They should make it so that small arms do absolutely zero damage to tanks.

And vehicles needing to be resupplied in the same way dropsuits do adds a level of strategy.

Otherwise, why can't my swarms regen passively ?

As a tanker, what are your thoughts on how they should be replenished while IN battle? Other than supply depots of course.

As a tanker, what are your thoughts on how they should be replenished while IN battle? Other than supply depots of course.

And that brings to mind another important point ...

PLEASE REMOVE WP FOR ASSITS IN VEHICLES !

I'm sure vehicles drivers would generally agree ... There's no reason to give assists to people in passenger seats unless they damaged the target ... The owner fine ... maybe even if he's not in the vehicle ie. call in 2 vehicles and get assists off both ... but not for passengers who just jumped in and get points for someone elses kills !

Edit ... Sheepishly asks 'They haven't done this already have they ?'

So you want to take away the ONLY WAR POINTS Dropship pilots can possibly get without being assault dropships? **** that.

To be honest, what I've read so far looks like a nerf to vehicles, but we won't really know if you don't tell us the numbers.


CCP, we can't give you meaningful feedback without numbers.


All we have are vague worlds like "long cool down timers", "short engagements", "ultra long cool down timers", "too slow to be used in the heat of battle", etc.... For all we know it could be a buff, but until you give us proper numbers we wont be able to give you good feedback.



We need numbers like:

- Hull specifics: ISK cost, slot layout, CPU/PG, base HP, etc...

- Module specifics: ISK cost, CPU/PG requirements, bonus, duration, cooldown, etc...

- Turret specifics: ISK cost, CPU/PG requirementes, damage, ammo, rof, etc...


There are a lot of experienced pilots and AV guys in the community. Give them those numbers in advance, and they will help you make this work.

I think you're missing the point of this thread. We've been asking CCP for months now not to just post numbers up right before a patch is released, but to engage the community in more advanced discussion about design intent - before they even get to the stage where numbers start being adjusted. Thankfully, they've obliged and I hope that this is the beginning of a new trend. It's exactly the sort of communication that the CPM has been pushing for.

When balancing anything, whether its weapons, dropsuits, or vehicles - you have to start with an outline of how you want the game to play out on the battlefield - and this discussion doesn't have to include numbers in any way. Once you establish good goals, numbers become the means to an end - the tools with which you execute a design strategy. Typically, all players have received in the past are those numbers - and without the accompanying discussion of intent. This is completely backwards: there is little value in CCP wasting time balancing numbers according to a plan that the players may or may not agree with. What's the point in "fixing" vehicles if CCP disagrees on what needs to be fixed?

All that to say - numbers come in to play towards the end of this discussion, once goals are tweaked and finalized. If there's any major red flags here, CCP is saving a ton of time and money by allowing you to point them out now before they sit down to crunch numbers.

This is also why all the QQ about "OMG THIS NERFS MY ________" is fairly irrelevant and premature - no one should be making assumptions about other variables (AV weaponry, WP accrual) being fixed. AV will certainly need adjustment, that goes without saying. Again, tweaking AV numbers to balance against this new design strategy is something that is done during its execution - not during the initial community sanity-check, which is what this thread is really about. Once they move into the number-tweaking phase, you can than evaluate the values adjusted based on the criteria established by the design strategy: They'll clearly either support the concept or they won't.

Many thanks to those that HAVE been patient and realize that this sort of communication is exactly what we want to encourage CCP to participate in - and shelved the bitching and moaning about buffs, nerfs, and numbers for the time being to focus on the merits (or lack thereof) in the strategy outlined in the OP.

I am getting the point that CCP pays no attention to problems facing tanks.
-Invisible Swarmers.
-Active Boosters failing to Activate.
-No Locking tone to warn them of missles.
-Cheap Forge guns with abilities to do damage that rivals a tank turret.
-Grenades that inflict TERRIBLE damage to them.
-Dropships being paper soaked in gasoline.
-A complete LACK of understanding about a tank being a mobile weapons platform and turning it into a "fast attack with long cooldowns" vehicle.

Here is a link so they can get an idea of what a tank should be....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

no bud, he means the +35 Vehicle Kill Assist you get for just riding along in a tank, not the +25 Kill Assist you get for damaging an enemy.

I know that's what he meant. Asking for them to remove vehicle assist war points is bullshit. This is a tanker issue. The only viable way to play as a gunship is extremely risky. Our gunners aren't even protected. We have to stay in a position to hope that the gunner can kill, were stuck with what we get, and now dealing with less ammo. We don't even know what's going to be done to the active modules which are our only saving graces and have no counter measures to deal with rail guns, forge guns and after 1.4 drops swarm launchers.

Every vehicle balance suggestion put forth from these guys is from the tankers perspective. If were going to be balanced against as tanks then we should have comparable survivability. Why should we have less hp than a basic LAV? Why should we have less resistance than a LLAV? Why should we not even be able to slay unless we spend 1/2 a mi? Why are there no incentives for infantry to help vehicles? Why can we not even triage infantry and get war points? Why the hell is there only one way for us to get war points?

We don't want it to be exploitable is the reason that I see given and that's fine, but ******* us out of the only war points we can possibly get while rail tankers and forge gunners can own the entire map from redline central is not balanced at all.

Edit: Sorry about the rant. This is just my point of view. Please lets not derail the thread over hypothetical. I just wish there was some consideration for alternative play styles when making suggestions.

You mean the non existant dropships cause they are being blown out of the air by the OP swarms now?

I'll sneak it in anywhere I can, my opinion on tiers has not changed, and every vehicle user will back me where proto AV us concerned, it's seriously OP right now. Also as Zdub pointed out in another thread, the existence of tiers actually shows and promotes that dust is built on a P2W model at it's core, food for thought.

Also, IWS mentioned it first :p.