1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Vehicles)

Sica
High: 2 (-1)
Low: 2
Seats: 3
PG: 1908 (+103)
CPU: 761 (+451)
Armor: 1500 (+537)
Shield: 2650 (+150)
Shield Recharge Rate: 16.8 (-5.2)

Soma
High: 2
Low: 2 (-2)
Seats: 3
PG: 2540 (-299)
CPU: 428 (+210)
Armor: 4000 (+1212)
Shield: 1200 (+863)
Shield Recharge Rate: 9.6 (+1.6)

Gunnlogi
High: 3 (-2)
Low: 2
Seats: 3
PG: 2120 (+315)
CPU: 845 (+515)
Armor: 1500 (+250)
Shield: 2650 (-600)
Shield Recharge Rate: 16.8 (-5.2)

Madrugar
High: 2
Low: 3 (-2)
Seats: 3
PG: 2490 (-200)
CPU: 475 (+265)
Armor: 4000 (+537)
Shield: 1200 (+150)
Shield Recharge Rate: 9.6 (1.6)

Viper
High: 3
Low: 2
Seats: 7
PG: 653 (+258)
CPU: 559 (+374)
Armor: 850 (+157)
Shield: 1375 (+407)
Shield Recharge Rate: 22.4 (+1.4)

Gorgon
High: 2
Low: 3
Seats: 7
PG: 846 (+311)
CPU: 405 (+260)
Armor: 2100 (+570)
Shield: 800 (+170)
Shield Recharge Rate: 10.4 (-1.6)

Myron
High: 4
Low: 2
Seats: 7
PG: 725 (+325)
CPU: 665 (+410)
Armor: 850 (+80)
Shield: 1375 (+300)
Shield Recharge Rate: 22.4 (-0.6)

Grimsnes
High: 2
Low: 4
Seats: 7
PG: 940 (+395)
CPU: 450 (+285)
Armor: 2100 (+400)
Shield: 800 (+100)
Shield Recharge Rate: 10.4 (-1.6)

Onikuma
High: 1 (-1)
Low: 1
Seats: 3
PG: 405 (+245)
CPU: 378 (+268)
Armor: 900 (+404)
Shield: 1200 (+32)
Shield Recharge Rate: 28.5 (+16.5)

Baloch
High: 1
Low: 1 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 504 (+239)
CPU: 279 (+209)
Armor: 2450 (+930)
Shield: 650 (+234)
Shield Recharge Rate: 13.2 (+8.7)

Saga
High: 2 (-1)
Low: 1 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 450 (+280)
CPU: 420 (+265)
Armor: 900
Shield: 1200 (-225)
Shield Recharge Rate: 28.5 (+12.5)

Methana
High: 1 (-1)
Low: 2 (-1)
Seats: 3
PG: 560 (+285)
CPU: 310 (+205)
Armor: 2450 (+312)
Shield: 650 (+147)
Shield Recharge Rate: 13.2 (+7.2)

1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Large Turrets)

Again, due to incomplete information with the Blasters I will only be showing one until more conclusive information can be presented.

80GJ Blaster
Damage: 105
RoF: 428.57
Optimal Range: 89.6 (+59.6)
Maximum Range: 160 (-40)
Heat Cost Per Second: 15
PG: 747 (-253)
CPU: 84 (+44)

80GJ Railgun
Damage: 1450 (+343.12)
Splash Damage: 180
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 545 (-355)
CPU: 128 (+68)

80GJ Particle Accelerator
Damage: 1687.5 (+414.59)
Splash Damage: 207
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 670 (-320)
CPU: 163 (+91)

80GJ Particle Cannon
Damage: 1885 (+446.06)
Splash Damage: 234
Blast Radius: 2.0 (-0.5)
RoF: 30 (-4.29)
Charge-up Time: 0.35
Optimal Range: 600
Maximum Range: 600
PG: 817 (-272)
CPU: 86 (+111)

ST-201 Missile Launcher
Damage: 415 (+25)
Splash Damage: 125 (+45)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 712 (-88)
CPU: 163 (+98)

AT-201 Missile Launcher Damage: 498 (+30)
Splash Damage: 150 (+54)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 838 (-42)
CPU: 197 (+119)

XT-201 Missile Launcher Damage: 539.5 (+32)
Splash Damage: 162.5 (+58.5)
Blast Radius: 1.5 (-1.5)
RoF: 400 (+376)
Optimal Range: 250
Maximum Range: 250
PG: 985 (+17)
CPU: 231 (+137)

1.7 Vehicle Changes - (Small Turrets)

Alright, so apparently Blogspot doesn't like me and I'm having to go old school, typing everything you see here in HTML mode. If anything looks crazy, that's why.

Now, to begin, I'd like to mention that this is still a work in progress and it's going to take a little while to get everything in order as I have to do some calculations for each and every individual change to give you, the reader, something a bit more comprehensive than the spreadsheet hell CCP dropped on us.

Not that I'm disappointed with them, they -finally- made some measure of communication with us and that much I'm grateful for. So, here's how this works. This here's a list of changes from our current numbers to the 1.7 numbers in traditional Eve Online feedback format, with the increased/decreased values, if any, in parenthesis.

