled and fleet fights would happen in the air above out matches. No doubt, but 3 man tanks just aren't viable options in every PC. Best bet is to always run solo because at least this way you know you are running your fullest potential as opposed to being limited without the extra gunners in a 3 man tank. If we had 32 vs 32 over this 16 vs 16 then yeah, you could totally run 3 man tanks pushing objectives. But there just isn't room to spare anyone to dedicate to a tank so it can run at it's fullest potential. 90% of the time you are needed to run solo in a tank. Or more like you have to, to maximize your potential. And it's a LONG process switching out tanks to fulfill a role you will spend most of the match doing anyways. But no doubt on the competitive FW, really wish it was easier to qsync matches like that. Like an option to schedule matches or something. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2943	Posted - 2015.02.27 01:00:00 - [462] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: [quote=True Adamance] I mean I know FW can be competitive, but there is nothing like a 16 vs 16 fully prepped and ALWAYS proto team. It was like that at one point. But just like your PC crowd you kinda had to have been there and if you didn't bring your proto you'd get face rolled and fleet fights would happen in the air above out matches. No doubt, but 3 man tanks just aren't viable options in every PC. Which is a damn shame. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4008	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:14:00 - [463] - Quote You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad.
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 202	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:15:00 - [464] - Quote The best thing is to run away from AV like a litlle girl to redline,.. Nitro helps alot with dealing with those nasty min comandos,and there is always at least 2 of them,.. Swarms are overkill on min comando,its not the problem in theyr dmg,the problem is in min comando bonus,it should be removed 4 swarms. Until swarms are OP ill stick to my redline <3 ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7390	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:37:00 - [465] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. fairly bold statements there bunky. Historically statements like this have been proven false repeatedly. if AV isn't to be bugbuffed 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. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4026	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:02:00 - [466] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. 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. Proven false? Uprising had 3k damage swarms with a 400m map coverage, they basically wrecked anything that wasn't a HAV. Today they wreck anything that flies and most LAVs are BPO while HAV are beaten back to the redline more now than in uprising. Historically it has been proven that AV is on the overpowered side more than the underpowered side and the only time AV was classed as UP was in 1.7 after the vehicle shake up but that was quickly sorted out and it went back to square one and the OP box. The new HAVs look like they will have similar HP stats as now and if the 1 hardener limit goes through then they will be roughly be the same. I would not say improved tanks when hardeners are being limited to 1 and PG/CPU mods will be nerfed that hard they will be useless while 'advanaced and prototype' vehicles are just in name and not in nature. ADS are weaker in comparision to a standard DS and 1 SL user can scare away the ADS for the entire match making it useless, the ADS generally cannot dual due to knockback, cannot avoid swarms or even evade them due to obv no cover in the sky but they do not even have the speed to escape since the SL got a speed buff. If the PG/CPU modules nerfs go through with the 1 hardener then any DS are killed off. As for the LAV they are rarely used in any proper way and most are BPO used once and throwaway and even if i could fit one up it is generally a pointless thing due to carjackers and a waste of ISK for something that can be easily destroyed. AV is the end game even for vehicles, it can destroy vehicles better than vehicles can while costing a mere fraction of the ISK and SP needed all while being the size of an ant and not having to worry about the vehicle actually trying to kill you since that has been nerfed mulitiple times. The main AV weapon is the SL which frankly is bad on so many levels a deletion seems to be the only course to take, i have never had a problem with the FG and the PLC needs a much needed buff but no matter what happens to the SL it seems to be OP as ever and only gets worse for pilots. I play other games such as Planetside 2 which is very balanced across infantry and vehicles and i find that infantry has some very strong AV such as Proxy mines or the anti vehicle engineer turret and a few RPGs to boot but yet in this game it rewards lazyness but also it doesn't help that CCP add mechanics such as bandwidth which kills proxy mines which are so weak to begin with. PS2 also has a very balanced vehicle game with a variety of different turrets in which mass vehicle battles take place before the full assault on a compound but PS2 has numbers to back it up where as DUST is 32 player max and vehicles are a sideshow to infantry. You buff AV you kill everything else because it would be made to kill HAVs yet DS/LAV are not HAVs and you have to recognize that fact.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7391	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:08:00 - [467] - Quote 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? AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3005	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:22:00 - [468] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. 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. I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4029	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:24:00 - [469] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously? TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful.
Vyuru Algintal Core Gallente Federation 88	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:27:00 - [470] - Quote Quote: HAV are beaten back to the redline more now than in uprising. I rather disagree with this. Most times I just need to circle away from the action to let my modules recharge and to try and spot enemy vehicles. If I get pushed back to the redline, it's because the fighting is that close to it, or else overwhelming AV opposition. And when I saw overwhelming, I can break through a pretty decent chunk of AV, it either takes 2+ tanks or 3+ Minmando swarmers to stop me from breaking out.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7391	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:27:00 - [471] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously? TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful. 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? AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:31:00 - [472] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. 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. I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle. Hah, ok. And just yesterday evening I sat there and ate swarms and shrugged them on like they were nothing in my gunnlogi. See I made swarms look and feel underpowered. So from that I MUST conclude that swarms need a buff. See what I did there? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3005	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:00 - [473] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? Opinion? You don't play the game. You don't use vehicles. You ignore everything we say, and continue up to press your incredibly biased point backed up with no facts, only your "experience" as a spreadsheet warrior. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4029	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:34:00 - [474] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously? TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful. 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? When you talk about buffing AV that includes the SL, you may say 'no it doesn't' but it does include the SL and it will have to because it is an AV weapon. I counter points but when its a broad 'buff AV' not much really to counter with apart from 'you will kill other vehicles' and as for no one wants to buff the SL go talk to Atiim about that. Frankly i havn't see any decent counterpoints yet to back this latest round of nerfs, the hardener is essential for pilots, PG/CPU mods are essentinal for mulitiple fitss and buff AV for any of the new vehicles would hammer another nail into medium and light vehicles and that is a fact.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3005	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:00 - [475] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. 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. I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle. Hah, ok. And just yesterday evening I sat there and ate swarms and shrugged them on like they were nothing in my gunnlogi. See I made swarms look and feel underpowered. So from that I MUST conclude that swarms need a buff. See what I did there? Shield vs. armor. You'd point is invalid. They were probably MLT swarms. I was using a level 5 Minmando with PRO swarms. Your point is invalid. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:00 - [476] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: You buff AV then you kill the LAV You buff AV you kill the DS You buff AV you kill the ADS You buff AV you kill the DHAV Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game. Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door. AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad. 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. I annihilated a Soma in 4 volleys with swarms on a Minmando a few days ago. That is unacceptable. The power of swarms is akin to dropping an asteroid on a vehicle. Hah, ok. And just yesterday evening I sat there and ate swarms and shrugged them on like they were nothing in my gunnlogi. See I made swarms look and feel underpowered. So from that I MUST conclude that swarms need a buff. See what I did there? Shield vs. armor. You'd point is invalid. They were probably MLT swarms. I was using a level 5 Minmando with PRO swarms. Your point is invalid. As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3005	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:53:00 - [477] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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? Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously? TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful. 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? We do consider everything, and the problem is most propositions are bad to outright terrible and game-breaking. We reply to every point, breaking down why they're bad, but as usual it's completely ignored, and I can almost hear the "la la la I'm not listening to you" while you cover your ears. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 209	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:57:00 - [478] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits. 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. Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL. 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. Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles. 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) Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both. Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome. 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. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:10:00 - [479] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:38:00 - [480] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7392	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:44:00 - [481] - Quote Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4033	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:16:00 - [482] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. If a shield tank ends up fitting resource modules then it because there is very little choice as to what should be put there, we had nanofibres/PDS/Dmg modules etc and now we have nothing maybe except regulators but that is one module and it would have to have a big effect for it to be the go to module instead of an armor module. In reality CCP should bring back nanofibres and PDS and the like just for more variety. TBH i disagree, they have the same slot layout with just more PG/CPU to increase the tiers of the modules but the fit itself will stay exactly the same from basic to advanced to prototype because why change? If it got 1 more slot per tier then that is something and add more variety. Vehicles are supposed to be a viable playstyle in a sandbox game but that is not the case, my suits which are a meatbag and have very little CPU/PG in comparision to a 50tonne vehicle gets more slots as standard when it goes up a tier. Even the specialised suits get more slots as they progress but if you are a pilot that is not the case, the sandbox does not exist for pilots but it does for infantry. The SL does need a change in alot of areas but the majority of the playerbase/AV has it as a primary AV weapon and you can be sure if it doesnt get a buff or made more skill orientated then the tears will fall. My problem with changing AV for any of the new HAVs is that if the HAVs end up having higher EHP variables even if its on paper that will be enough for players to cry for buffs not thinking about other vehicles such as a DS which wont have half the EHP or a simple LAV which fitted up should get from A to B without being instapopped. If you do buff AV fro the strongest vehicles in the game then it will outright knock everything out of sync and kill other vehicles and there variations. For once i would like to see vehicles being used to take out other vehicles, just like the old incubus hammered on HAVs, just like in Chrome and Uprising a vehicle taking out another vehicle, it works in plenty of games except this one and Planetside follows this pattern quite well and its coming to a console near you. Spreadsheets point out the obvious things, like max fits but then players take it as fact and that it will kill the game and that AV needs to be buffed to compensate, i can't help it but it is flawed and for me experiencing it in the game beats a spreadsheet no matter what. Take the SL on a spreadsheet it doesn't say that it will track around 2 corners and still hit you but in the game it does and for me happens a bit too much but for someone who doesn't play the game they will play the BS card and call you a liar. Likewise many use the 2 extender 1 hardener on a Gunnlogi and say EHP wise it is vastly superior but take out the 4sec wait for passive repping and it is weak and can be beaten quite easily or even put it in a PC game and watch it die. Spreadsheets are good as a rough guide but it can never tell you how it would play out in game, how bad an actual fit would be, how competitive and useful it would be in a PC match instead of a pub match. For me i look at proto fits and the 1 hardener and terrible resource modules and i come up with alot of cookie cutter fits using the spreadsheet warrior method and i know from experience that these fit will either work or will not, i will know if they are PC viable or pubstar viable, i will know if these hardcapped limitations will break other vehicles and fits because of that experience and that i have them in my fittings. If i did not have that experience then i wouldn't know how the fits would play out because numbers on a sheet does not transfer into experience.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:35:00 - [483] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:38:00 - [484] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. Perfect description! I've never believed that you can figure out the solution on paper, as things work differently in the field than they do on paper often. But all these things go hand in hand, paper creates the shape, experience and practice hammers out the edges. Can't have one without the other. Love it. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:38:00 - [485] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I would like 100 times if I could! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:41:00 - [486] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. The correct answer is bringing armor up to the level shield is at, not nerfing shield to the point where the differences are back to Chrome/Uprising levdls. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:00:00 - [487] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: The correct answer is bringing armor up to the level shield is at, not nerfing shield to the point where the differences are back to Chrome/Uprising levdls. That's exactly what I said, and by taking one look at proto fits you can see that's what they are attempting to do! Who in the world ever said NERF SHIELDS? Where and why are you even saying this. Makes no sense. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1285	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:06:00 - [488] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. You do realize that I pilot right. I've been with several top corps and my prowess has always been appreciated and needed. I'm typically a first pick for PC teams. I know my stuff. And above all I want a well balanced and challenging end game. No I don't want infantry AV to hold the advantage over a tank, and I seriously don't think breaking wants that either. Above all we want and expect a challenge. You always revert back to how tanks were when tanks were OP and blame AV for being unable to kill a tank and the cause for how tanks are now. Things were balanced heavily to the tank side and I'm sorry fella, that isn't right. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:32:00 - [489] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. You do realize that I pilot right. I've been with several top corps and my prowess has always been appreciated and needed. I'm typically a first pick for PC teams. I know my stuff. And above all I want a well balanced and challenging end game. No I don't want infantry AV to hold the advantage over a tank, and I seriously don't think breaking wants that either. Above all we want and expect a challenge. You always revert back to how tanks were when tanks were OP and blame AV for being unable to kill a tank and the cause for how tanks are now. Things were balanced heavily to the tank side and I'm sorry fella, that isn't right. When have tanks ever been OP? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3006	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:38:00 - [490] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: The correct answer is bringing armor up to the level shield is at, not nerfing shield to the point where the differences are back to Chrome/Uprising levdls. That's exactly what I said, and by taking one look at proto fits you can see that's what they are attempting to do! Who in the world ever said NERF SHIELDS? Where and why are you even saying this. Makes no sense. Doc brought up that shield is being double nerfed. As far as protofits, who knows what the skills are? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5067	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:11:00 - [491] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: 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. Perfect description! I've never believed that you can figure out the solution on paper, as things work differently in the field than they do on paper often. But all these things go hand in hand, paper creates the shape, experience and practice hammers out the edges. Can't have one without the other. Love it. Completely correct. You can't predict everything with the numbers, but you do need to make sure things within their own category work correctly numerically, and then adjust accordingly through field testing grumbles about lack of test server For example AV TTK values are currently a mess and all over the place. Breakin did quite a bit of work to reign in the values and try to normalize the TTK so that all AV weapons are about equally effective in a general sense. Those values are set around a 10 second TTK. Personally I think this is pretty short, but as I've stated to him "As long as they all have the same TTK more or less, we'll deploy them with the 10 seconds and if field testing proves this to be too long or too short, we can adjust all of the AV weapons together because they're already balanced against one another, rather than trying to balance them all individually through field testing." If the numerical values are totally messed up, the amount of needed field testing and adjustment will be so much that it'll take forever to get it right. That's why you have to look at the numbers first and get things close, and then actually test it in the field and adjust accordingly. Think of it like star gazing, you typically use a map and a low zoom lens to get close to where you want to look in the sky. This would be the "Numbers Balance" phase. Then you use the really high powered lens to fine tune and really lock onto what you're looking for. This would be the "Field Testing" phase. Spkr4theDead wrote: When have tanks ever been OP? I dunno if you were around during early closed beta, but HAVs were nearly unkillable if fit properly. Only time I ever lost one was against an ambush of 4-5 forge guns, otherwise you could rep through basically anything and do it frequently. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7395	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:16:00 - [492] - Quote Correction pokey. 13-16 second MINIMUM TTK. I'm erring on the side of advantage to tank versus solo AV. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5067	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:17:00 - [493] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Correction pokey. 13-16 second MINIMUM TTK. I'm erring on the side of advantage to tank versus solo AV. Ah you must have updated it from last time I looked at it. I'm more comfortable with 13-16 seconds, but we'll have to see how it plays out in testing. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7396	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:29:00 - [494] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Correction pokey. 13-16 second MINIMUM TTK. I'm erring on the side of advantage to tank versus solo AV. Ah you must have updated it from last time I looked at it. I'm more comfortable with 13-16 seconds, but we'll have to see how it plays out in testing. Pretty much. Besides. We ain't done with the hulls yet till rattati queues the fat lady. So speculating AV/V is meh. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2943	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:19:00 - [495] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 309	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:21:00 - [496] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. 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. How will it be different? Assuming you mean current numbers. Molestia approved
