It's what kept the Gunlogi and Madrugar on even terms in Chrome and we need to return to that.

Pretty much works with what Wolfman's direction for tanks: Vulnerable, but not weak.

Capacitors are a much richer way of balancing module activations. They work phenomenally well in EVE, are easy to understand, and they highlight the cost/benefit nature of fitting. Do I want to sacrifice the HP buffer on my tank to load up on capacitor rechargers so I can permanently run my armor repper? I'm getting hit by incoming AV, should I burn up cap by activating my afterburner and flee? Do I use my repper and shoot the guy? Should I run my scanner, even though it will give me a smaller cap pool if I come under fire? These are choices that a skilled tanker/pilot will make, and the right answer will depend on the person making them and the current tactical situation on the ground.

Having e-war affect cooldowns isn't nearly as intuitive, and is much harder to track and manage (you're managing cool-downs on multiple modules simultaneously). If all modules share a single resource, you only have to manage that one resource. Plus the capacitor system is inherently appealing to all EVE players. It's one of the reasons I've not speced into vehicles (a lack of Amarr options is another reason).

EDIT: Can you point me to where CCP Wolfman mentioned capacitors? I've searched and couldn't find anything.

3) The one downside to a HP model is the easy accessibility to ammo for AV. If you have infinite ammo you can just pour it on until he dies. You need to revamp ammo completely to make it much harder to come by so the AV guy needs to be consider how he uses his ammo in the same way the tanker needs to consider whether to go in hard or hang back.

This probably translates to no AV ammo from nanohives, only from supply depots, or 1 missile/forge load completely consumes a hive so they only get used in emergencies not as endless fuel for AV nests. It also means no unreachable rooftop gunners because they run out of ammo quickly. The general position should be "an equivalently equipped AV user should be able to do X% of a HAVs total HP before needing to back off into reload mode and 2X% before he needs to make his way to a supply depot. A HP+ammo model also allows a n AV user to choose how he spreads his ammo pool's worth of dmg (some damage across a couple of targets vs all dmg on one target).

You could also introduce a small ISK cost so that the cost to buy missiles/forge cartridges is some portion of the ISK it costs a tanker to repair the damage it does (would also discourage forge gunners using shots on infantry) (yes I know this is balancing by ISK but its probably a semi-appropriate area to do it in)

I see above me some people have mentioned capacitors for vehicles but in reality this is simply a risk/problem-transfer rather than a risk-problem solution. Capacitors are simply a proxy for a second binary equation problem where you need to solve the same issue on a second meta-level to the armour itself. IF you solve the problem at a conceptual level with the tanking paradigm you don't need capacitors. Just think about it a bit.

I am aware there are many other issues in vehicle land (passengers, render range etc) which I haven't touched on but you need to get this part right first.

he had posted this

Like I just stated, the items in EVE that take up the most cap are

1: active speed boosters

2: repairers

The repairers are becoming a more passive route, to where the armor ones will be active all the time like the infantry ones, while the Shield ones will just jump start the passive shield repair and keep it on until it hits overheat. Therefore, this would only effect the speed tankers, and that wouldn't be fair. So no. And as for your edit, he didn't; he had posted this

3) The one downside to a HP model is the easy accessibility to ammo for AV. If you have infinite ammo you can just pour it on until he dies. You need to revamp ammo completely to make it much harder to come by so the AV guy needs to be consider how he uses his ammo in the same way the tanker needs to consider whether to go in hard or hang back.

This probably translates to no AV ammo from nanohives, only from supply depots, or 1 missile/forge load completely consumes a hive so they only get used in emergencies not as endless fuel for AV nests. It also means no unreachable rooftop gunners because they run out of ammo quickly. The general position should be "an equivalently equipped AV user should be able to do X% of a HAVs total HP before needing to back off into reload mode and 2X% before he needs to make his way to a supply depot. A HP+ammo model also allows a n AV user to choose how he spreads his ammo pool's worth of dmg (some damage across a couple of targets vs all dmg on one target).

You could also introduce a small ISK cost so that the cost to buy missiles/forge cartridges is some portion of the ISK it costs a tanker to repair the damage it does (would also discourage forge gunners using shots on infantry) (yes I know this is balancing by ISK but its probably a semi-appropriate area to do it in)

I see above me some people have mentioned capacitors for vehicles but in reality this is simply a risk/problem-transfer rather than a risk-problem solution. Capacitors are simply a proxy for a second binary equation problem where you need to solve the same issue on a second meta-level to the armour itself. IF you solve the problem at a conceptual level with the tanking paradigm you don't need capacitors. Just think about it a bit.

I am aware there are many other issues in vehicle land (passengers, render range etc) which I haven't touched on but you need to get this part right first.