Rate of Fire is measured in Rounds Per Minute.
Ranges and blast radiuses are listed in meters.
Charge-up times are listed in seconds.
Heat capacity is not given in new stats.

I will update this occasionally as I find new information through testing (such as seize durations and cool down times, etc). NOTE: Small Blasters are inconclusive at the moment as the spreadsheet apparently has false values (all damages listed as 25 between tiers)

SMALL TURRETS

20GJ Blaster
Damage: 25
RoF: 857.14
Optimal Range: 65 (+30)
Maximum Range: 100
Heat Cost Per Second: 18 (+3)
PG: 168 (+68)
CPU: 62 (+54)

20GJ Railgun
Damage: 235 (-40)
Splash Damage: 75
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 117 (+37)
CPU: 78 (+63)

20GJ Particle Accelerator
Damage: 282 (-48)
Splash Damage: 90
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 144 (+56)
CPU: 98 (+80)

20GJ Particle Cannon
Damage: 305.5 (-52)
Splash Damage: 97.5
Blast Radius: 0.65
RoF: 150 (+96)
Charge-up Time: 0.65
Optimal Range: 300
Maximum Range: 300
PG: 178 (+81)
CPU: 119 (+97)

ST-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 400 (+50)
Splash Damage: 275 (+10
0) Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 200
PG: 153 (+80)
CPU: 98 (+82)

AT-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 480 (+60)
Splash Damage: 330 (+12
0) Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 200
PG: 180 (+103)
CPU: 119 (+100)

XT-1 Missile Launcher
Damage: 520 (+65)
Splash Damage: 357.5 (+80)
Blast Radius: 2.5 (+0.5)
RoF: 50 (+12.5)
Optimal Range: 200
Maximum Range: 250 (+50)
PG: 212 (+127)
CPU: 139 (+116)

No more BS

I say no more BS as in Bullshit, not Blog Spot - so don't jump to conclusions and think I've given up prematurely!

Now, the reason I stopped writing blogs for a while is because I was wrong in my calculations on the active scanners scan range - it's actually quite a bit more because I did the calculations based on a triangle and not a cone. This was due to my lack of geometry and in a game like Eve Online and Dust 514, it's kind of silly to approach things from an analytical standpoint when you have a lack of knowledge in the field you're trying to express a point on.

Though, I'm not going to let that stop me. The mathematics of it all is silly when you get right down to it because be it 20,000 meters or 37,000 meters, improper mathematics isn't going to change the feel of the equipment at hand. If it's over-powered, it's over-powered, regardless of what the effective scan range is. I haven't quite been convinced that it's -not- over-powered though after a bit of personal testing and seeing that the CreoDron Flux Active Scanner has the highest cool-down (25 seconds) it's a bit more balanced than my original approach of it but I do feel that the precision is far too low for being a general purpose tool.

Now, after a bit of re-education through some Skype conversations I've (with the help of others, of course) come to the determination that the scanners need to be more focused on what they're supposed to. Right now there's absolutely no point in using the vanilla scanner because every other variant supercedes it in some way or another. I'd like to advocate that the vanilla scanner be more of a general purpose tool that doesn't excel in anything but averages better.

There's the issue of 'twirling' in which you can use an Active Scanner and just spin around in a circle, making everything around you show up on the map. I dislike this and think that you should have to point the scanner on someone for a second or two before they appear as it's far too easy to scan a large area. Once that's knocked out, you can focus more on the specializations of each.

The Flux scanner needs to be for general infantry, considering it's powerful range, but it shouldn't be so powerful that it can pick up scouts due to it's massive range. The Quantum is in a pretty good place but I feel that, due to it's low cool-down and exceptionally long target visibility, it could also stand to have some changes made to make it a bit more balanced. The Focused is pretty good, in my opinion, minus the twirling aspect it fulfills it's roll pretty well. The Proximity on the other hand is rather useless due to it's very small scan range and design seems to be based around the twirling bit (five second scan duration? really?) I suppose it's nice for close quarters engagements but beyond that it's sort of a silly concept being as, at that range, you're likely to spot them visually.

Now, I don't want this blog to be just another rendition on my "Perfecting the Roles" thing on Active Scanners but I do want to use it as an example to hallmark on my new method of thinking. No amount of specific mathematics is going to change something from being over-powered in a set environment. From this point forward I'm going to work on giving less specifics and simply use an informative standpoint.

The reason for this mostly spawns from my recognition that educating forum goers is a bad move. They either understand the concepts and principles or they don't and when they don't they're usually pretty adamant on it. Disproving someone's math on the forums isn't going to help anyone because CCP knows, far better than we do, what their designs are capable of. So, if someone's wrong in their math - the only people you're going to be proving it too is other forum goers, which are less likely to listen anyway.

Apart from the community being rather sheepish in the sense that they'll follow someone's ideals simply because they agree, it's important to understand that they will do that. If a mass of players think something should be a certain way, correct mathematics isn't going to change how they feel - they'll just retort with something else and stick with their belief that they're right and that no argument will ever defeat their logic.