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2943	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:22:00 - [497] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. You do realize that I pilot right. I've been with several top corps and my prowess has always been appreciated and needed. I'm typically a first pick for PC teams. I know my stuff. And above all I want a well balanced and challenging end game. No I don't want infantry AV to hold the advantage over a tank, and I seriously don't think breaking wants that either. Above all we want and expect a challenge. You always revert back to how tanks were when tanks were OP and blame AV for being unable to kill a tank and the cause for how tanks are now. Things were balanced heavily to the tank side and I'm sorry fella, that isn't right. When have tanks ever been OP? Up to halfway through Codex, and then again for like a week in Chromo. And you could argue 1.7 click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2943	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:23:00 - [498] - Quote A 13-16 second TTK is just wonderful. You want a fight Breakin? I'm about to give you one hell of a fight. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7401	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:44:00 - [499] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: As is yours. That was kinda the point. And you just admitted to it. But seriously, what is wrong with you guys. Seriously, swarms OP? If anything it shows a disparity with armor which IS acknowledge and IS being addressed. I mean google "reasonable" and then try being it for a change. Screaming that you are right and everyone else is wrong just makes you look stupid and uneducated. I Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. 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. How will it be different? Assuming you mean current numbers. 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. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 309	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:50:00 - [500] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Again, destroying a tank in 4 volleys is overkill. You had shield, I vaporized an armor with a weapon that has a bonus against armor, along with a flat 10% damage bonus. Yes, A SOMA. A madrudger could take a bit more than that. And yet again the disparity between armor and shields IS being addressed and discussed. 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. How will it be different? Assuming you mean current numbers. 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. How is the maddy going to require more than 1 forge clip? 4k armor, or 4.5k, is still the same. Molestia approved

duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 309	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:51:00 - [501] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Only spkr would argue that it's unfair for proto AV to smash a militia tank. But at least over the last two years he's consistent! I did the smashing. I've been smashed in return. The national corps do that very well. I don't see them coming on here and talking about AV and vehicles. But, all of you want to easily solo vehicles. It's a squad of infantry with AV vs you going solo. Of course you're all going to complain that AV is hard to use and UP, and vehicles are too hard to destroy. You do realize that I pilot right. I've been with several top corps and my prowess has always been appreciated and needed. I'm typically a first pick for PC teams. I know my stuff. And above all I want a well balanced and challenging end game. No I don't want infantry AV to hold the advantage over a tank, and I seriously don't think breaking wants that either. Above all we want and expect a challenge. You always revert back to how tanks were when tanks were OP and blame AV for being unable to kill a tank and the cause for how tanks are now. Things were balanced heavily to the tank side and I'm sorry fella, that isn't right. When have tanks ever been OP? Up to halfway through Codex, and then again for like a week in Chromo. And you could argue 1.7 How were they op again? I didn't bother with vehicles until 1.5 Molestia approved
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2335	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:53:00 - [502] - Quote Here's two fits I made for the Gladius. I think that they show rather well that the PG/CPU enhancement mod nerfs are too harsh, if not unnecessary. The first fit uses both a PG and CPU enhancement mod. Really all that is happening is that the CPU mod provides enough CPU boost to cover the cost of the PG mod, and the net gain from the PG mod is not even +200 (less than 1/3 of its boost). Fit 1 The second fit disposes of PG and CPU enhancement entirely and uses a basic heavy armor rep and plate. I had to drop the two complex heavy shield extenders for a complex and enhanced light shield booster, plus trading one of the advanced small rails for an advanced small blaster. Fit 2 Here are the key differences summed up: Fit 1 has +2600 shield (+800 counting boosters on Fit 2), -1000 armor compared to Fit 2. Fit 1 has +1600 EHP, -200 EHP counting boosters on Fit 2 Fit 1 takes 90s to repair 900 armor, Fit 2 takes 17.4s to repair 1915 armor Fit 2 gets two boosters for two instantaneous jumpstarts of shield regen I personally think Fit 2 looks better overall. It can regen its armor pool much more quickly (which is also doubled on top of that), and it gets two shield regen jumpstarts, all for the cost of losing 800 shield (its main tank type). I posted many pages ago saying that armor modules would be much more useful than the nerfed CPU/PG enhancement mods. And the fits above are probably the best fits I could come up with that met my personal requirements: 2 advanced small turrets, 1 proto large missile turret, complex shield hardener, and complex missile damage amp. Therefore, I must conclude with a very big "NO" to Rattati's proposed nerf to the CPU/PG modules. I can make a better fit by not fitting those modules and instead using a dual-tank setup. If you ask me, the CPU/PG modules do not need to be touched at all. I feel that if I can make a better dual-tank setup, then I should be able to make use of a full rack of complex shield modules or maybe even be able to fit a heavy booster if those things ever get fixed (I personally think they need to have their PG costs halved) by filling my low slots with a PG and CPU enhancer. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5070	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:13:00 - [503] - Quote Yeah I'm really really iffy about the changes. At the very least if he goes this route, it should be a % cost and not absolute...otherwise its going to be impossible to balance them properly on smaller vehicles. I think the "cost" of fitting them needs to be more on an opportunity cost, and not so much a direct cost. If low slot modules are introduced that are REALLY nice to have, such as regulators, then it would mean more to fit PG/CPU mods because you're giving up that potential regulator (just as an example). "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7403	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:59:00 - [504] - Quote Overall I think the PG/CPU mods should be much less fitting intensive. As it stands using the mods we have currently on rattati's hulls? Unless I'm missing something it won't allow more than the addition of a forge gun shot worth of TTK overall. If I'm wrong tell me. I'm not seeing the current mods breaking rattati's hulls. Seriously can anyone use the current fitting mods in protofits to spike an HAV above 8k raw HP (before hardeners/reps)? If so, how and by how much? AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5078	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:04:00 - [505] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: How is the maddy going to require more than 1 forge clip? 4k armor, or 4.5k, is still the same. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 310	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:08:00 - [506] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: How is the maddy going to require more than 1 forge clip? 4k armor, or 4.5k, is still the same. 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. Right, I forgot about that, that's near my fit on protofits. Molestia approved
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5078	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:11:00 - [507] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Overall I think the PG/CPU mods should be much less fitting intensive. As it stands using the mods we have currently on rattati's hulls? Unless I'm missing something it won't allow more than the addition of a forge gun shot worth of TTK overall. If I'm wrong tell me. I'm not seeing the current mods breaking rattati's hulls. Seriously can anyone use the current fitting mods in protofits to spike an HAV above 8k raw HP (before hardeners/reps)? If so, how and by how much? Well if you're looking for a fit thats actually viable, at least for a Madrugar (ie including a heavy armor rep) you can get 8677 Raw HP 1 Enhanced Heavy Shield Extender --Empty-- --Empty-- Complex Armor Hardener Basic Heavy Armor Repairer Complex 120mm Armor Plate Complex 120mm Armor Plate Basic Large Railgun 2207 Shield HP 6470 Armor HP 8677 Total HP If you downgrade your armor rep to a light armor rep, or downgrade the hardener, you might be able to squeeze more out. EDIT: Ok, if you downgrade your Hardener to Basic and your Repairer to a Light Basic Armor repper, you can fit this Complex Heavy Shield Extender Complex Light Shield Extender --Empty-- Basic Shield Hardener Basic Light Armor Repairer Complex 120mm Armor Plate Complex 120mm Armor Plate Basic Large Railgun 3005 Shield HP 6470 Armor HP 9475 Total HP So I mean...yeah that's a lot of HP, but you're only repping at 61.25 HP/s, which is a 105s total repair time which is....pretty ugly. Shields also recharge at 66HP/s which is a 45 second recharge + 13seconds depletion delay for a total of 58 seconds. So I mean yeah if you want a metric fuckton of HP you could fit it like that, but I wouldn't want to run a tank like that, not with that regen rate. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7403	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:41:00 - [508] - Quote That fit is breach forge bait. Some jackass on a tower top can keep you in the redline indefinitely because of the pitiful recovery rates. If supported by some kind of remote rep vehicle? I can see it. Not as a standalone though. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4038	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:20:00 - [509] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 13-16sec TTK is quite terrible when considering in the past 30sec and upwards of towards a minute were standard HAV vs HAV times in uprising. I feel that AV should not hit harder or faster than a HAV at all. if 13-16sec is for AV then you can half that for a HAV which is terrible and boring and twitch. 30sec should be the minimum battle time between HAVs and for AV add on 15sec more. Buffing AV should be out of the question unless you want to kill off the other vehicles because if you want AV ti kill in 13sec then DS/ADS/LAV will all get creamed before they come out of the redline.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 813	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:50:00 - [510] - Quote More slots sound fine on paper but overall i see these changes more as of a nerf+price increase for tanks. -madrugars will still perform just like they do now but with more modules fitted. -gunnlogis getting nerfbatted with the PG+CPU mod nerf and the limitation to 1 hardener per fit. Shield boosters are bugged at the moment and dont work while under constant blasterfire. And shield hardeners are the bread and butter of shield tanks. Simply because every 1 has now easy access to minmandos and swarm launchers. I strongly advice not to buff AV in any form. I severly hope you adress armor tanks cause at the moment its near impossible to fit them. You want a prime example for this? Aight CCP go and look at the "Madrugar Pretorian". Its a Pre fitted vehicle that allready comes with a complex CPU mod and still with all armor fitting optimasation skills to 5 the fit is invalid due to the fact that the avaible CPU are exceeded. Overall i think the Electronics and Engineering skills should be reverted to give +5% to PG/CPU. This would help all vehicles ranging from LAV's all up to ADS. Removing those bonuses back in the day where a huge mistake and all vehicles suffer from this. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 362	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:36:00 - [511] - Quote The more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing it as an all around vehicle nerf, save for the slight madrugar buff.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7410	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:40:00 - [512] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 13-16sec TTK is quite terrible when considering in the past 30sec and upwards of towards a minute were standard HAV vs HAV times in uprising. I feel that AV should not hit harder or faster than a HAV at all. if 13-16sec is for AV then you can half that for a HAV which is terrible and boring and twitch. 30sec should be the minimum battle time between HAVs and for AV add on 15sec more. Buffing AV should be out of the question unless you want to kill off the other vehicles because if you want AV ti kill in 13sec then DS/ADS/LAV will all get creamed before they come out of the redline. 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. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3009	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:03:00 - [513] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. It's not hard to get PRO AV. It's insanely powerful, and should be less effective at taking out vehicles compared to tank turrets. 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4041	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:08:00 - [514] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 13-16sec TTK is quite terrible when considering in the past 30sec and upwards of towards a minute were standard HAV vs HAV times in uprising. I feel that AV should not hit harder or faster than a HAV at all. if 13-16sec is for AV then you can half that for a HAV which is terrible and boring and twitch. 30sec should be the minimum battle time between HAVs and for AV add on 15sec more. Buffing AV should be out of the question unless you want to kill off the other vehicles because if you want AV ti kill in 13sec then DS/ADS/LAV will all get creamed before they come out of the redline. 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. There you go again throwing 'anecdotal' around which it isn't. Uprising armor repairer lasted 15seconds so add that on with 3 armor hardeners and it means i lasted 15seconds and then some against another HAV or 2 HAV. That is experience in the game from playing Yet you want a 15sec TTK with AV and since a HAV hits harder than AV because of 20% damage mods and general higher base damage with the installtion sized turret it means it will kill a target even quicker. It is less fun for the pilots overall since blink and your dead and again if you balance AV against HAV then DS/LAV are dead without trying. TTK for HAV vs HAV is the priority, AV on the backburner because if pilots cannot have fun dualing each other with a variety of different fits and turrets across all races with module timing and experience then what is the point? If i wanted a twitch shooter i would play COD so why would i want it with vehicles? UHAV with 14k EHP? My Surya had that as a std fit, 1 heavy rep repaired at least 5k, 1 armor plate added on gave me over 6k HP at base and 3 complex hardeners at 25% rough stacking penalties give me 25%/22%/14%. That is not nothing new we had that 2 years ago but add in limitations such as 1 hardener and it becomes a joke, be lucky to get 10kEHP but even then 10k is nothing.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7410	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:13:00 - [515] - Quote 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. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4042	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:25:00 - [516] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. The Surya wasn't overpowered. When did anyone really cry over the Marauders? Not many even had them and they were not around for PC battles just corp battles. Lets be honest here the Marauders costed over 2.5mil to fit up do you really think that 1 AV user spending less SP and only 100k or so on an AV fit should solo it? Also what im trying to say is that HAV vs HAV is priority, they need to be worthwhile to use, fun the drive, give a variety of different options and fits to pilots so we don't all have the same fit and also be fun to kill each other with. AV has to be on the back burner, HAVs are more powerful and hit harder so any number you make up the HAV will do it quicker and from further away but also he fact you keep missing is that if you buff AV DS/LAV will suffer more than they already do and the reason for pilots to fly will not exist and players will stick to using BPO LAV.