Thanks for taking the time to come up with actual numbers for suggestions. I know it takes a lot of effort to do so.

Unfortunately I'm going to ask whether we can take the discussion one step back from the solution and discuss the problem, because I'm not quite sure what the problem is.
Are ADS inefficient right now? Do they not perform a certain role they should be filling? What are the goals of this discussion?

I think both ADS are rather ok regarding their survivability. As long as you AB away from harm quickly enough there's a good chance you'll survive any single source of AV. Trouble starts when AV covers the whole map or there're multiple sources of AV in one place. But that's kind of fair, I guess.

The Python specifically I think is doing what it's supposed to quite well. It mops up non-AV infantry without cover with ease. I assume it lost it's teeth against HAVs after the recent changes though. Should this change?
The Incubus isn't in a good place because neither small railguns nor small blasters are useful right now. Small railguns still hurt other DS very badly, but they don't kill HAVs like they used to. Should they be better at this? Small blasters need a different direction. The "bullet spray"-design doesn't seem to work well.
Would a blaster with 70 m optimal and 90 m effective range, low dispersion (~2 m diameter at 90 m) and no increase or decrease of dispersion with some 600 DPS be suitable for ADS operation? A fine bonus would be a heat reduction, as it benefits both rails and blasters.

Anyway, what's the mission statement for this suggestion?

Right now a single guy with good AV can deny the access to the dropship within 100 meters by himself, and I know what I'm talking about as I was running AV before being a pilot.

I guess this is where our difference in opinion is situated then. I think the situation as described above is ok to me as a pilot. He has the counter to my role, he gets to deny me. If you don't think so I will accept your opinion, but I won't share it.

I also think the AV guy should kinda deny the dropship, but the dropship should have the chance to jump in and shoot at the guy. But well I understand your point of view and it' completely legit
Also I forgot to say those changes are there to give the abilty to the pilot to have gunners without screwing up the rest of the fit

I have three questions:

1: Why are you trying to stick around when AV is in the area?

We have no cover, there is no area where there isn't any AV.

2: Why are you trying to hunt down HAV's in a ADS instead of LAV's and infantry, or supporting infantry?

According to rattati, an ads is supposed to be able to kill a tank eventually, so hunting HAV's in an ADS should be a perfectly reasonable tactic.

3: Why do you think both of the above questions are okay?

I don't understand your question.

I like your suggested numbers. I am just wondering how you came up with them.

I have done a similar thing to what you have done, but my pg and cpu values were much lower.
Here are my numbers

However this carries a high risk of getting your flying death chariot blown to scrap, just like standing in the open carries a high risk of the AV gunner getting blown to chutney.

Most pilots are extremely risk averse. Most AV gunners are anything but risk averse. It's a difference in mindset that allows most AV gunners to soak up losing four or five av fits to kill a single HAV or ADS.

All I want is a green light I can turn on and off in the damn cabin to tell my troops when to deploy. But noooooooo every pilot out there these days are just bloodthirsty aerial acrobats who want my precious lumbering aerial buses to be used as some kind of attack helicopter.

Is it your intent that ADS have similar EHP to a madrugar and gunnlogi?

These numbers would bring the ability to solidly mount heavy shield extenders and 120mm plates.

Having a flying platform with in excess of 6000 raw HP and the maneuverability of an ADS isn't going to be balanced for overall gameplay.

This would allow fits that could soak up in excess of 5-6 proto AV shots.

Basically the results would be indestructible dropships. This isn't a good start point for balance design.

The big difference being that the AV gunner has a far greater array of cover, meaning that they aren't just standing in the open most of the time.


Most pilots are risk averse because vehicles in general have been, and still are, incredibly expensive. There have been periods where the cost has been justified (Chromosome, 1.7) but equally there have been times where the opposite is the case (1.4 Swarms and ADSs costing 600k+)

Also factoring in is that AV doesn't actually need to run full PRO to get full efficiency: a STD MinCom with Wiyrkomi and a STD CR will only run you about 50k ISK, whereas an entirely MLT fit ADS (aside from being trash) will run you about 260k ISK. Not to mention, trading down to ADV AV weaponry is viable as the 5% damage drop is entirely different to the vehicle turret drop of 10% (small turret damage progression is STD/+10% of STD/+20% of STD) making the lower tiers of investment far less worthwhile and arbitrarily inflating cost of operation.

So yes, different mindsets: one can afford to run their play style cheaply and remain relatively effective; the other must run higher end expensive fits or else underperform to the point of irrelevance while still suffering from empty wallet syndrome, which entirely prevents playing the game in the way they wish.

Just to let you know, incubi have been using complex 120 mm plates for a very long time. They are far from invincible. The same with heavy shield extenders for pythons. Juno puts a heavy shield extender on his incubus.

A bricked incubus has does have more armor HP than my ADV marduk, but only because rattati screwed up on the PG, forcing me to fit a complex PG upgrade just to have three adv modules and a adv turret. Tanks have 4 lows so with the extra slot my tank can fit a hardener, my incubus cant.

your statements are not universally true.

And the assumption that all AV runs mincom is laughable and hilarious. I actually drop full proto for AV usually which means I'm losing a lot. it's also the only way to reliably get the kills. Just because it CAN be done cheaply, that doesn't by any stretch mean it's particularly efficient.

Dont be an ass, I tend to respect your views on V/AV but this was an unnecessary and bad point to nitpick.

But you only presented one of the AV options, and it's the particular one that people use to justify blanket statements about how AV is overpowered.

So no, it's absolutely not an unnecessary and bad point to nitpick. It is the current fulcrum of 90% of current AV/V argument.

Vastly less effective. That is my sticking point. No one ever acknowledges this point. To the point where a triple modded IAFG has slightly more than half the overall DPS of an unmodded wiki swarm.

When people say other suits are also effective the acknowledgement that a viable AV fit for a forge gun or PLC requires proto unless you're running in packs. The standard forge guns are worthless. I have killed tanked gunnlogis with it solo. But that's because the pilot was so stupidly mockworthy I don't even know how he figured out the SP.

I'm actually all for increasing dropship flexibility.

I'm not all for just blithely buffing their EHP to HAV levels. Yes I acknowledge you did not say this. It's a general statement because it is an incredibly common demand.

But any time I suggest alternative methods of increasing survivability (again, this statement is a generalization, not directed at anyone in particular) I get roared at.

So yes. I am nitpicking on valid points. The assertion that I'm nitpicking irrelevancy is allowing the mincom argument to overshadow and hide the actual issues.