Indeed. I mean if the concern is player understanding, I don't think dumbing it down is the right way to go. I mean we saw this with CCP Z's plan for character progression in Legion where he basically stripped out much of the freedom we have in the skill system for a dumber more linear system like every other game has, simply because "Its too hard to understand". That was met with massive backlash because it stripped away a lot of what made the New Eden experience interesting.

I think this falls under a similar context in that if the issue is that damage profiles are difficult for new players to understand, I don't feel the best choice is to simply get rid of them, but rather make them easier to understand through proper documentation and explanation. I understand this takes additional resources to do, but at the same time a change that gets the desired effect, is not always the best choice if a better choice also accomplishes the same goal. And like Avallo pointed out, adding exceptions to rules actually increases the learning curve, rather than decreasing it.

Additionally as for the benefit of faster balance iterations, I believe that in most cases you should assume neutral damage when it comes to calculating overall DPS. Damage profile (obviously with some minor adjustments) works itself out in the end. Some weapons will simply work better against certain targets than others....that's how all weapons in this game work, infantry and AV alike. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask someone to bring the right tool to get the job done either. I mean if I have a Laser Rifle and come up against a heavily armored unit...I'm going to get my ass kicked because I didn't have the right tool for the job. I don't see why AV needs to be different.

I understand what you're trying to accomplish and I think it's a noble cause...but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

the minmando bonus would no longer apply to swarms. This is not a buff to the minmando.

A swarm yhat melts shields is going to have a ***** of a time killing an incubus.

Another argument for pushing heavy weapon parity would be the ability to trade the splash resistance for a heavy weapon bonus (that applies to all of them), and a racial weapon bonus (which applies to the matching racial heavy weapon)

Honestly the HP is high enough that fatties don't need resists to rifles.

and unless fragmented weapons are UNGODLY powerful or the anti infantry module is game-breaking the splash resistance isn't going to be needed to fend off the vehicle turrets.

Let me be blunt, the resists don't help enough on the calsent and the minsent to be worth it, and they are TOO effective on the amsent and galsent.

Example: A corp mate of mine, who is very good and very intelligent in this game didn't know that the weakspot of the dropship is the thrusters on the side until very recently. A lot of Casual DUST players don't even know that vehicles have a weakspot.

damage is just an efficiency to be balanced.

The aiming, sure but drawing a bead on something, while exposing yourself to enemy infantry at the same time, while maximizing damage by being far from the vehicle seems to outweigh a lot of the pros

considering the minmatar don't have an AV ANYTHING currently (and the flaylock is more of a joke as AV anyway, even at 100% efficacy) it's hardly going to create racial inequality.

flaylock, bolt pistol, ion, none of the sidearms have the killing power, even in a squad, to match the vehicle cracking power of a single dedicated AV gun.

none of them can break shield regen without help.

Mass driver should be made viable AV in my opinion.

You would have to make mass drivers 140% damage to vehicles for it to have a prayer of killing an HAV who sits still.

If you mass fire them.

Utterly ineffective vs. Dropships.

LAVs would be the only vehicles threatened in any meaningful way.

Normalization of AV Damage Profiles is still something I do not support...unless we're gonna normalize damage types across the board.