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3010	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:46:00 - [517] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. What does infantry have to compromise with? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 363	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:10:00 - [518] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 13-16sec TTK is quite terrible when considering in the past 30sec and upwards of towards a minute were standard HAV vs HAV times in uprising. I feel that AV should not hit harder or faster than a HAV at all. if 13-16sec is for AV then you can half that for a HAV which is terrible and boring and twitch. 30sec should be the minimum battle time between HAVs and for AV add on 15sec more. Buffing AV should be out of the question unless you want to kill off the other vehicles because if you want AV ti kill in 13sec then DS/ADS/LAV will all get creamed before they come out of the redline. 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. Current swarms, included in your discussion or not, make the proposed changes counter productive from a vehicle users standpoint. -95% of the community have at least advanced swarms, can spec into them in a day. -95% of vehicle engagements vs AV infantry consists of multiple AV infantry vs one tank. -militia swarms on a frontline suit + proto forge vs these new hulls has the new hulls popping in one clip. -One hardener reduces fit diversity and will push tanks furthar away from battles. The only fits that can survive vs more than 1 AV player for more than 10 seconds has multiple hardeners. -Rattati's tanking experience on Euro servers is unknown to anyone, all I have heard is that he has been unable to pop a tank with a minmitar commando using swarms and is terrible at using RE's... This does not make me think he has called in a madrugar blaster to watch 7000 ehp instapop to silent invisible swarms. Nor does it make me think he has tried using one hardener on a Gunlogi fit and made it out of the redline and back before his hardner went into cooldown. His goal should be to look on the other team, find an organized squad, and try to target them with his tank. If he is calling in tanks in academy or vs 16 randoms then he is not getting the full picture. -cpu/pg chips nerf kill pythons, cripple many fits. -broken shield boosters coupled with one hardener cap makes shields useful for about 10 seconds out of the redline. -We are seeing vehicles being pushed into the direction infantry have.. shields stay far away from the fight next to cover or die, keep buffing armor until everyone runs armor and it's all you see outside the redline. Then wonder why shields sit in the redline. The only shield suit you see around points are cloaked scouts spamming re's with broken hitboxes. I can fully understand why you find it fun to try and pop a tank solo with a forge.. it's fun, the game gets boring and it adds excitement...... but while you are trying to 'solo' so are the: Jihad jeeps Manned Rail intallations Other tanks Packed AV nades Flux nades Plasma Cannons Swarms of Swarms Remotes and Proximity traps Incubus with Rail Cloaked AV Minor orbitals Major orbitals and of course Nova Knives There is no more 'solo' it's become more of a 'sitting in redline with AV of choice and hitting tank before everything else' You can't just say ' I am not commenting on swarms, they are problematic, but works for how I want to solo tanks '. What is there like 6 players left that call in tanks as often as possible?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7410	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:29:00 - [519] - Quote Complaints that focusing fire is highly efficient at killing things is pretty much the definition of "I want tanks to be overpowered." Further How does Swarms "work for how I want to..." what? I don't use them, I think they're dumb. I stopped using them when Chromosome rolled out and I stopped playing logistics. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5084	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:24:00 - [520] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 365	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:49:00 - [521] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5084	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:03:00 - [522] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17364	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:36:00 - [523] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. Your tank or tanking skills must be gawdawfull if you die in 4 seconds..... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 368	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:28:00 - [524] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. 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. Yes that would be ideal, guess I was hoping this was what we were heading towards... instead of just making 'fast tanks with low ehp' and 'slow tanks with slightly more ehp than we have now' while nerfing defenses and regen.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 368	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:30:00 - [525] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. Your tank or tanking skills must be gawdawfull if you die in 4 seconds..... Yes i try and teleport away but can't remember the button.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5089	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:36:00 - [526] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yes that would be ideal, guess I was hoping this was what we were heading towards... instead of just making 'fast tanks with low ehp' and 'slow tanks with slightly more ehp than we have now' while nerfing defenses and regen. See? Even we can agree on some things "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:02:00 - [527] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. Your tank or tanking skills must be gawdawfull if you die in 4 seconds..... Yes i try and teleport away but can't remember the button. Press ESC go to options key bindings Set up the teleport to a unassigned key. Molestia approved
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17366	Posted - 2015.03.01 01:14:00 - [528] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. Your tank or tanking skills must be gawdawfull if you die in 4 seconds..... Yes i try and teleport away but can't remember the button. 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? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 369	Posted - 2015.03.01 01:25:00 - [529] - Quote [/quote] 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?[/quote] 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.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.01 02:17:00 - [530] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: random forumgoer wrote: I wasthinking 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? 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. I hate NA servers. nothing but proto and proto swamrs, most with minmando. Molestia approved

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1833	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:31:00 - [531] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: The more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing it as an all around vehicle nerf, save for the slight madrugar buff. same.. more slots= more isk = surviveability as now. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.01 04:00:00 - [532] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing it as an all around vehicle nerf, save for the slight madrugar buff. same.. more slots= more isk = surviveability as now. And less shield regen. Although I will use 2 light boosters, gunlogis will die even quicker to blasters now. Molestia approved
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2944	Posted - 2015.03.01 06:15:00 - [533] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: 14,000 eHP is not enough for an "ultra heavy tank." They should start at 14,000 eHP, and increase from there. Rattati hinted at needing a laser strike to take them out. 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? I would love to play in the same pubs as you Pokey, I have a fit near 10k ehp currently that often pops in 4 seconds fully hardened. So excited to dump another 10 million sp into vehicles so i can tank that extra forge blast before the militia swarms pop me. Lol @ 1 Hardener. Tanks without nitro will be terrible unless they have over 20k ehp. Otherwise I will need to find whatever server you are on that only has one red berry that ever uses AV. Balancing tanks around ONE AV player crippling a tank with ONE clip is rediculous. 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. I thought you disagreed with that statement? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2944	Posted - 2015.03.01 06:16:00 - [534] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Doc DDD wrote: random forumgoer wrote: I wasthinking 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? 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. I hate NA servers. nothing but proto and proto swamrs, most with minmando. I went on EU servers, and had the same thing happen, so I just didn't bother. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5097	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:03:00 - [535] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: I thought you disagreed with that statement? Which part? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17371	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:22:00 - [536] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: 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?[/quote] 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.[/quote] That's the point. Why bother with complex manoeuvres that get you killed when simple ones keep you alive and killing. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 815	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:33:00 - [537] - Quote Why do we get a increase in slot layouts but we dont get our old modules back? Where is the fitting variety? Its just going to play out like this for shield tanks: -shield hardener -2X extender -2X boosters Similar situation is going to happend with armor tanks and many people proved this allready. If you allready are going to add the old vehicles back then add those modules back into the game: -passive shield/armor resistance -shield recharger (not booster!) -overdrive modules (increased torgue) -logistic modules for armor/shields -PASSIVE damage controll unit -heat sinks, tracking modules etc. Vehicle fits would actually have variety instead of just the overall generic stuff that every 1 uses. Im just baffled that this discussion is not going anywhere simply due to the lack of actually old vets who remember all of the old stuff. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:43:00 - [538] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 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? 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.[/quote] That's the point. Why bother with complex manoeuvres that get you killed when simple ones keep you alive and killing.[/quote] Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2946	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:13:00 - [539] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 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? 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. That's the point. Why bother with complex manoeuvres that get you killed when simple ones keep you alive and killing.[/quote] Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms.[/quote] My question is why are you going into cities with a HAV...... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2946	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:14:00 - [540] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Why do we get a increase in slot layouts but we dont get our old modules back? Where is the fitting variety? Its just going to play out like this for shield tanks: -shield hardener -2X extender -2X boosters Similar situation is going to happend with armor tanks and many people proved this allready. If you allready are going to add the old vehicles back then add those modules back into the game: -passive shield/armor resistance -shield recharger (not booster!) -overdrive modules (increased torgue) -logistic modules for armor/shields -PASSIVE damage controll unit -heat sinks, tracking modules etc. Vehicle fits would actually have variety instead of just the overall generic stuff that every 1 uses. Im just baffled that this discussion is not going anywhere simply due to the lack of actually old vets who remember all of the old stuff. This was already discussed, agreed on, and moved on. That is coming later on, in phase 2 I believe. Instead of doubting people, how about you just read the thread? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:38:00 - [541] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: 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? 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. That's the point. Why bother with complex manoeuvres that get you killed when simple ones keep you alive and killing. Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms.[/quote] My question is why are you going into cities with a HAV......[/quote] Not sure hiw this is confusing to people that tank but here you go, on most of the maps there is a city socket within 100 m of your own redline. Unless you want to sit in your redline and rail snipe or whatever you do with a blaster in the redline, there comes a time where your team may need supression fire past that first city socket, usually in a larger city socket with an objective. Sometimes on the objective, there is actually an enemy tank sitting behind cover. Now to either push forward towards the objective and help distract infantry or destroy the enemy tank you sometimes have to leave the safety of the redline. Often you have to pass a seemingly deserted city socket or even turn a corner into the objective city in order to be of any benefit to your team. I know many tankers are gasping that you both have to leave the redline and pass the first city socket.. but I hope you can follow when I say sometimes you even have to turn a corner! I know this goes against your thinking of 'outside redline = dead ' and ' protect kdr in tank at all cost, even over winning'.. but I find I can help my team turn the momentum in our direction by coming out of the redline. I am guessing that both your kdrs are approaching infinity so this must not apply to you.. but now what's happening is the second a tank comes out of the redline, 2 proto minmitar swarmers lock on and start releasing volley after volley, sometimes there is 3 swarmers, sometimes 4, sometimes there is also a forge or plasma canon. LAV's can not get out of the redline, dropships need to launch straight into the flight ceiling to make it out of the redline. Tanks sit in the back kof the redline trying to snipe bunny hoppingAV just to get out. Now your infantry has started spawning with sniper rifles to try and snipe ttheir way out of the redline. The objective is lost and you lose. That's why I clear a path the city sockets and try to supress AV from sitting in our redline. The problem is if 3 proto swarmers lock onto you and a forge or av Nade hits you then in 4 seconds you are back to spawning in the redline, calling in your railtank and sniping AV.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17381	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:38:00 - [542] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms. My question is why are you going into cities with a HAV...... 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:56:00 - [543] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms. My question is why are you going into cities with a HAV...... 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. where did I say 2 second ttk? .. it's 4 seconds ttk . Pop hardeners, count to 4, tank explodes. If you are confused as to how any tank could be anywhere in the map where you are vulnerable for 4 seconds then I can't help you. Stick to the redline. The two seconds was how far from cover you can be, gives you just over a second to react and drive backwards.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17384	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:17:00 - [544] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Again, this is all fine and good if you are 2 seconds from cover in the redline, but bringing a blaster or missile tank to a city socket to help your team push a point opens up all sides of your tank to potential fire. By all means sit in the redline and snipe but I have more fun trying to push out and help the team. These proposed changes will be pushing us deeper into the redline unless nitro on a DHAV let's me outrun swarms. My question is why are you going into cities with a HAV...... 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. where did I say 2 second ttk? .. it's 4 seconds ttk . Pop hardeners, count to 4, tank explodes. If you are confused as to how any tank could be anywhere in the map where you are vulnerable for 4 seconds then I can't help you. Stick to the redline. The two seconds was how far from cover you can be, gives you just over a second to react and drive backwards. Even four seconds boggles the mind. That's a more than a total of 2230 DPS or 9000 damage in Alpha! Not many things can achieve this. I simply want to know how you suffered this kind of catastrophic damage within your established parameters (strikes me that JLAV are not likely used in PC). Also while the redline certainly is a useful tool as a safe zone for redeployment, resupply, and to gain a little bit of battlefield perspective I've long been wishing for a no fire zone in the redline. Deliberately hiding in there because you are unwilling to deploy to the battlefield is somewhat shameful....but I can't begrudge the people who do it...that's their prerogative but it marks the battlefield as MINE if they are unwilling to come down onto it. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7417	Posted - 2015.03.02 06:42:00 - [545] - Quote Basing an argument on balance around 3 people focusing fire on a single target is disingenuous and misleading. Considering that's what it takes for a tank to die in four seconds. Single AV whether heavy turret or handheld should never be balanced based on three people sharing a target being overpowered. Thats like me claiming that sentinels need 50% stacking resistance for each extra person focusing fire on them. AV
Soul Cairn Negative-Feedback 73	Posted - 2015.03.02 06:44:00 - [546] - Quote What was this originally about again? There was to much arguing and not enough discussion for me to remember. Don't be fooled, I'm Caldari Vehicular Specialist Grandmaster Bump
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7417	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:10:00 - [547] - Quote Soul Cairn wrote: What was this originally about again? There was to much arguing and not enough discussion for me to remember. 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. AV
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 316	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:30:00 - [548] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Soul Cairn wrote: What was this originally about again? There was to much arguing and not enough discussion for me to remember. 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. Yep. Also, if any new low slot mods get added, gunlogi will need a resource buff... Molestia approved
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4048	Posted - 2015.03.02 11:18:00 - [549] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Doc DDD wrote: The more I'm looking at this, the more I'm seeing it as an all around vehicle nerf, save for the slight madrugar buff. same.. more slots= more isk = surviveability as now. And less shield regen. Although I will use 2 light boosters, gunlogis will die even quicker to blasters now. That is if your boosters work and dont stop if you take a bit of damage. Also the large railgun still bugged up after 3 years and now the small railgun and missile suffer from the reload glitch now and again which really takes the cake in an ADS.