To which, I'm going to just ignore all of that and work more on the design aspect. What -I- feel the gear should do, with as general a concept as possible because in the end CCP is going to be the ones who inevitably work out the numbers. That's not my job. My job is simply conveying how I feel it should operate and I have a feeling that a lot more people will agree with that if I keep the numbers to a minimum - the less specific, the better.

With that being said, I also want to convey that I am still going to campaign for the CPM when elections are open, but I do have a lot to learn before that ever comes to fruition. Considering that elections usually aren't until a few months before Fanfest (which is normally held in April/May) I think I still have some time to focus on the learning aspect of things in order to fully prepare for the responsibility.

One of which is to hone in on the aspect of not caring what people think or whether they approve of my tactics. In the end, if they disagree with what I have to say, it doesn't matter. My sole concern is the health of the game, not the approval of that person. Of course it does help to have the people's approval but I'm not going to play the Politician and outright lie to you in order to get the seat and then go against my word, doing what I want. I'm going to be upfront with you - I am going to do things you may not agree with. 

Concerning Respecs

I'm honestly against respecs but they can sometimes be beneficial, especially in the case where developers are shifting the way certain things work.

Now, in a lot of games you can pay gold or whatever the currency is to re-adjust your specialization (or 'respec') but it's important to remember that a lot of these games are co-operative based where you and your guild go on raids against AI controlled enemies. PVP aspects are usually tacked on but aren't part of the core experience and isn't where the majority of the player population is going to be associated.

Whereas we have Dust 514, which as yet has no PVE experience and it's entire being is revolving around you making other players dead and vice versa. This sort of gaming environment encourages specialization as being able to switch out on the fly sort of kills any ounce of importance on the field. In a game of Planetary Conquest, the team is only as good as it's contenders - and when everyone can switch out their skill allocations on the fly it's bad for business as suddenly everyone can do everyone's job.

Which, would be okay if it weren't for Dust's unique specialization aspects. A person who's run Caldari Assault since May is only going to know what it's like to be a shield tanker and likely will be left with a sense of confusion as their recently respecced armor tanking playstyle is turned to mincemeat against a Heavy Machine Gun, which receives a damage bonus against armor.

So, your specialization is only as good as your knowledge of it. Respecs to become the FotM (flavor of the month) is a bad idea because it's only going to last as long as it takes for balance passes to be implemented and suddenly you're wanting another respec. Is this the developers fault for not having it balanced in the first iteration, or the players fault for falling in line with what was powerful at the time?

Honestly, I think it's more the player's fault than the developer because they knew what they were getting into and using the "it's all that was competitive at the time" is no excuse because this is admitting that you knew it was broken - which leads to the fact that you knew it was going to be fixed.

Another thing that this sort of mentality does is that it kills any aspect of the player having the skill to adapt to a constantly changing environment. Whenever we fall into what is popular and it gets nerfed, we've spent so much time investing into that tactic that we haven't developed the skills to utilize other playstyles which now seem less appealing because it's not as powerful as the tactic that was truly over powered at the time.

Now, another argument brought up is that when new content is released there should be respecs because the players were forced to play something they didn't want to before the content they wanted was available. I disagree with this as well because, while you are dropping a few million skill points into the suit and playstyle you might not desire at the time, it's in no way to your disadvantage.

I've been waiting for the Gallente Heavy for a long time now but it's not available. This doesn't bother me though because it's still the Gallente and their style doesn't shift much between suits. Be it Assault or Logistics, Gallente still favor armor tanking - so having skill points invested into that playstyle does nothing be prepare me for having it later on. I can also work on my core skills like Electronics and Engineering, of which I've gotten them all to level five. Suffice to say, I'm actually running out of skills to get to level five in order to prepare for the Gallente Heavy's arrival.

Then there's the argument of the "Developer Fault" which is forcing players to drop SP to try out different weapons instead of having militia variants. Again, this doesn't deserve a respec, this just deserves militia gear where it needs to be. It's a self defeating argument, in my opinion, solely because it provides the solution to the problem it's bringing up. But there is one more "Developer Fault" that I think deserves a respec... and it's the only one...

Massive changes to entire playstyles. If it's a balance pass on a single suit, that's one thing, but when the developers go and tweak every single aspect of a particular playstyle (the best example being the recent Vehicle changes announcement) then there might be some grounds for a respec. Scout LAVs are nigh useless as they're just militia variants with a few bonuses attached in the wrong places (acceleration?). When every facet of an entire playstyle is changed than a respec is a good idea solely because of the fact that what the players currently have invested is being completely changed in a way that renders many of the skills completely altered.

Then of course there's the removal of skills. If skills are removed, obvious we want the SP back otherwise it's just a wasted investment - not that I can honestly see CCP ever -not- giving it back because that's just asking for a PR nightmare and they have done this for Eve Online. There hasn't really been a case of skills being removed from play without a total SP reset in Dust 514, but with vehicle changes coming up I notice that a few skills have been nyxxed completely... I'm curious to see how they go about this.

TL;DR - Paying for respecs is a shitty idea and takes away from specialization and the lasting choice of investment. Respecs should not be granted for any other reason than complete playstyle alterations.