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4354	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:13:00 - [550] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Even four seconds boggles the mind. That's a more than a total of 2230 DPS or 9000 damage in Alpha! Not many things can achieve this. I simply want to know how you suffered this kind of catastrophic damage within your established parameters (strikes me that JLAV are not likely used in PC). Also while the redline certainly is a useful tool as a safe zone for redeployment, resupply, and to gain a little bit of battlefield perspective I've long been wishing for a no fire zone in the redline. Deliberately hiding in there because you are unwilling to deploy to the battlefield is somewhat shameful....but I can't begrudge the people who do it...that's their prerogative but it marks the battlefield as MINE if they are unwilling to come down onto it. Well, one Cx damage modded IAFG deals about 700 DPS before proficiency/bonuses; it's hardly uncommon to be attacked by multiple AV users, and a single Wiyrkomi MinMando will kill an unhardened Madrugar in seven seconds (assuming two damage mods and maxed proficiency we have one second between volleys and three seconds to reload. First volley strips shields, second and third take the HAV down to about 800 HP fourth volley kills the HAV. I'm also assuming two repairers, because plates are garbage). Hardened, that increases to eight seconds - the fifth volley will kill the HAV. Eight seconds is a long time; it's usually long enough to escape. The MinMando will gain some 3-400 WP out of this. If he has a friend, or he's firing invisibly, you die. One or both of these things are frequent. It is also perfectly doable to solo a Gunnlogi as a forge-gunner; four shots from a damage-modded IAFG and two Lai-Dai Packed AV grenades will kill pretty much anything, assuming you've already forced the triggering of the hardener (if you didn't why are you bothering?). Essentially, what's happened is that the only way to survive as a tanker is to either stay in the redline and only come out while hardeners are up and you're certain you won't be ganked upon leaving, or to be so much more skilled and prepared than the AV player that there's nothing he can do (like the idiots who insist on firing swarms at my hardened shield tank, versus the times when I dance around blasters in the street in my Sentinel to score an easy kill). In the meantime the AV player is making bank, and you're making a loss. Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:27:00 - [551] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: True Adamance wrote: Even four seconds boggles the mind. That's a more than a total of 2230 DPS or 9000 damage in Alpha! Not many things can achieve this. I simply want to know how you suffered this kind of catastrophic damage within your established parameters (strikes me that JLAV are not likely used in PC). Also while the redline certainly is a useful tool as a safe zone for redeployment, resupply, and to gain a little bit of battlefield perspective I've long been wishing for a no fire zone in the redline. Deliberately hiding in there because you are unwilling to deploy to the battlefield is somewhat shameful....but I can't begrudge the people who do it...that's their prerogative but it marks the battlefield as MINE if they are unwilling to come down onto it. Well, one Cx damage modded IAFG deals about 700 DPS before proficiency/bonuses; it's hardly uncommon to be attacked by multiple AV users, and a single Wiyrkomi MinMando will kill an unhardened Madrugar in seven seconds (assuming two damage mods and maxed proficiency we have one second between volleys and three seconds to reload. First volley strips shields, second and third take the HAV down to about 800 HP fourth volley kills the HAV. I'm also assuming two repairers, because plates are garbage). Hardened, that increases to eight seconds - the fifth volley will kill the HAV. Eight seconds is a long time; it's usually long enough to escape. The MinMando will gain some 3-400 WP out of this. If he has a friend, or he's firing invisibly, you die. One or both of these things are frequent. It is also perfectly doable to solo a Gunnlogi as a forge-gunner; four shots from a damage-modded IAFG and two Lai-Dai Packed AV grenades will kill pretty much anything, assuming you've already forced the triggering of the hardener (if you didn't why are you bothering?). Essentially, what's happened is that the only way to survive as a tanker is to either stay in the redline and only come out while hardeners are up and you're certain you won't be ganked upon leaving, or to be so much more skilled and prepared than the AV player that there's nothing he can do (like the idiots who insist on firing swarms at my hardened shield tank, versus the times when I dance around blasters in the street in my Sentinel to score an easy kill). In the meantime the AV player is making bank, and you're making a loss. Dunno where you're getting your numbers, curtrently 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. 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. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:57:00 - [552] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: True Adamance wrote: Even four seconds boggles the mind. That's a more than a total of 2230 DPS or 9000 damage in Alpha! Not many things can achieve this. I simply want to know how you suffered this kind of catastrophic damage within your established parameters (strikes me that JLAV are not likely used in PC). Also while the redline certainly is a useful tool as a safe zone for redeployment, resupply, and to gain a little bit of battlefield perspective I've long been wishing for a no fire zone in the redline. Deliberately hiding in there because you are unwilling to deploy to the battlefield is somewhat shameful....but I can't begrudge the people who do it...that's their prerogative but it marks the battlefield as MINE if they are unwilling to come down onto it. Well, one It is also perfectly doable to solo a Gunnlogi as a forge-gunner; four shots from a damage-modded IAFG and two Lai-Dai Packed AV grenades will kill pretty much anything, assuming you've already forced the triggering of the hardener (if you didn't why are you bothering?). Essentially, what's happened is that the only way to survive as a tanker is to either stay in the redline and only come out while hardeners are up and you're certain you won't be ganked upon leaving, or to be so much more skilled and prepared than the AV player that there's nothing he can do (like the idiots who insist on firing swarms at my hardened shield tank, versus the times when I dance around blasters in the street in my Sentinel to score an easy kill). In the meantime the AV player is making bank, and you're making a loss. 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. It doesn't get any older than driving your tank out of a redline to have half a team lock onto you with swarms. When you calculate your dps you should start at the impact of the first shot at a tank, as unless you are standing directly in line of sight of the pilot, initial charge up times and lock on times mean nothing. For example, an UN HARDENED ( with only one hardener gotta save every second ) gunlogi with 6000 hp comes out of the redline, a fully specced breach forge ( i know breach sux but it has longest charge time ) on a tower charges up and fires, a hit... now the tank turns on his hardener and drives backwards while breach forge charges, breach fires into the redline leaving the tank with next to no health in what the pilot sees as only the charge up time. The same goes with swarms, however with swarms if the pilot doesn't see the infantry player there are 3 guaranteed volleys hitting the tank in succession, and with reload bonuses. more on the way. I know you are thinking 'who cares, tank came out if redline, it knows to expect damage now'. The problem is Rattati has proposed that the new tanks will be limited to around 15000 Ehp max and be centered around having 3 infantry inside. That 15000 is in a hardened state so if any damage is taken before hardeners are up all these stats about ttk go out the window. So if we consider shield tanks will have 15 seconds hardened out cover (redline) time before heading back to cover (redline) as any shield tank pilot driving around with hardener on cooldown, and nerfed shield regen is asking to be popped. 3 AV users will trump the 3 people in the tank, 3 forges or 3 swarmers or 3 Nova knives, it won't matter, that shield tank will be sitting in the redline sniping with 2 infantry on small turrets. That's 1/5th of your team doing nothing in the redline but guarding your own redline. The longer that tank sits in the redline with 3 people, the less chance there is of a win... the forums will scream for webifiers and redline nerfs, more rail nerfs, nerfs for vehicles damaging anything if they are in thier own redline... all because 15000 Ehp for 15 seconds are borderline useless in a game where everyone evolves to destroy tanks as fast as possible.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:59:00 - [553] - Quote DPS is calculated on how long it takes ME to kill YOU, not how long it takes from you realizing I'm shooting at you till the objective is achieved, so yes, the DPS loss from the initial charge/lock is valid. and I see a lot of complaining about lots of people speccing AV. I suppose we've forgotten the tankers gloating and yelling HTFU when they were able to more or less farm infantry kills with impunity, and on the rare occasions they died, cried out for nerfs to AV. I'm sorry, but three people focusing fire on a SINGLE TARGET shows that teamwork is effective, not that AV is OP. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1291	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:01:00 - [554] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: True Adamance wrote: Even four seconds boggles the mind. That's a more than a total of 2230 DPS or 9000 damage in Alpha! Not many things can achieve this. I simply want to know how you suffered this kind of catastrophic damage within your established parameters (strikes me that JLAV are not likely used in PC). Also while the redline certainly is a useful tool as a safe zone for redeployment, resupply, and to gain a little bit of battlefield perspective I've long been wishing for a no fire zone in the redline. Deliberately hiding in there because you are unwilling to deploy to the battlefield is somewhat shameful....but I can't begrudge the people who do it...that's their prerogative but it marks the battlefield as MINE if they are unwilling to come down onto it. Well, one Cx damage modded IAFG deals about 700 DPS before proficiency/bonuses; it's hardly uncommon to be attacked by multiple AV users, and a single Wiyrkomi MinMando will kill an unhardened Madrugar in seven seconds (assuming two damage mods and maxed proficiency we have one second between volleys and three seconds to reload. First volley strips shields, second and third take the HAV down to about 800 HP fourth volley kills the HAV. I'm also assuming two repairers, because plates are garbage). Hardened, that increases to eight seconds - the fifth volley will kill the HAV. Eight seconds is a long time; it's usually long enough to escape. The MinMando will gain some 3-400 WP out of this. If he has a friend, or he's firing invisibly, you die. One or both of these things are frequent. It is also perfectly doable to solo a Gunnlogi as a forge-gunner; four shots from a damage-modded IAFG and two Lai-Dai Packed AV grenades will kill pretty much anything, assuming you've already forced the triggering of the hardener (if you didn't why are you bothering?). Essentially, what's happened is that the only way to survive as a tanker is to either stay in the redline and only come out while hardeners are up and you're certain you won't be ganked upon leaving, or to be so much more skilled and prepared than the AV player that there's nothing he can do (like the idiots who insist on firing swarms at my hardened shield tank, versus the times when I dance around blasters in the street in my Sentinel to score an easy kill). In the meantime the AV player is making bank, and you're making a loss. 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. Well, of all the AV weapons, swarm launchers are the most common, and I'm inclined to say, most deadly. I swarm on my tanker and Forge/Plasma cannon on my alt, Teba. I like to forge but missing a shot means missing a kill. And anyone who has used a forge gun knows it's not exactly easy hitting a tank at range. Hell even getting close to one can be deadly when they pop out and gun you down. As far as swarms are concerned, they tend to be a LOT more consistent in their DPS due to the tracking missiles. It's probably why they get brought up so much. I can dodge FG shots far easier than I can dodge those swarmers. I mean you don't really dodge a swarm launcher. You just tank the damage or try to break LOS. Swarms are by far the cheapest and easiest AV out there. Unlike a FG, they don't require a specific suit and SP investment is cheap. Not to mention they don't require much aiming to use properly. Swarms are the most common threat to any tanker out there, therefore they will get the most hate! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:07:00 - [555] - Quote If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do'
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:08:00 - [556] - Quote Yes, my problem is not that swarms are easy. My problem is when the discussion is "well these AV options here suck and have no utility" gets responded to with "AV IS OVERPOWERED BECAUSE SWARMS!" It's dumb as hell, and useless to boot. That's no the current discussion, but it's effectively what's happening. what's hilarious is the fact that swarms just need a mechanical overhaul. It's that simple. they need to be reworked. Any "Balance" (and I use this term VERYloosely) will be a bandaid due to the fact that there's no human error involved. Forge guns? Yeah not so bad. PLC? Hilarious. What's going to be REALLY rich is if Rattati introduces the laser cannon and plasma mortar. The Gunnlogi pilots are going to scream if overall DPS among the AV weapons is similar because the profiles will mean that there's more than just armor AV anymore. But the people driving madrugars will point and laugh at the lasers and plasmas rather in the fashion that gunnlogis laugh at forge guns now. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:09:00 - [557] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' LOL ambush. there's a lot of whining about OMS and vehicles. It's pure magic. suck up the pain and spawn AV. AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1291	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:24:00 - [558] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. Well, a blaster gunnlogi won't last against a madrudger blaster. But blasters are kinda crap atm due to being trapped in limbo between AV and AI, so that's not saying much. And yeah, the gunnlogi is OP right now. Though I can't say I would go so far as saying it takes another gunnlogi to destroy. A maddie does stand a chance, but given all the anti armor AV out there, you don't often see many. And if you do they are usually too busy fighting AV off or dying to it. So it's hard to judge how a gunnlogi and maddie match up nowadays. Well, I guess that kinda means the best counter is another gunnlogi huh, as they won't get insta popped by the AV lol. This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:29:00 - [559] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi. Once we go hot with Rattati's HAVs the shoe will be on the other foot... to a point. Forge guns and swarms aren't really going to have an easier time killing a gunnlogi. Whoop de do. they will have a harder time killing a maddy, so it's a win there. the trick will be the fact that the way rattati built the HAVs if you were to make two versions of the forge gun, one plasma and one rail, the plasma one would kill the gunnlogi in the time it takes the rail to splatter the madrugar. However if you swapped them, they'd both take about as long as it takes to bust through a gunnlogi NOW. so they'll be about on par, it'll be a matter of using weapons with the correct damage profiles to do the job rather than "one gun fits all" AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:34:00 - [560] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs. The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7421	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:40:00 - [561] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs. The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times. 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. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 370	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:08:00 - [562] - Quote The time it takes, not the damage. English.
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1292	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:12:00 - [563] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi. Once we go hot with Rattati's HAVs the shoe will be on the other foot... to a point. Forge guns and swarms aren't really going to have an easier time killing a gunnlogi. Whoop de do. they will have a harder time killing a maddy, so it's a win there. the trick will be the fact that the way rattati built the HAVs if you were to make two versions of the forge gun, one plasma and one rail, the plasma one would kill the gunnlogi in the time it takes the rail to splatter the madrugar. However if you swapped them, they'd both take about as long as it takes to bust through a gunnlogi NOW. so they'll be about on par, it'll be a matter of using weapons with the correct damage profiles to do the job rather than "one gun fits all" Agreed, I've suggested multiple times in the past that we use current weapons, tacking on different damage profiles. EM swarm launchers, can you imagine the tears that would flow! Would rather see though some amar and minmatar weapons to fill the gap. At least then it wouldn't be spec into FG or SL and have the best of all worlds. At least then you would have to spec into another weapon to achieve the same goals. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7422	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:29:00 - [564] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Agreed, I've suggested multiple times in the past that we use current weapons, tacking on different damage profiles. EM swarm launchers, can you imagine the tears that would flow! Would rather see though some amar and minmatar weapons to fill the gap. At least then it wouldn't be spec into FG or SL and have the best of all worlds. At least then you would have to spec into another weapon to achieve the same goals. Welp, rattati wants to add an AV autocannon (I want to get this so I can spec out of the HMG so bad...) a heavy laser and a plasma mortar, all intended for Av utility. I've built my proposals for them, I'm just waiting on final HAV numbers so I can finalize the DPS values. But the way I'm setting them up (and I hope rattati runs it this way) is that the plasma mortar and scrambler lance will kill a gunnlogi in about the time it takes a forge gun or autocannon to kill a Madrugar. Rattati's Madrugar, not the current bad joke madrugar. By the same token, using a forge or autocannon on a gunnlogi, or using a laser/plasma on a madrugar should feel like you are wasting ammunition, IMHO. I want there to be a "right tool for the job" rather than the current meta of "one weapon needs to do everything." AV
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1292	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:47:00 - [565] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Agreed, I've suggested multiple times in the past that we use current weapons, tacking on different damage profiles. EM swarm launchers, can you imagine the tears that would flow! Would rather see though some amar and minmatar weapons to fill the gap. At least then it wouldn't be spec into FG or SL and have the best of all worlds. At least then you would have to spec into another weapon to achieve the same goals. Welp, rattati wants to add an AV autocannon (I want to get this so I can spec out of the HMG so bad...) a heavy laser and a plasma mortar, all intended for Av utility. I've built my proposals for them, I'm just waiting on final HAV numbers so I can finalize the DPS values. But the way I'm setting them up (and I hope rattati runs it this way) is that the plasma mortar and scrambler lance will kill a gunnlogi in about the time it takes a forge gun or autocannon to kill a Madrugar. Rattati's Madrugar, not the current bad joke madrugar. By the same token, using a forge or autocannon on a gunnlogi, or using a laser/plasma on a madrugar should feel like you are wasting ammunition, IMHO. I want there to be a "right tool for the job" rather than the current meta of "one weapon needs to do everything." I hear a lot of mention of the laser weapon and I always think that pretty beam of light that you hold on target. Honestly I can't imagine that would be the right direction for an AV weapon. I was thinking the laser weapon fires bursts of lasers, rather than a beam of light that only needs to be held on a target. Add a little skill into a weapon. Sure a laser beam works on small targets but on a large target it would be FAR too easy. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7423	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:52:00 - [566] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: I hear a lot of mention of the laser weapon and I always think that pretty beam of light that you hold on target. Honestly I can't imagine that would be the right direction for an AV weapon. I was thinking the laser weapon fires bursts of lasers, rather than a beam of light that only needs to be held on a target. Add a little skill into a weapon. Sure a laser beam works on small targets but on a large target it would be FAR too easy. there's a couple considerations there, firstly the beam has to have a low per-shot alpha. Second, the beam is harder to use on infantry without making it useless against them. It's just going to suck versus armor. But the capper is that it cannot use the escalating damage mechanic of the laser rifle. It's why when someone suggested making the laser rifle AV capable my instant thought was BAD IDEA BAD IDEA BAD IDEA. Also my vision for the beam laser is that it tries to kill you from overheat. to the tune of 150 laser profile damage per second you keep shooting it once it reaches critical heat. the Amarr suit (which can't load up damage mods) would of course take LESS damage from this issue. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4060	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:53:00 - [567] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs. The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times. 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. Well at the current rate it is 1 AV to a 3 man HAV but even after the changes if you choose to run the 3man HAV you are no better off because everything relies on that 1 hardener and when that goes you are doomed. So breaking is 1 AV to a 3man HAV balanced?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7423	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:56:00 - [568] - Quote 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. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4060	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:05:00 - [569] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7423	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:13:00 - [570] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen. 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. AV

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3014	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:21:00 - [571] - Quote And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7424	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:26:00 - [572] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4064	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:32:00 - [573] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen. 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. The JLAV can cause over 10k of damage, the 'jump out and shoot someone' requires at least some aim so for me it is chalk and cheese because the JLAV is complete no skill and no risk being able to kill something that takes a lot of SP to skill into and alot of ISK to field but the 'jump out' can be killed or you kill the LAV and it is done with. There is 3people in a HAV so it should take 3 to kill it. The general argument is for AV is that it is only 1 person in a HAV and it is unfair and should only take 1 to kill it no matter the SP or ISK invested for the pilot so likewise 3 for 3 with no other additions in SP or ISK for the 2nd & 3rd gunners. If it is 1 AV to 3 man HAV then why run the 3man HAV? What advanatage does it carry? They cannot defend from AV because small turrets and jumping out offers nothing if AV is not in CQC/short run range? It is just more people in a HAV which gives more points to AV who can solo it. In fact im also finding it hard to justify the existance of a HAV with 3 gunners in it, like the DHAV it has massive shortcomings with next to no advantages. As much as i would like to run with 2 extra gunners the HAV overall gets no extra game changing benefits or even a stronger tank let alone the simple ability to defend itself from AV. Maybe if pilot suits could stack with each other and the vehicle then possibly it would be worth it but that is looking unlikely since infantry had a heart attack with pilot suits placeholders so i doubt they would even agree to something like this.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3015	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:32:00 - [574] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. Well, a blaster gunnlogi won't last against a madrudger blaster. But blasters are kinda crap atm due to being trapped in limbo between AV and AI, so that's not saying much. And yeah, the gunnlogi is OP right now. Though I can't say I would go so far as saying it takes another gunnlogi to destroy. A maddie does stand a chance, but given all the anti armor AV out there, you don't often see many. And if you do they are usually too busy fighting AV off or dying to it. So it's hard to judge how a gunnlogi and maddie match up nowadays. Well, I guess that kinda means the best counter is another gunnlogi huh, as they won't get insta popped by the AV lol. This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi. The Gunnlogi is not OP. It's the one hull that can survive AV long enough to escape. I'm considering multiple AV in this. It's always more than one against me;the only time it's a single person is when it's MLT suits. I like and prefer armor over shield. Problem is, it gets annihilated far too fast. This has nothing to do with all you lemmings believing the lie that I'm a bad pilot. It has to do with armor being paper weak, and AV being akin to an asteroid strike. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3015	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:36:00 - [575] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17410	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:58:00 - [576] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. .. The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though. Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do' 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. The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs. The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times. 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. Exactly. I get that you want to tank AV fire and you can...... but you shouldn't be sitting around waiting for it to hit you.... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17410	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:59:00 - [577] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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 sht there. Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways. Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat. It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen. 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. The JLAV can cause over 10k of damage, the 'jump out and shoot someone' requires at least some aim so for me it is chalk and cheese because the JLAV is complete no skill and no risk being able to kill something that takes a lot of SP to skill into and alot of ISK to field but the 'jump out' can be killed or you kill the LAV and it is done with. There is 3people in a HAV so it should take 3 to kill it. The general argument is for AV is that it is only 1 person in a HAV and it is unfair and should only take 1 to kill it no matter the SP or ISK invested for the pilot so likewise 3 for 3 with no other additions in SP or ISK for the 2nd & 3rd gunners. If it is 1 AV to 3 man HAV then why run the 3man HAV? What advanatage does it carry? They cannot defend from AV because small turrets and jumping out offers nothing if AV is not in CQC/short run range? It is just more people in a HAV which gives more points to AV who can solo it. In fact im also finding it hard to justify the existance of a HAV with 3 gunners in it, like the DHAV it has massive shortcomings with next to no advantages. As much as i would like to run with 2 extra gunners the HAV overall gets no extra game changing benefits or even a stronger tank let alone the simple ability to defend itself from AV. Maybe if pilot suits could stack with each other and the vehicle then possibly it would be worth it but that is looking unlikely since infantry had a heart attack with pilot suits placeholders so i doubt they would even agree to something like this. 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4065	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:12:00 - [578] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Front turret is damn poor in general and the pilot generally faces that way anyways. Second turret is far better but still overall not great. Together a bit more damage because if they dont attack the front the front turret does 0 damage and against AV generally useless unless they happen to be up close or reachable but that is rare If i want eyes on the map have a sniper who can see everything up high, doesn't need to be in the vehicle and much much more powerful no because it will still take the same number of hits to kill the vehicle.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7426	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:50:00 - [579] - Quote 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. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7426	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:52:00 - [580] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. AV

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4067	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:05:00 - [581] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5119	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:09:00 - [582] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. Pretty much. I mean with a similar logic one could say "Well infantry weapons should be the primary means of killing infantry, and Turrets damage should just be supplementary damage to infantry" It has to flow both ways, if you want vehicles to be lethal to infantry, then infantry need to be lethal to vehicles. Similarly if you want infantry to simply be supplementary damage to vehicles, then vehicles should be supplementary damage to infantry. I don't think anyone particularly wants the latter option. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3017	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:09:00 - [583] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in. Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say. Well spkr, if we listened to YOU, tanks would be unstoppable God-Engines. Fortunately, very few people share your opinions. I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless. Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction? Because a weapon that is incapable of killing the intended target is a worthless waste of resources and SP. So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17412	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:39:00 - [584] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3017	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:48:00 - [585] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17413	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:54:00 - [586] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. Well I meant ideally. I mean currently AV is arguably just better than tank turrets and significantly better in terms of representing high power ordinance. If we could just get rid of the Assault Turrets we have now a replace them with more conventional main battle cannon tanks would be a real threat on the field. I'm sure you know what I mean when I say the 120mm Smoothbore style guns from Battlefield are just plain superior to use as a tank driver. Range Power Explosive Charge Longer Reload Times Etc "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5119	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:56:00 - [587] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 213	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:55:00 - [588] - Quote Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17416	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:59:00 - [589] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4068	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:11:00 - [590] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. They were before, they were in EVE. If it ain't broke don't touch it, a rule CCP ignores on a daily basis.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5120	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:13:00 - [591] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17416	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:17:00 - [592] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? Yes and no. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7429	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:20:00 - [593] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7429	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:21:00 - [594] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Nerd is a term of endearment with me, a sign that I may actually like you. Notice I never refer to certain parties in this conversation as such. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5122	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:59:00 - [595] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Ofc all this AV discussion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread itself... The proposed HAVs are almost good...both need a resource buff, and we need some utility for the lows (That way you can actually have the intended opportunity cost of fitting mods)...no change to the resource cost is necessary once the slot becomes competitive (Things like Overdrives, Regulators...even passive damage amps and the like for things for the low slot) Can we all agree that Damage Modules/ Weapons Utility Modules really should be low slot passives anyway. Not high slot actives. Do you think having both types (assuming both types receive stacking penalties appropriately) would be problematic? Yes and no. I just rather enjoy the dynamic of Active Highs vs Passive Lows, that's largely what we've had in the past and the move away from it left our low slots largely starved for things to put in them. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 372	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:16:00 - [596] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: So you want AV to be the main counter to vehicles, rather than vehicles countering vehicles. Got it He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him..... Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit. Better? Swarms and forge don't glitch. Swarms don't require aim. Infantry is a smaller target and can take cover much easier than a tank. Also, a suit with PRO AV (doesn't have to be a PRO suit) is cheaper than a PRO turret by itself. AV is better than a vehicle in more ways than one. 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. Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3028	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:30:00 - [597] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. You'd cry OP trying to destroy it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5123	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:59:00 - [598] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 373	Posted - 2015.03.03 00:15:00 - [599] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Even if he's presenting half the argument, it's the half that is problematic. The return of splash damage on large rails is a good start. Fragmented large missile turrets should follow. The large blaster dispersion module also sounds interesting if it works and doesn't have an epic downtime. As it is now, AV has more advantages. 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 understand what you are saying, I guess the issue I am having is when I build fits using proto fits for these new frames, I am always skeptical regarding any build that doesnt max ehp given what tanks will have to face from AV. While i would like to think AV will get a balance pass, there had not been any real discussion on this, no threads that haven't beenderailed by av users, and for that reason AV becomes a huge factor when trying out the new hulls in proto fits.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 373	Posted - 2015.03.03 00:38:00 - [600] - Quote For example, I am making some rediculous marduk fits with shield extenders and shield hardeners with a nitro, 2 complex light armor repairers and 2 basic plates... proto blaster with 2 small basic rails... What inventive shield fits are there going to be? Extender Extender Extender Extender Hardener ammo expansion plate

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5126	Posted - 2015.03.03 00:53:00 - [601] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: For example, I am making some rediculous marduk fits with shield extenders and shield hardeners with a nitro, 2 complex light armor repairers and 2 basic plates... proto blaster with 2 small basic rails... What inventive shield fits are there going to be? Extender Extender Extender Extender Hardener ammo expansion plate Again I think this comes full circle to the fact that passive regeneration is really the only true means of regaining HP. I mean sure you have boosters but they're difficult to fit a lot of the time, and they're more of a means to trigger passive regeneration than they are actively regenerating HP. That being said if your entire means to regain HP is in passive regen, and you have no means to improve that regen (rechargers for example) there is little reason to NOT max out eHP. Pretty much all of my Gunnlogi fits are 4 extenders and a hardener too because I have very little reason NOT to do that. We got more slots, but without new modules and restricting to a single hardener instead of addressing the issues with hardeners directly....I feel like in terms of freedom of fitting its 2 steps forward and 2 steps back. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:01:00 - [602] - Quote Gladius fits don't have enough pg or cpu with 250,000,000 skill points.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:08:00 - [603] - Quote I don't know if my proto fits is bugged but I can't even fit 4 complex extenders and a complex hardener on a Gladius with a blaster and basic rails... nothing in the low slots.. Boosters take more pg than extenders and defiantly wouldn't fit, even if they weren't broken...
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 213	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:09:00 - [604] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: For example, I am making some rediculous marduk fits with shield extenders and shield hardeners with a nitro, 2 complex light armor repairers and 2 basic plates... proto blaster with 2 small basic rails... What inventive shield fits are there going to be? Extender Extender Extender Extender Hardener ammo expansion plate Again I think this comes full circle to the fact that passive regeneration is really the only true means of regaining HP. I mean sure you have boosters but they're difficult to fit a lot of the time, and they're more of a means to trigger passive regeneration than they are actively regenerating HP. That being said if your entire means to regain HP is in passive regen, and you have no means to improve that regen (rechargers for example) there is little reason to NOT max out eHP. Pretty much all of my Gunnlogi fits are 4 extenders and a hardener too because I have very little reason NOT to do that. We got more slots, but without new modules and restricting to a single hardener instead of addressing the issues with hardeners directly....I feel like in terms of freedom of fitting its 2 steps forward and 2 steps back. New slots are at least a step in the right direction, and I've made a few theory-fits with nitros and boosters (because I keep hoping they get fixed)...it's just a light tank isn't the style I personally like (it's entirely possible to do with the new Gunnlogi slot layout though...just needs more base fittings, and low slots to have some competitive utilities...fitting mods don't need to be hit as hard...etc etc...). My personal preference is for a heavy tank, and I'd gladly fit some regulators in the low-slots to increase my regen...or maybe even drop an extender for a recharger...if shield delay wasn't a thing the decision would be easier...but the mod has to exist for the decision to take place(But you and I have already talked about shield recharge delay before pokey). Additionally, all game mechanics need to be taken into account when looking at how vehicles can interact with the game over-all. The HP needs to be able to be restored to a reasonable amount, in an small enough amount of time to where it isn't more advantageous to call in a new HAV and recall the old one. This can be accomplished easily on shields using a regen time (or pseudo regen time system), and armor can be solved with a better regen bonus in the vicinity of a supply depot (of which, we need more that vehicles can actually use...Rattati Please?)...shields could also use a supplemental shield regen bonus from supply depots (in place of the pseudo time system, or to augment it)...provided that being around it also reduced the shield delay, and Depleted Delay... I think we can at least agree that the slot layout is a step in the right direction...the fitting numbers need played with (buffed slightly in both cases), and fitting mods don't need to be hit as hard as Rattati is proposing (if they need changed at all). Assuming we get new mods at some point close to the release of these changes (or at the same time if possible). Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5128	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:10:00 - [605] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I don't know if my proto fits is bugged but I can't even fit 4 complex extenders and a complex hardener on a Gladius with a blaster and basic rails... nothing in the low slots.. Boosters take more pg than extenders and defiantly wouldn't fit, even if they weren't broken... 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:19:00 - [606] - Quote I like the new slot layout I like armor tanks getting more cpu/pg I like the turret changes I like passive small armor reps on all hulls the bad -nerfed base hull stats -nerfed shield regen on shield tanks -nerfed hardeners - not enough pg cpu with 250,000,000 skill points -pg/cpu mods nerfed into uselessness -shield boosters broken
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:21:00 - [607] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't know if my proto fits is bugged but I can't even fit 4 complex extenders and a complex hardener on a Gladius with a blaster and basic rails... nothing in the low slots.. Boosters take more pg than extenders and defiantly wouldn't fit, even if they weren't broken... 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? Short on both, and the nerfed chips don't help. . Can make it work with the old style chips, but even then ... maxed out skills and you need two chip mods? That's without the more pg hungry boosters even being contemplated.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5128	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:27:00 - [608] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I don't know if my proto fits is bugged but I can't even fit 4 complex extenders and a complex hardener on a Gladius with a blaster and basic rails... nothing in the low slots.. Boosters take more pg than extenders and defiantly wouldn't fit, even if they weren't broken... How are shield users supposed to fit anything in the low slots other than ammo? 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) "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:39:00 - [609] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I don't know if my proto fits is bugged but I can't even fit 4 complex extenders and a complex hardener on a Gladius with a blaster and basic rails... nothing in the low slots.. Boosters take more pg than extenders and defiantly wouldn't fit, even if they weren't broken... How are shield users supposed to fit anything in the low slots other than ammo? 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) Yeah so the marduk fit I made had 2500 shields with a complex hardner bumping that up to around 3600. It also had 4700 armor with 210 immediate reps per second. There is no shield fit with enhanced extenders and one hardener that is going to do anything but shoot rails from the redline. Stack those damage mods.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5129	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:53:00 - [610] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah so the marduk fit I made had 2500 shields with a complex hardner bumping that up to around 3600. It also had 4700 armor with 210 immediate reps per second. There is no shield fit with enhanced extenders and one hardener that is going to do anything but shoot rails from the redline. Stack those damage mods. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 02:03:00 - [611] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah so the marduk fit I made had 2500 shields with a complex hardner bumping that up to around 3600. It also had 4700 armor with 210 immediate reps per second. There is no shield fit with enhanced extenders and one hardener that is going to do anything but shoot rails from the redline. Stack those damage mods. 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. Yeah I can fit the armor tank proto hardener proto plate proto reps proto reps nitro scanner the shield tank would only be able to fit all proto if the cpu/pg nerf is scrapped or better yet, cpu pg is buffed. are the proto tanks rail fitting proposed bonus applied in proto fits? Not that it would give you much.. should almost apply to all turrets.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5132	Posted - 2015.03.03 02:13:00 - [612] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I can fit the armor tank proto hardener proto plate proto reps proto reps nitro scanner the shield tank would only be able to fit all proto if the cpu/pg nerf is scrapped or better yet, cpu pg is buffed. are the proto tanks rail fitting proposed bonus applied in proto fits? Not that it would give you much.. should almost apply to all turrets. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 02:34:00 - [613] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I can fit the armor tank proto hardener proto plate proto reps proto reps nitro scanner the shield tank would only be able to fit all proto if the cpu/pg nerf is scrapped or better yet, cpu pg is buffed. are the proto tanks rail fitting proposed bonus applied in proto fits? Not that it would give you much.. should almost apply to all turrets. 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. I think that the 'fitting all proto' balance is one way to look at it, the more important point should be that the all proto armor fits are looking much more effective than the all proto shield fits. At this time.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5135	Posted - 2015.03.03 03:55:00 - [614] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I think that the 'fitting all proto' balance is one way to look at it, the more important point should be that the all proto armor fits are looking much more effective than the all proto shield fits. At this time. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17425	Posted - 2015.03.03 03:55:00 - [615] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I can fit the armor tank proto hardener proto plate proto reps proto reps nitro scanner the shield tank would only be able to fit all proto if the cpu/pg nerf is scrapped or better yet, cpu pg is buffed. are the proto tanks rail fitting proposed bonus applied in proto fits? Not that it would give you much.. should almost apply to all turrets. 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. I think that the 'fitting all proto' balance is one way to look at it, the more important point should be that the all proto armor fits are looking much more effective than the all proto shield fits. At this time. I don't know if I agree with that but hopefully we'll see on the shield better than armour fits...... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5135	Posted - 2015.03.03 04:05:00 - [616] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Blegh You didn't like what you said? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17426	Posted - 2015.03.03 05:15:00 - [617] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Blegh You didn't like what you said? I didn't sounded stupid even for me so I hid the post behind Blegh. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5138	Posted - 2015.03.03 05:22:00 - [618] - Quote I didn't think it was that bad but ok "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4073	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:19:00 - [619] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. But you would not. You are already complaining about getting 3 AV to combat a 3man HAV.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7446	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:31:00 - [620] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. But you would not. You are already complaining about getting 3 AV to combat a 3man HAV. 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. AV

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 374	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:32:00 - [621] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I think that the 'fitting all proto' balance is one way to look at it, the more important point should be that the all proto armor fits are looking much more effective than the all proto shield fits. At this time. 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. Cpu/pg fitting optimization shouldn't be pointless to skill into on turrets either.. they are very sp expensive for little return. The problem Rattati is having is trying to make a Militia tank with 2 chips balanced against a tank with 50 million sp invested, when you can get some pretty crazy fits on these militia tanks thanks to bad game design. It's why teiricide doesn't work when you have TWO CHIPS THAT BYPASS THE WHOLE POINTS OF TEIRICIDE. Especially on a vehicle that has 2 pointless low slots, that you either stick armor plates or mod chips in. Would make more sense to have PROTO hull cpu and pg levels significantly higher so you don't need a chip and can put a recharger in your low. As I've said before, reducing natural regen shouldn't happen until a recharger is introduced forthe low slots that is not cpu/pg hungry, and increases recharge rate significantly- ie over 200 hps - due to the delay penalty. Shield boosters would also have to be worth fitting - ie far less pg, larger boost over longer time (complex large 2500 shields over 5 seconds) then the cooldown can remain as long as it is.. right now its better just to fit an extender or light booster. Also hardeners should stack with appropriate penalties.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4073	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:06:00 - [622] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. But you would not. You are already complaining about getting 3 AV to combat a 3man HAV. 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. But i keep getting the same old thing from AV which is 1 person to combat 1 person and unfortuantly for you 3 people in a HAV is still 3 people and the ratio of 1 AV to 3 in a HAV is unfair which ever way you look at it. If it was 3 AV to combat 1 person in a HAV you are quick to scream and cry about it but when it is the otherway around we hear nothing and that is double standards. Fair is fair and you have to stand by your words, you don't want it to be fair you want it to be able to solo all vehicles no matter what.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7453	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:28:00 - [623] - Quote 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." AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4079	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:10:00 - [624] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." I used to be able to kill infantry with missiles - it got nerfed I used to be able to kill infantry with blaster - it got nerfed I used to be able to kill infantry and vehicles with an ADS - it got nerfed Fragmented missiles havn't been in the game for years now, but if they make a return and actually kill infantry and also kill AV players before they can dent us the tears will form and be flowing again on the forums and eventually in the cycle on nerfs and more nerfs for vehicles it will get nerfed. No matter what happens if a vehicle is performing like it should be doing it eventually gets nerfed and AV buffed in comparision. Even when the blasters were killing players AV still had the ability to solo HAVs but yet that was unfair so blasters got nerfed but AV stayed the same and actually got buffed afterwards so they can solo vehicles even more. The problem is with players like you is that you don't want vehicles to have a place, you are upset if it takes 3 AV to 1 HAV like in chrome while the vehicles deck each other, you get upset again when you think it is unfair that it should take 3 AV to combat 3 in a HAV but are perfectly fine with it being 3 in a HAV to 1 AV. This is your ratio you stand by, 1player against 1player 1:1 but you only use that argument when it suits you and if anyone points out the obvious you put your fingers in your ears. You don't want vehicles to combat vehicles like what used to happen, you want to be that solo AV player killing everything in a clip in 5seconds, you want vehicles to be WP pinatas something that can be brushed off and currently you have that yet you still are not happy. You are afraid that vehicles may have a purpose in the game and could with the correct fit brush you off like a fly and could change the game or actually be used to do something. You say i want invincible tanks just so i can farm infantry, but i don't have any turrets left which can farm infantry because they have been removed/nerfed or are outright useless and it is pointless in being invicible to other vehicles because then no fun would be had battling enemy vehicles. I say i want useful vehicles which can last more than a few seconds out of the redline but that is not happening either and AV are up in arms as it is because being able to solo a vehicle in a clip apparently isn't quick enough. Also i speak for myself not R* so go cry about that to someone else since that has nothing to do with it child.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7455	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:39:00 - [625] - Quote 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. AV
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 203	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:40:00 - [626] - Quote Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Vehicles hawe been useles 4 over a year now. Anything that was good CCP nerfed chause of the COD fanboys And no solo swarmer should not be able to kill my tank in 1 clip,..my blaster turent is to supress infantry,as rattati said,so that min comando should be able to SUPRESS me,not kill me (only if im dumb enough to stay there and not to run away after he reloads) Or yust bring back old blaster disper. so I can kill that swarmer 5 meters in front of me,dancing and bunny hoping PS and yeah swarms on min comando are OP as hell!! ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7455	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:00 - [627] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3029	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:25:00 - [628] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:31:00 - [629] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I am, however, concerned with the overall balance of how they interact with everything ELSE, something which you are contemptuous at best towards so far as concerns go. You have no interest in vehicles being anything but better on all levels than literally any other thing at everything. So of coure I will appear to be hostile and hateful by your perspective. You're hostile and hateful towards everyone else. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3029	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:00 - [630] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I am, however, concerned with the overall balance of how they interact with everything ELSE, something which you are contemptuous at best towards so far as concerns go. You have no interest in vehicles being anything but better on all levels than literally any other thing at everything. So of coure I will appear to be hostile and hateful by your perspective. You're hostile and hateful towards everyone else. It's a vehicle weighing far more than a person in battle armor, with far better defenses, but sadly less damage output. Of course they should be better than a person in a battle suit. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5152	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:38:00 - [631] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Cpu/pg fitting optimization shouldn't be pointless to skill into on turrets either.. they are very sp expensive for little return. The problem Rattati is having is trying to make a Militia tank with 2 chips balanced against a tank with 50 million sp invested, when you can get some pretty crazy fits on these militia tanks thanks to bad game design. It's why teiricide doesn't work when you have TWO CHIPS THAT BYPASS THE WHOLE POINTS OF TEIRICIDE. Especially on a vehicle that has 2 pointless low slots, that you either stick armor plates or mod chips in. Would make more sense to have PROTO hull cpu and pg levels significantly higher so you don't need a chip and can put a recharger in your low. As I've said before, reducing natural regen shouldn't happen until a recharger is introduced forthe low slots that is not cpu/pg hungry, and increases recharge rate significantly- ie over 200 hps - due to the delay penalty. Shield boosters would also have to be worth fitting - ie far less pg, larger boost over longer time (complex large 2500 shields over 5 seconds) then the cooldown can remain as long as it is.. right now its better just to fit an extender or light booster. Also hardeners should stack with appropriate penalties. Yeah the whole fitting optimization thing is nice and all but I think the original +5%PG/CPU skills felt more rewarding, you know? As for Militia HAVs, hopefully this reduction in base HP will help bring them into a more reasonable position by forcing them to use decent modules to accomplish anything against a proper HAV. As for regen, I dunno if you saw my other thread but assuming everything is kept as proposed but you reduce the Complex Heavy Shield Booster from 40 second cooldown to a 25 second cooldown, after skills it's a 18.75s cooldown. At 1950 HP that works out to about 104HP/s over that total cooldown (obviously it hits all at once opposed to constant regen) on top of your 126HP/s natural regen, you're looking at 230HP/s effective recharge. Pair that with a couple of Regulators and you're looking at a 1.8-2.0 second delay and the ability to regen nearly 2000HP every 19 seconds when you want to. So you end up with like ~35% more effective regen but its obviously a much more burst taking style instead of constant regen, but I think you could find some nice uses for it, and would perhaps break up the need for nothing but buffer. And yeah obviously Boosters would need to be fixed so they perform properly and are much easier to fit. Obviously I'd like a proper rework of the regen system in general but if only minor tweaks to existing modules are going to happen, I think decreasing that booster cooldown would go a long way to give shield HAVs a more active fitting option. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 207	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:00 - [632] - Quote tank is a fckin TANK!!! Not wp piniata as spkr said.. In need to be powerful,.. If not what is the point of hawing tank?? we dont have anymore AI turents,only AV.. And small turrents are yust.... People like you who thinks they know what tank should be, yust bechause you can write few numbers on paper and call it balance,..but newer run a tank in pubs or PC,..are like ***** cancer! Go away on AR,CR,FG,SL,... thread and do balance there if you use that **. and leave tanking thread,chause you dont know what you are sayn if you dont drive wehicles... ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4082	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:48:00 - [633] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Being apart of a corp has nothing to do with this child. You still believe that 1 AV should be able to take out a 3man HAV. If i said it should take out 3 AV to take out 1 man HAV you complain and say it is unfair and that it should take 1 player to take out 1 player. The double standards is there for all to see, you hide behind 'balance' yet you want it as unbalanced as possible in the favor of AV while making vehicles a sideshow at best and absolutely useless at its very worst. Since are going to be like this i can do exactly the same thing. It should take 3 AV working together to take out a HAV, don't quote 1 player to 1 player BS to me since you obv don't want it and if you cry balance i will say 'tank', my missiles should hammer infantry into the ground but a flaylock and core locus do the job better where is the balance? All players like you do is take, take and take some more, you suck the life out of this game while you still complain that it is too hard for you, that you need more buffs and the playstyle that is supposed to counter you should be nerfed more and more. It won't stop with this game, slowly it dies out and you move onto the next like a virus slowly ruining it because something is too hard or you can't solo it and the cycle continues. Vehicles are in this game and yet you want a clip of whatever to kill every vehicle, why don't you move to a game where vehicles do not exist? I play planetside and can deal with AV and other vehicles but that is because the game is more developed and i have countermeasures yet no matter what pilots say you always disagree. You don't want turrets to kill infantry, you don't want HAV to have too much health that 1 clip cannot kill it outright, you want to buff AV for the new vehicles yet don't care about the DS/LAV which will be made useless, it is always what you or infantry want and never what pilots actually want who happen to use and skill into the vehicles hoping that it can actually become a proper playstyle rarther than a freak sideshow who can be put out of the game by 1 player with minimal SP investment.
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 208	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:00 - [634] - Quote AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:58:00 - [635] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Being apart of a corp has nothing to do with this child. You still believe that 1 AV should be able to take out a 3man HAV. If i said it should take out 3 AV to take out 1 man HAV you complain and say it is unfair and that it should take 1 player to take out 1 player. The double standards is there for all to see, you hide behind 'balance' yet you want it as unbalanced as possible in the favor of AV while making vehicles a sideshow at best and absolutely useless at its very worst. Since are going to be like this i can do exactly the same thing. It should take 3 AV working together to take out a HAV, don't quote 1 player to 1 player BS to me since you obv don't want it and if you cry balance i will say 'tank', my missiles should hammer infantry into the ground but a flaylock and core locus do the job better where is the balance? All players like you do is take, take and take some more, you suck the life out of this game while you still complain that it is too hard for you, that you need more buffs and the playstyle that is supposed to counter you should be nerfed more and more. It won't stop with this game, slowly it dies out and you move onto the next like a virus slowly ruining it because something is too hard or you can't solo it and the cycle continues. Vehicles are in this game and yet you want a clip of whatever to kill every vehicle, why don't you move to a game where vehicles do not exist? I play planetside and can deal with AV and other vehicles but that is because the game is more developed and i have countermeasures yet no matter what pilots say you always disagree. You don't want turrets to kill infantry, you don't want HAV to have too much health that 1 clip cannot kill it outright, you want to buff AV for the new vehicles yet don't care about the DS/LAV which will be made useless, it is always what you or infantry want and never what pilots actually want who happen to use and skill into the vehicles hoping that it can actually become a proper playstyle rarther than a freak sideshow who can be put out of the game by 1 player with minimal SP investment. 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. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:59:00 - [636] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3030	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:03:00 - [637] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Being apart of a corp has nothing to do with this child. You still believe that 1 AV should be able to take out a 3man HAV. If i said it should take out 3 AV to take out 1 man HAV you complain and say it is unfair and that it should take 1 player to take out 1 player. The double standards is there for all to see, you hide behind 'balance' yet you want it as unbalanced as possible in the favor of AV while making vehicles a sideshow at best and absolutely useless at its very worst. Since are going to be like this i can do exactly the same thing. It should take 3 AV working together to take out a HAV, don't quote 1 player to 1 player BS to me since you obv don't want it and if you cry balance i will say 'tank', my missiles should hammer infantry into the ground but a flaylock and core locus do the job better where is the balance? All players like you do is take, take and take some more, you suck the life out of this game while you still complain that it is too hard for you, that you need more buffs and the playstyle that is supposed to counter you should be nerfed more and more. It won't stop with this game, slowly it dies out and you move onto the next like a virus slowly ruining it because something is too hard or you can't solo it and the cycle continues. Vehicles are in this game and yet you want a clip of whatever to kill every vehicle, why don't you move to a game where vehicles do not exist? I play planetside and can deal with AV and other vehicles but that is because the game is more developed and i have countermeasures yet no matter what pilots say you always disagree. You don't want turrets to kill infantry, you don't want HAV to have too much health that 1 clip cannot kill it outright, you want to buff AV for the new vehicles yet don't care about the DS/LAV which will be made useless, it is always what you or infantry want and never what pilots actually want who happen to use and skill into the vehicles hoping that it can actually become a proper playstyle rarther than a freak sideshow who can be put out of the game by 1 player with minimal SP investment. 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. Vehicles are the central focus of this balancing act. And yes we know they aren't any focus at all. They're less than an afterthought, providing easy points for AV. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3030	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:00 - [638] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:05:00 - [639] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Vehicles are the central focus of this balancing act. And yes we know they aren't any focus at all. They're less than an afterthought, providing easy points for AV. Only when you're driving. AV
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 208	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:06:00 - [640] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. Not as much as tanks we hawe now.. ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:06:00 - [641] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol You mean those things that no longer exist? Your mastery of cherrypicking irrelevancies to current situations is amazing. AV
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4086	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:11:00 - [642] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. This is what we have, double standards at its finest, very quick to judge and abuse other people such as Spkr and acts like a child when something doesn't go there way and puts the fingers in the ears and squeezes there eyes shut. This is a player who thinks it is fine for 1 person to outright destroy a 3 man HAV yet if it is the other way around and it takes 3 AV to take out a 1 man HAV then that is suddenly unfair and not balanced but yet will not agree to using 3 AV for a 3man HAV and this is using there main argument against them that it should be 1 player vs 1 player. Rattati's HAV we already have them now, he has given basic vehicles the old slot layout back which we had 2 years ago but reduced the HP and is also wanting to limit hardeners to 1 and nerf resource modules. This is another nerf but of course you are happy with this because lets be honest you want to be god mode. If you act like a child don't be suprised when i treat you like one. Grow up.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3031	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:15:00 - [643] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems.. And yeah I know that my english sucks.. no it couldn't. the AV options have all been nerfed since then and are not back at chromosome levels of power. You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol You mean those things that no longer exist? Your mastery of cherrypicking irrelevancies to current situations is amazing. A Minmando can still destroy a Soma in 4 volleys, and a Madrugar in 5. That's too much, and makes vehicles useless. 2nd bring out a vehicle at all? About its only use now is to take out installations at a distance. That's still no good use. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:16:00 - [644] - Quote Doom AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3031	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:18:00 - [645] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:21:00 - [646] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3031	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:25:00 - [647] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently. Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7461	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:26:00 - [648] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently. Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering. And guarantees that no one besides your cheerleader squad will support you. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3031	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:34:00 - [649] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been holding the discussion hostage in all of rattati's threads about HAVs recently. Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering. And guarantees that no one besides your cheerleader squad will support you. You want compromise on the power of AV. I'm just reciprocating. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7463	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:41:00 - [650] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You want compromise on the power of AV. I'm just reciprocating. Why are you crapping kittens now when the "AV ignoring deathtruck" has yet to be detailed? Honestly your idea of "Compromise" is actually "I concede to all of your points." That's not a compromise, nor am I interested in entertaining it in anything other than contemptuously. Never once have you given ground on two points: Tanks should be able to easily kill infantry and Tanks should be all but invulnerable TO infantry. There is no room for balance or compromise there. There is no room for discussion, and there is nothing there to seriously entertain a thought that the word "compromise" is, has been, or ever was, involved. AV

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17433	Posted - 2015.03.03 19:59:00 - [651] - Quote 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. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4088	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:10:00 - [652] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. No rep i take it? The rep could bail you out sometimes with that extra 5k+ when needed. I never used shields, nitro and heat sinks. AV render now mostly but the blaster is a game of luck, Uprising the blaster required aim and rewarded it but i do remember in PC the FG up top i could not shoot but i could still fight a tank while they were hitting me. Swarms on the otherhand out of reach, out of sight.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17433	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:29:00 - [653] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. No rep i take it? The rep could bail you out sometimes with that extra 5k+ when needed. I never used shields, nitro and heat sinks. AV render now mostly but the blaster is a game of luck, Uprising the blaster required aim and rewarded it but i do remember in PC the FG up top i could not shoot but i could still fight a tank while they were hitting me. Swarms on the otherhand out of reach, out of sight. No it apparently had reps. Actually is the one from the Pyrex Video from way back in the day not that he's the one piloting it. I can only speculate on the fit since the perspective was of the secondary gunner. Certainly has reps but I'd image two plates at the very least and one shield extender at the very least. Still with that damage it could pump out and 11,000 effective armour HP it was bloody hard for those guys to even hurt. I certainly know what you mean about the blaster. Yeah it was incredibly powerful....... being pin point accurate but that allowed the gun to have range. Picking off players at 200m was a matter of having solid aim AND them being morons, sad to see that go since Uprising tanks was to me was already pretty top tier and enjoyable. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:52:00 - [654] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it. I could cheerfully shoot at something like that all DAY. But you would not. You are already complaining about getting 3 AV to combat a 3man HAV. 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. If the small turrets were well tuned infantry killers, but the large turret in general be terrible at it, they would be for sure. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:10:00 - [655] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." I used to be able to kill infantry with missiles - it got nerfed I used to be able to kill infantry with blaster - it got nerfed I used to be able to kill infantry and vehicles with an ADS - it got nerfed lol the first and second one is a silly notion, as you're trying to farm a tiny ass target with a big ass gun. The last one is still doable. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:16:00 - [656] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I've confirmed that Breakin has actually Piloted vehicles of all kinds (well, not sure about a ADS). Also, he is on the receiving end of a HAV a lot. AND He is saying that on a balanced field (ex. PROTO to PROTO), iirc will take at least iirc 13-16 seconds for the TTK for AV, which is ample time to escape, at least that's what he feels is balanced, in which I agree. You can stop berating his motives and his character, and instead focus on what he is saying. You are acting like racists act. Instead of judging people on what they do and say, you simply are quick to turn whatever they say down, simply because you believe them to be inferior to you. That is silly. Stop it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5155	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:21:00 - [657] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I've confirmed that Breakin has actually Piloted vehicles of all kinds (well, not sure about a ADS). Also, he is on the receiving end of a HAV a lot. AND He is saying that on a balanced field (ex. PROTO to PROTO), iirc will take at least iirc 13-16 seconds for the TTK for AV, which is ample time to escape, at least that's what he feels is balanced, in which I agree. You can stop berating his motives and his character, and instead focus on what he is saying. You are acting like racists act. Instead of judging people on what they do and say, you simply are quick to turn whatever they say down, simply because you believe them to be inferior to you. That is silly. Stop it. Also bear in mind that 13-16 seconds is under optimal conditions for the AV user, in practice it'll probably be a bit longer. I think its a good starting point, but obviously you really have to field test that ** to see if that time frame makes sense. Not everything can be decided on paper. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 208	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:23:00 - [658] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. No rep i take it? The rep could bail you out sometimes with that extra 5k+ when needed. I never used shields, nitro and heat sinks. AV render now mostly but the blaster is a game of luck, Uprising the blaster required aim and rewarded it but i do remember in PC the FG up top i could not shoot but i could still fight a tank while they were hitting me. Swarms on the otherhand out of reach, out of sight. No it apparently had reps. Actually is the one from the Pyrex Video from way back in the day not that he's the one piloting it. I can only speculate on the fit since the perspective was of the secondary gunner. Certainly has reps but I'd image two plates at the very least and one shield extender at the very least. Still with that damage it could pump out and 11,000 effective armour HP it was bloody hard for those guys to even hurt. I certainly know what you mean about the blaster. Yeah it was incredibly powerful....... being pin point accurate but that allowed the gun to have range. Picking off players at 200m was a matter of having solid aim AND them being morons, sad to see that go since Uprising tanks was to me was already pretty top tier and enjoyable. The guys in that video(reds) had only militia AV, Imagine 3 people now with min comando with swarms and all that to 5..? ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:00 - [659] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread. Never gonna happen. Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often. I've confirmed that Breakin has actually Piloted vehicles of all kinds (well, not sure about a ADS). Also, he is on the receiving end of a HAV a lot. AND He is saying that on a balanced field (ex. PROTO to PROTO), iirc will take at least iirc 13-16 seconds for the TTK for AV, which is ample time to escape, at least that's what he feels is balanced, in which I agree. You can stop berating his motives and his character, and instead focus on what he is saying. You are acting like racists act. Instead of judging people on what they do and say, you simply are quick to turn whatever they say down, simply because you believe them to be inferior to you. That is silly. Stop it. Also bear in mind that 13-16 seconds is under optimal conditions for the AV user, in practice it'll probably be a bit longer. I think its a good starting point, but obviously you really have to field test that **** to see if that time frame makes sense. Not everything can be decided on paper. Yes, that is simply the TTK. In practice, and adding in reps, I'll be able to extend that to around 30 seconds. and yes, field testing is needed. wish we hid sisi to test it on. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17434	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:56:00 - [660] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. No rep i take it? The rep could bail you out sometimes with that extra 5k+ when needed. I never used shields, nitro and heat sinks. AV render now mostly but the blaster is a game of luck, Uprising the blaster required aim and rewarded it but i do remember in PC the FG up top i could not shoot but i could still fight a tank while they were hitting me. Swarms on the otherhand out of reach, out of sight. No it apparently had reps. Actually is the one from the Pyrex Video from way back in the day not that he's the one piloting it. I can only speculate on the fit since the perspective was of the secondary gunner. Certainly has reps but I'd image two plates at the very least and one shield extender at the very least. Still with that damage it could pump out and 11,000 effective armour HP it was bloody hard for those guys to even hurt. I certainly know what you mean about the blaster. Yeah it was incredibly powerful....... being pin point accurate but that allowed the gun to have range. Picking off players at 200m was a matter of having solid aim AND them being morons, sad to see that go since Uprising tanks was to me was already pretty top tier and enjoyable. The guys in that video(reds) had only militia AV, Imagine 3 people now with min comando with swarms and all that to 5..? I'm going out on a limb here and going to ask for sources and proof before you make that assumption, also going to remind you that the damage increase on the individual swarm launcher volleys on the Minmando are negligible and its the sustained DPS that makes Minmando what they are. 3 Fully specced AV players vs one fully specced Marauders tankers? Something has to take it down and honestly that seems fair to me.....certainly not like you should be sitting out in the middle of the map not using cover or range in this case to your advantage. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 208	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:13:00 - [661] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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. No rep i take it? The rep could bail you out sometimes with that extra 5k+ when needed. I never used shields, nitro and heat sinks. AV render now mostly but the blaster is a game of luck, Uprising the blaster required aim and rewarded it but i do remember in PC the FG up top i could not shoot but i could still fight a tank while they were hitting me. Swarms on the otherhand out of reach, out of sight. No it apparently had reps. Actually is the one from the Pyrex Video from way back in the day not that he's the one piloting it. I can only speculate on the fit since the perspective was of the secondary gunner. Certainly has reps but I'd image two plates at the very least and one shield extender at the very least. Still with that damage it could pump out and 11,000 effective armour HP it was bloody hard for those guys to even hurt. I certainly know what you mean about the blaster. Yeah it was incredibly powerful....... being pin point accurate but that allowed the gun to have range. Picking off players at 200m was a matter of having solid aim AND them being morons, sad to see that go since Uprising tanks was to me was already pretty top tier and enjoyable. The guys in that video(reds) had only militia AV, Imagine 3 people now with min comando with swarms and all that to 5..? I'm going out on a limb here and going to ask for sources and proof before you make that assumption, also going to remind you that the damage increase on the individual swarm launcher volleys on the Minmando are negligible and its the sustained DPS that makes Minmando what they are. 3 Fully specced AV players vs one fully specced Marauders tankers? Something has to take it down and honestly that seems fair to me.....certainly not like you should be sitting out in the middle of the map not using cover or range in this case to your advantage. When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17435	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:37:00 - [662] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7472	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:47:00 - [663] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. pretty severely. Except for swarms AV has eaten a ratehr sharp kick to the teeth. 20% rate of fire nerf for forge guns plus the addition of the hidden refire delay AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17438	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:54:00 - [664] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. pretty severely. Except for swarms AV has eaten a ratehr sharp kick to the teeth. 20% rate of fire nerf for forge guns plus the addition of the hidden refire delay Conceded. All I want is my damn modules and a ******* acceptable range profile back. EDIT- breathes in slowly breathes out deeply But honestly it doesn't matter any more. I took the time yesterday evening to work through my growing irritation now that I have somewhat returned to Dust and accepted and let go of my extreme disappointment in the game. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Ardos 130297 Prima Gallicus 3	Posted - 2015.03.03 23:48:00 - [665] - Quote I try to do a tank fit with Marduk http://www.protofits.com/fittings/index/1219/12233 You do not win a war by making what is just... You win it by making what is necessary...
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5157	Posted - 2015.03.03 23:53:00 - [666] - Quote True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7477	Posted - 2015.03.04 00:31:00 - [667] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly. So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5160	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:21:00 - [668] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. I think back then Hardeners were all 25-30% but you almost always had 2-3 of them at a time. Sometimes you had to have multiples on at the same time to stay alive which then left you all that much more vulnerable later on. The gameplay felt so much more dynamic back then because not only did we have flexibility of fitting, but also flexibility of how each person played. I remember rolling up on guys that would pop all 3 hardeners at once and be basically impossible to damage for 20 seconds as I desperately tried to stay alive long enough for his hardeners to fail and I could wipe him out.....good times. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:24:00 - [669] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly. So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. battles, not a battle. I've had many matches where I executed everything perfectly and dominated. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17442	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:25:00 - [670] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly. So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. I had to stop playing yesterday after dozens on consecutive mistakes sent me into a downward spiral into "not giving a ***" and "why am I doing this when I have Tale of Symphonia right there". But honestly I do miss having to be active in my management of module. I miss having power in my hands that was subject to a varied and in-depth skill tree. I miss having a Blaster Turret with range that was subject to my accuracy not luck. I miss AV meaning something to me and my tanks meaning something to me. I miss armour being viable. I miss being naive enough to think progress toward the Amarr HAV was on the horizon. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."*

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:26:00 - [671] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. I think back then Hardeners were all 25-30% but you almost always had 2-3 of them at a time. Sometimes you had to have multiples on at the same time to stay alive which then left you all that much more vulnerable later on. The gameplay felt so much more dynamic back then because not only did we have flexibility of fitting, but also flexibility of how each person played. I remember rolling up on guys that would pop all 3 hardeners at once and be basically impossible to damage for 20 seconds as I desperately tried to stay alive long enough for his hardeners to fail and I could wipe him out.....good times. I'd pop them periodically depending on how the fight is going. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2951	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:27:00 - [672] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: When you point turrent at someone it says what suit they have,..look at pyrex bottom screen and your see that all suits are MLT. And yeah I agree that 3 fully specced minmandos could take out MHAV Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role. At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation. Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly. So do I. Sooner or later EVERYONE makes mistakes during a battle. I miss being naive enough to think progress toward the Amarr HAV was on the horizon. Well, it is. remember, phase 3 click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17445	Posted - 2015.03.04 02:47:00 - [673] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Well, it is. remember, phase 3 Phase 3? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5161	Posted - 2015.03.04 02:52:00 - [674] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Well, it is. remember, phase 3 Phase 3? Actually Phase 2 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583382#post2583382 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17447	Posted - 2015.03.04 03:16:00 - [675] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Well, it is. remember, phase 3 Phase 3? Actually Phase 2 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583382#post2583382 Not sure this placates me. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5163	Posted - 2015.03.04 03:19:00 - [676] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Well, it is. remember, phase 3 Phase 3? Actually Phase 2 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583382#post2583382 Not sure this placates me. shrugs In function at the least, but I know the roleplaying part is important to you. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7479	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:12:00 - [677] - Quote Rattati indicated racial hull parity comes after the gallente and caldari hulls are finalized. AV is LAST priority. Because... Duh... trying to put a skinny woman on a diet because she's worried about Gaining weight. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7483	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:19:00 - [678] - Quote Ok here's someone who is actually doing exactly what every damn tanker accuses ME of. kill him. This is What vehicle QQ really looks like. Go look and see the difference. AV
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 209	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:43:00 - [679] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok here's someone who is actually doing exactly what every damn tanker accuses ME of. kill him. This is What vehicle QQ really looks like. Go look and see the difference. No that is not vehicle qq,..that is I got killed by a forge gun/rail turrent!!! My KD!! Nerf nerf nerf nerf ( -í° -£-û -í°) `SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED`
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7483	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:46:00 - [680] - Quote LudiKure ninda wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok here's someone who is actually doing exactly what every damn tanker accuses ME of. kill him. This is What vehicle QQ really looks like. Go look and see the difference. No that is not vehicle qq,..that is I got killed by a forge gun/rail turrent!!! My KD!! Nerf nerf nerf nerf Rail turrets exist on HAVs. And this would be the first time I have ever seen someone rage about the static turrets. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 897	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:56:00 - [681] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok here's someone who is actually doing exactly what every damn tanker accuses ME of. kill him. This is What vehicle QQ really looks like. Go look and see the difference. No that is not vehicle qq,..that is I got killed by a forge gun/rail turrent!!! My KD!! Nerf nerf nerf nerf Rail turrets exist on HAVs. And this would be the first time I have ever seen someone rage about the static turrets. sidenote: You should have heard the comms when the A.I. rails were unbelivably good. Snipe a player out of an LAV, then snipe the passenger that jumped into thee drivers seat, and then kill the LAV. The only way to tell if they were manned was if they missed. Realtalk: All in all not a lot of player feedback being given to rattati on his tank stats, no matter the bluster or heavyhanded opinion sharing over the last dozen or so pages. Muh infantry, Muh AV, Muh Chrome, Muh tanking opinon... I hope everybody remembers this is a huge factor why real work on the tanks took over a month. Holiday is over, rattati is back at work but isn't in this thread. And i don't blame him. Not because it isn't feasable, or that its taking tons of development work, but because the threads just disintergrate into these silly back and forth arguments that belong in GD, not here. No matter how strongly we feel about tanks, they are still sci fi fantasy make believe. Its Rattati's profession now, so unless you can an adult level of feedback on it, its a waste of time to take most of the last few pages seriously. We can nerd out until the cows come home, which i'm cool with, in the right threads. We can presnt relevant feedback in a clear consice way. Or we can live up to the reputaion of millenials and just whine whine whine about muh feelings. I'm judging myself too, i can be the latter, but i'm trying to be the former. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7511	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:09:00 - [682] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: I'm judging myself too, i can be the latter, but i'm trying to be the former. would love nothing more. I think that the havs aren't quite where they need to be. MUCH closer than before. when this goes live I'm going to dust off the maddy. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3037	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:14:00 - [683] - Quote Tanks were fine during Chrome. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2953	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:41:00 - [684] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Well, it is. remember, phase 3 Phase 3? Actually Phase 2 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2583382#post2583382 Not sure this placates me. lol, you just want your trike click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2953	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:45:00 - [685] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: LudiKure ninda wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Ok here's someone who is actually doing exactly what every damn tanker accuses ME of. kill him. This is What vehicle QQ really looks like. Go look and see the difference. No that is not vehicle qq,..that is I got killed by a forge gun/rail turrent!!! My KD!! Nerf nerf nerf nerf Rail turrets exist on HAVs. And this would be the first time I have ever seen someone rage about the static turrets. which reminds me, I really don't like those things. Too strong, but if done right, too easy to get rid of. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2953	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:47:00 - [686] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. Not really, seeing as Rails 3 shotted them. Oh wait, I forgot, you're fine with shitting damage. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7514	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:04:00 - [687] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. chrome got killed. Devs decided to say no. get over it. AV
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17461	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:47:00 - [688] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. chrome got killed. Devs decided to say no. get over it. What about Uprising prior to 1.7? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2954	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:50:00 - [689] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. chrome got killed. Devs decided to say no. get over it. What about Uprising prior to 1.7? 1.0-1.6 HAV vs. HAV was nice. Chromo HAV vs. AV was nice. A Hybrid between the two is much better imo. And apart from the silly hardener change, that is what we're getting it seems. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7515	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:52:00 - [690] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. chrome got killed. Devs decided to say no. get over it. What about Uprising prior to 1.7? No impact, no idea. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 903	Posted - 2015.03.05 03:15:00 - [691] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. CCP Rattati wrote: Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible! You're only two years late on Chrome feedback. Nostalgia isn't a reason for rattati to make changes to tank stats. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3039	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:17:00 - [692] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. CCP Rattati wrote: Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible! You're only two years late on Chrome feedback. Nostalgia isn't a reason for rattati to make changes to tank stats. It's not nostalgia. It simply worked. Tanks beat the hell out of tanks. That's working as intended, not these pocket asteroids infantry carry around with them. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3039	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:18:00 - [693] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. Not really, seeing as Rails 3 shotted them. Oh wait, I forgot, you're fine with shitting damage. When have I said I want the Chrome turret damage back? I've repeatedly said that the Chrome hulls with Uprising 1.0 turret damage would be the best conglomeration. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17886	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:25:00 - [694] - Quote No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff stay posted "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2579	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:29:00 - [695] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3039	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:37:00 - [696] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed) stay posted Good news everyone. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3040	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:40:00 - [697] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG. At least that's what I hope it means. I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making. Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17889	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:43:00 - [698] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG. At least that's what I hope it means. I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making. Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet. I hope they won't be "abused" so that one hull becomes much better than the other. That's why I wanted to give them fitting cost of the opposite capacity. Let's see what happens with the new hulls. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4660	Posted - 2015.03.05 05:49:00 - [699] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed) stay posted Yeah I think the PG/CPU debuff would have made things go a bit sideways for Dropships. The single hardner rule didn't seem that terrible. A steep stacking penalty would make sense though I guess. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3040	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:15:00 - [700] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something, so you add a mod, but you lose too much CPU so you add one of those mods, putting you back at square one with not enough CPU or PG. At least that's what I hope it means. I just hope they won't get nerfed due to the fits we've been making. Something like this will probably get the modules, hull and fitting costs nerfsmashed through the planet. I hope they won't be "abused" so that one hull becomes much better than the other. That's why I wanted to give them fitting cost of the opposite capacity. Let's see what happens with the new hulls. Abused in what way? Fitting them in such a way that when combined with experience, they become shockingly hard to kill? That's not abusing anything. We found fits that worked and used them, sometimes experimenting to find something that will work, other times for fun. All that needs to be done is buff armor to the level shield is at, really. Nothing needs to be nerfed, including the CPU and PG fitting cost. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17896	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:16:00 - [701] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Abused in what way? Fitting them in such a way that when combined with experience, they become shockingly hard to kill? exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5197	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:19:00 - [702] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed) stay posted Good to hear. I think hardeners on both sides need to be tweaked a bit to get them working properly. Looking forward to your thoughts in general. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7523	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:55:00 - [703] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed) stay posted Excuse me while I applaud. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 17943	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:55:00 - [704] - Quote I am closing this thread, and we can create a new one once new HAVs are in the game. Thanks everyone, I believe we collectively did a great job, and just look at what changes did and did not go through, just because of your fact-supported opinions. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Moody come back

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris