...PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome...

-AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 15-20WP per hit. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.

So per volley of a Wiyrkomi swarm, you're looking at 90-120 WP? The sky will rain with orbitals and tears.

thanks for sharing. +1

I wouldn't mind, having slightly better active module that would be fantastic, nor to mention a slightly better turning speed. but yeah some slight EHP buff, an AMARR HAV release and pilot suit and I'm a happy man.

Now 1st off i must say we are doing this wrong.
The community, me included, is fighting almost daily ,Tankers vs AV and now our posts are unproductive.
Now OBVIOUSLY everyone has a different point of VIEW. ...

This post is NOT TO DISCUSS anything, but to share what WE THINK would help balance the game towards an enjoyable experience.Tankers and AVers are both invited now PLEASE take into consideration CCP might read this so keep it balanced and as less biased as possible.
Now before you start with your; you are not a tanker crap i'll say.Im an AVer.But i have 2 tanker accounts now one over 8 mill armor tank and a new one 3 mil shield tanker (God those things are awful)

Im going to start:

-Armor tank HP buff (AT LEAST +50% more HP) + Slight speed reduction (So that when equipped with Torque increasing modules or/and Nitro they will be fast but not as fast as shield tanks)
-Shield HP buff (At least +40% more HP,they would still have la lot less HP than Armored tanks) + Regenerator buff
-Shield tanks are supposed to,same as shield dropsuits, to be hit and run abusers.They need at least a 100%-200% increase in shield regen per second (Say from 22 to 44 or 66 per second).This would make the hit and run strategy viable.
-AV STAYS THE SAME
-Both type of tanks have increased damage reduction vs non AV weapory.
-Prox mines Have a big buff, making them the ULTIMATE AV weapon,but the most annoying to use
This helps the balance since tanks would be a lot harder to kill with at least 8000-14000 HP (armor tanks) and AV in general will only be able to push them back, BUT if they eat some prox mines they would be highly damaged.This is balance: TAnks die less to AV in general, tanks die easily to Prox Mines, making ZONING and positioning the new AV vs Tank WAR.
-AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 30WP per hit (in case o plasma cannons and FGs),10 WP per grenade and 5 per swarm. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.This WP were assigned to have some relation between them but it might be a smaller amount per hit/ Just used as examples.
-Dropships need a Buff in general.HP,SPeed and WP gain
-LAVs are good as they are.People who heavily invested in LAVs still have powerful vehicles, yet BPO and MLT are crap. I wouldnt touch it.LAV are balanced.


Again this is MY opinion and the idea of this thread is NOT to discuss them,but to provide YOUR opinion on what should be done. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION POST, just post your ideas on what needs to be balanced and PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome , TY.

well atm shield tanks gdt destroyed by one guy running forge gun on a tower, make it so i you're on a tower for 5 seconds you get pushed off.

Ok here we go, I think Im gonna **** off a lot of tankers here but oh well.

First off a few important points or assumptions I am making.

Ammo Cache will take low slot
Damage Amplfiers in high slots,
ALL armour active modules are low slots
ALL Sheild active modules are high slots
All weapon based improvements (except damage amplifiers) are low slots
engine modules are low slots
Ewar modules are high slots
countermeasures are high slots
WP awarded for vehicle damage

* Passive and active health is extreme of each case assuming full health modules of that type.

Armour Tanks

Passive Health: Collasal (25 -30 k)
Equivalent Active Health: Low (3-4k)
Main Turret Power: Medium
Speed: Snail
Ammo reserves: Moderate
** Railgun: 40
**Blaster: 300
** Missile 30 salvos

The armour tank is all about passive aggresive module use. An armour tank can reach as much as 20K and still maintain a decent rep speed. Active modules provide better bonuses than passive but only for a 2-3mins at a time and still require a decent passive health to be of use!

The fact that ammo cache modules are in low slots mean an armour tank must sacrifice a lot of health for a few extra salvos. The low speed of a tank means that it is incredibly reliant on infantry to suppress av attempts if the tank needs to escape. But scanners allows an armour tank to easily point out enemy infantry, in addition to the active countermeasures.

The use of the damage amplifiers allows an armour tank to become an impressive artillery platform for a short period, but the lack of heat cooling modules means an armour tank can't keep up a dedicated stream of rounds.

That's not good at all.

What they need to do is make all towers infantry accessible, so that you don't have to suicide a dropship up there to take them down, but at the same time give them less of a reason to be up there, verticality is cool yes, but why have access to a building top without solid rails, or fall guards.

Put those up there, the occasional place for a FGer to shoot from, but make it so that infantry can climb up there to take them down, and that the firing points and few and far betweem.

Why are weapon modules low slots, that diverges from this games normal archetype, Armour needs to be slow moving brawlers, shields fast moving light skirmishers.

Sheild tanks

Passive Health: Pitiful (500- 1.5K)
Equivalent Active Health: Collasal (20-30 K)
Main turret power: Low
Speed: Hypersonic
Ammo reserves: Moderate
** Rail: 40
** Blaster: 300
**Missile: 30 salvos

The sheild tank is all about hit and run, it can sponge enough damage via active modules to leave that pitiful base hp untouched. 2 Shots with a forge will be enough to fell a sheild tanker without his active modules. This makes sheild tanks perfect for a punching a hole in enemy defences.

The large active health means a sheild tanker doesn't need to be concerned about av while his modules are on. But when he is vunerable his lack of scanning means he is entirely dependent on infantry support. Passive modules help a little but only serve purpose to empower the active modules. Active modus allow a sheild tan

Sheild tanks

Passive Health: Pitiful (500- 1.5K)
Equivalent Active Health: Collasal (20-30 K)
Main turret power: Low
Speed: Hypersonic
Ammo reserves: Moderate
** Rail: 40
** Blaster: 300
**Missile: 30 salvos

The sheild tank is all about hit and run, it can sponge enough damage via active modules to leave that pitiful base hp untouched. 2 Shots with a forge will be enough to fell a sheild tanker without his active modules. This makes sheild tanks perfect for a punching a hole in enemy defences.

The large active health means a sheild tanker doesn't need to be concerned about av while his modules are on. But when he is vunerable his lack of scanning means he is entirely dependent on infantry support. Passive modules help a little but only serve purpose to empower the active modules. Active modules last 1.30 tops but require 3-4min cooldowns.

Meanwhile the available ammo

That's not good at all.

What they need to do is make all towers infantry accessible, so that you don't have to suicide a dropship up there to take them down, but at the same time give them less of a reason to be up there, verticality is cool yes, but why have access to a building top without solid rails, or fall guards.

Put those up there, the occasional place for a FGer to shoot from, but make it so that infantry can climb up there to take them down, and that the firing points and few and far betweem.

Since you asked nicely, I will post on exactly what I think needs changing:

(note:I'm not covering the overall changes for vehicle hulls, as you guys probably know my opinion, and we really don't know how much they will change in the vehicle update in terms of max eHP)

AV vs. Vehicles: I don't think that soloing should be a viable option for taking them down. They should only be good for suppressing them,. If you're pretty good, has perfect position and timing, and with a bit of luck, yea, you deserve that kill, but otherwise, no. HOWEVER, If there's 2 or 3 of those AV'ers, generally speaking, that vehicle should be a lot easier to take out (unless it's a special type such as Marauder), which should tank damage like a boss), or it's gone, unless the pilot finds a distraction and get the **** out of there. But that's if the AV'ers have somewhat good of a position; not like on the same plain right out in front of it, or around a corner. Also, not really for Forge Guns, but for swarms, they need countermeasures, or the swarms need a changed tracking, as it's pretty hard to avoid a swarm (unless you're a LAV that's already around a corner, or a DS that's already far away, in which not all of those vehicles are fitted to be able to run like that).

Swarms: The rendering needs fixed so you can see them better when they are launched. Also, like I said, they need a better tracking. Make it more flat, but make it a little bit faster. Lastly, make the lock on longer by another .2-.5 seconds, and increase the box size 4, and it's max ammo 8. 3/6 is too low imo.

Forges: Same as Swarms, make the rendering better so you can see them at range. Also, make the glow a different color, as it blends in to the environment a lot, as well as make it a little bit bigger (not by much, just slightly). Next, either make it less accurate at range (kinda bad idea), or or reduce it's optimal range, and raise it's damage drop off to the absolute range. Damage and charge up time is fine. Oh wait, before I forget, reduce that damn splash damage already!

AV nades: massive reduction for damage (I'm talking 60-80%). But, they get a slight range buff, and they get a EWAR effect that effects tracking on the turrets, speed, or active modules for a short period of time(like 10-15 seconds). They shouldn't be a killing factor, just something to scare the pilots and thinking that they're getting trapped. Also a helper for EWAR fits.

General Vehicles: The Tech 2 vehicles needs to be adjusted (and brung back), and adjusted, just like they are, or similar to in this: Click

How many times did you reply to my thread, yet here you are, yet again, a non-pilot making another tank thread.

<-----level 5 swarms
<----- level 4 FG(alt)
<----- level 5 enforcer(shield)
<----- assault DS pilot
<----- logi DS pilot
<----- old school LAV driver
<----- level 3 plasma cannon
<----- level 3 nades

does that make me both a pilot and AVer?
btw yes i have over 19million SP.

FAir enough. Thank you for your feedback.
Again this is not to discuss your ideas but to put them all in a single Thread, so that with some luck CCP can read and grab some ideas from us....
Strangly enough.I agreed....

+1

AV is different, it take no skill, it's a lock on weapon, i destroyed 3 tanks in 1 game with MLT swarms while they had active modules on. so pathetic really

I might update it, as I thought it would take way too long to retype all of it. I might just put a summary for each, although in my summaries, I usually go full on and end up typing out the full time. So yea, later.

How many times did you reply to my thread, yet here you are, yet again, a non-pilot making another tank thread.

shield tanks would be destroyed in 1 shot by that low hp.
the point of a Caldari HAV is alot of shields, high speed but low armor, 4k passives or 3.6 would be right.

shield tanks would be destroyed in 1 shot by that low hp

I think the only things that would truely balance AV and vehicles is not in buffing or nerfing. I think the right solutionis to balance with small fixes.

An early warning system for vehicles in regards to lock ons and location of AV.

Lower the cost in ISK and SP for purchasing and using tanks and dropships. Or start item for item player trading to help cover losses for vehicle users.

Fix rendering, and invisible swarms.

Nerfs and buffs for either AV or vehicles should be an absolute last resort. From previous expierence we know how those can turn out, and the amount of time it can take to fix.

(( I now have now my Tanker account with Shield tank. I dont even know where to start with them to be honest, so i posted just general thoughts on it.But for the 1st time i felt tanks as UP....))

Spkr4theDead = Its not that easy.There are a LOT of variables taht apply.

-Whats the rest of the enemy infantry doing? scratchingtheir nuts? or hunting the AV and repairing?
-Do you have a height advatange?
-Are you getting redlined thanks to your team not doing anything?
-Are you out of ammo? no nanohives around?

I could go on,but its not thread related. Still as i posted before.AV experience and Tanker experience IS NOT NEEDED to post your opinion on how you think they should be balanced.At least not in this thread.

LOL

You're crazy

AV is easy. I'm using cheap stuff right now because I want to be cheap. Cheap tanks, cheap dropsuits. I could easily use my ADV heavy suits with PRO forge guns, but right now I'd rather use skinweave with ADV assault forge guns. I know how it is. It's pathetically easy.

Now 1st off i must say we are doing this wrong.
The community, me included, is fighting almost daily ,Tankers vs AV and now our posts are unproductive.
Now OBVIOUSLY everyone has a different point of VIEW. ...

This post is NOT TO DISCUSS anything, but to share what WE THINK would help balance the game towards an enjoyable experience.Tankers and AVers are both invited now PLEASE take into consideration CCP might read this so keep it balanced and as less biased as possible.
Now before you start with your; you are not a tanker crap i'll say.Im an AVer.But i have 2 tanker accounts now one over 8 mill armor tank and a new one 3 mil shield tanker (God those things are awful)

Im going to start:

-Armor tank HP buff (AT LEAST +50% more HP) + Slight speed reduction (So that when equipped with Torque increasing modules or/and Nitro they will be fast but not as fast as shield tanks)
-Shield HP buff (At least +40% more HP,they would still have la lot less HP than Armored tanks) + Regenerator buff
-Shield tanks are supposed to,same as shield dropsuits, to be hit and run abusers.They need at least a 100%-200% increase in shield regen per second (Say from 22 to 44 or 66 per second).This would make the hit and run strategy viable.
-AV STAYS THE SAME
-Both type of tanks have increased damage reduction vs non AV weapory.
-Prox mines Have a big buff, making them the ULTIMATE AV weapon,but the most annoying to use
This helps the balance since tanks would be a lot harder to kill with at least 8000-14000 HP (armor tanks) and AV in general will only be able to push them back, BUT if they eat some prox mines they would be highly damaged.This is balance: TAnks die less to AV in general, tanks die easily to Prox Mines, making ZONING and positioning the new AV vs Tank WAR.
-AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 30WP per hit (in case o plasma cannons and FGs),10 WP per grenade and 5 per swarm. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.This WP were assigned to have some relation between them but it might be a smaller amount per hit/ Just used as examples.
-Dropships need a Buff in general.HP,SPeed and WP gain
-LAVs are good as they are.People who heavily invested in LAVs still have powerful vehicles, yet BPO and MLT are crap. I wouldnt touch it.LAV are balanced.
- This bro here posted this i think its worth a mention.It regards showing AV infantry on the vehicles map while they are using Lock on with their swarms: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=111974&find=unread
-Also swarms SHOULD stay with their Lock-on capability,but missiles should be able to be destroyed.....


Again this is MY opinion and the idea of this thread is NOT to discuss them,but to provide YOUR opinion on what should be done. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION POST, just post your ideas on what needs to be balanced and PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome , TY.

30 is way too high.. try 10 . its closer to squad leader bonus.. then the regulat wp for kills.. but yeah.. i can get behind this post . some points are better than others tho.

It's sooooo much simpler to nerf the hell out of AV. What happened to tanks should only be destroyed by full squad of dedicated AV? Now a lone Assault FG is enough to destroy a tank in less than 20 seconds. Is it because back in Chromosome no one had dedicated AV?

We all know tanks got to this place because of CCP Blam!'s fault, which was a total failure. But since vehicle rebalance is such a hard work that can't be done in less than 1 month at least an AV nerf hotfix should keep tankers happy till vehicle patch. Then once you have the new tanks you can buff AV again if it's needed. And lol at 1.3? swarm buff. Clearly no idea how to balance the game.

-XOXO

1/2 price of large turret cost, drop enforcers and ADS to 300k price range.
Buff dropship HP.

Give dropships the ability to cycle through the 3 views with R3.

(( I now have now my Tanker account with Shield tank. I dont even know where to start with them to be honest, so i posted just general thoughts on it.But for the 1st time i felt tanks as UP....))

Spkr4theDead = Its not that easy.There are a LOT of variables taht apply.

-Whats the rest of the enemy infantry doing? scratchingtheir nuts? or hunting the AV and repairing?
-Do you have a height advatange?
-Are you getting redlined thanks to your team not doing anything?
-Are you out of ammo? no nanohives around?

I could go on,but its not thread related. Still as i posted before.AV experience and Tanker experience IS NOT NEEDED to post your opinion on how you think they should be balanced.At least not in this thread.

Fixed. Winmatar do shields as well, but they are the hit and run type. As in move in, hit hard with all of your ammo, GTFO.

You are aware you have just asked for tanks to become the very definition of an OverPowered weapon.

An overpowered weapon is where 1 weapon is so much more effective than any other weapon that the only way to combat it in 1v1 fights is to weild it.

Sorry to have gone off topic king but it needs to be pointed out, spike is just a troll who warrants no more response!

I read through this, wanting to troll you, really bad, but I actually agree with everything except the madrugar speed nerf. I'm more in favor of either a passive caldari damage buff, because a speed buff is out of character for caldari, and is the place for the minmitar.

All in all, not bad ideas, but buffing the base HP won't do anything good, because it's so low. Buffing the modules is what would help. either that or a massive (35% pg buff).

I want to see tanks become battering rams OR seige weapons, where they are nearly invulnerable for 60 seconds OR they can take out anything that moves in a couple shots for 30 seconds. Then they should go right back to being paper thin. This way, the smart tankers will be nigh unkillable, but a good 85% wont last 2 minutes- as it should be.

Sheild tanks

Passive Health: Pitiful (1K- 3K)
Equivalent Active Health: Collasal (20-30 K)
Main turret power: Low
Speed: Hypersonic
Ammo reserves: Moderate
** Rail: 40
** Blaster: 300
**Missile: 30 salvos

The sheild tank is all about hit and run, it can sponge enough damage via active modules to leave that pitiful base hp untouched. 2

The large acti modules last 45secs tops but require 2-3min

*sigh*
its called hit and run, not hit and hide, 30 sec cooldown max, as it's already too much, 2 shot forge gun, you serious? make it more op whydontcha, no noob solo'ing tanks please.
modules have delay before activation so it'd be impossible to survive in a shield tank+armor would be more OP.
max 5800 hp shields, maybe slightly less, but max hp buff is NEEDED to counter forge guns/flux nades, 45 sec for modules is too long for hit and run, maybe 20-25 sec. hardeners get buff to max 35% dr proto and 20 sec long duration.

Now 1st off i must say we are doing this wrong.
The community, me included, is fighting almost daily ,Tankers vs AV and now our posts are unproductive.
Now OBVIOUSLY everyone has a different point of VIEW. ...

This post is NOT TO DISCUSS anything, but to share what WE THINK would help balance the game towards an enjoyable experience.Tankers and AVers are both invited now PLEASE take into consideration CCP might read this so keep it balanced and as less biased as possible.
Now before you start with your; you are not a tanker crap i'll say.Im an AVer.But i have 2 tanker accounts now one over 8 mill armor tank and a new one 3 mil shield tanker (God those things are awful)

Im going to start:

-Armor tank HP buff (AT LEAST +50% more HP) + Slight speed reduction (So that when equipped with Torque increasing modules or/and Nitro they will be fast but not as fast as shield tanks)
-Shield HP buff (At least +40% more HP,they would still have la lot less HP than Armored tanks) + Regenerator buff
-Shield tanks are supposed to,same as shield dropsuits, to be hit and run abusers.They need at least a 100%-200% increase in shield regen per second (Say from 22 to 44 or 66 per second).This would make the hit and run strategy viable.
-AV STAYS THE SAME
-Both type of tanks have increased damage reduction vs non AV weapory.
-Prox mines Have a big buff, making them the ULTIMATE AV weapon,but the most annoying to use
This helps the balance since tanks would be a lot harder to kill with at least 8000-14000 HP (armor tanks) and AV in general will only be able to push them back, BUT if they eat some prox mines they would be highly damaged.This is balance: TAnks die less to AV in general, tanks die easily to Prox Mines, making ZONING and positioning the new AV vs Tank WAR.
-AVers Get WP for Conecting hits to tanks, say 30WP per hit (in case o plasma cannons and FGs),10 WP per grenade and 5 per swarm. THIS WAY Av specialists have an incentive to keep Tanks at bay.This WP were assigned to have some relation between them but it might be a smaller amount per hit/ Just used as examples.
-Dropships need a Buff in general.HP,SPeed and WP gain
-LAVs are good as they are.People who heavily invested in LAVs still have powerful vehicles, yet BPO and MLT are crap. I wouldnt touch it.LAV are balanced.
- This bro here posted this i think its worth a mention.It regards showing AV infantry on the vehicles map while they are using Lock on with their swarms: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=111974&find=unread
-Also swarms SHOULD stay with their Lock-on capability,but missiles should be able to be destroyed.....


Again this is MY opinion and the idea of this thread is NOT to discuss them,but to provide YOUR opinion on what should be done. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION POST, just post your ideas on what needs to be balanced and PLEASE, TROLLS are not welcome , TY.

Or you can wait to see what changes they are doing for vehicles, THEN create posts.

/thread

caldari suits are fastest.
less HEAVY armor means more speed and is balanced, currently armor is faster than shield.

I hate to bring lore into the equation, but ultimately, this is what will become of tanks (i think)

CALDARI = best glass cannons because they have fast enough shield recharge to get hit once, when OHKing something from 500m away, then drop back, charge up in 20 seconds, and shoot again. No other tank can use the railgun the same way a caldari tank can.

MINMITAR = Basically the Gunlogi in Chrome. Super fast, lightly defended, and with the ability to stack a good damage mod, while still being able to 'speed tank'; this enables it to run in, kill everything it can in 10 seconds, and run away. It is either the weakest tank, or the tankiest LAV; much like the winmitar assault suit.

GALLENTE = Fast armor tankers. Make the best tankers for shock tactics. Able to become nearly invincible for a minute and fight on the front, then run away with exceptional speed and rep back up in the rear.

AMARR = Slow omni-tanks. The highest HP of all tanks. Not fast enough to close distance, hit, and run away, but fighting at a medium to long distance, and providing direct fire support; while being able to fend off even gallente tanks, slug it out with caldari in long range engagements, and tank most of the winmitar's damage. However, the loss of speed and poor shield recharge, combined with e necessity to use armor plates, disables this tank from being a good glass cannon, or a powerful offensive tank for more than one engagement.

caldari suits are fastest.
less HEAVY armor means more speed and is balanced, currently armor is faster than shield.

Just my 2 cents as an AV man.

Vehicle armor plates plates should have a penalty to speed just like drop suits. As for buffing tanks HP there is some very good ideas posted and even I agree Tanks need more HP (honestly it should take atleast 3 AV guys that focus fire on a tank to take em down).

Swarms need a buff to missle speed, but they should also be able to be shot down by gun fire. Swarms are next to useless against dropships or LAVs because of their speed and maneuverability. A well fitted dropship only dies to a forge gun.

Forge guns need a debuff to splash damage, this solves a lot of infantry deaths to forge gunners just splash killing guys. Now if that gunners hits an infantry dead on... well, he earned that kill.

Prox mines, STD 800, ADV 900, Proto 1000 per mine. This allows mines to be used effectively in blocking off areas from vehicles or cripple tanks in ambush that was setup for it. (ITS A FREAKING MINE! mines do lots of damage to vehicles... its their purpose. I've seen HMVEES, tanks and APCs crippled or destroyed because of mines)

AV grenades need a buff in the sense that packed grenades need to do more damage, hence "PACKED". Also they need to explode on contact with the freaking LAV and not bounce off because the LAV is at full speed.

Plasma cannon needs either less drop or faster flight (I say both) not to mention that if its 1 shot per clip.... the damge needs to be increased A LOT more then what it's at now. Heck its plasma, if you hit the turret it should cause the tankers main gun to over heat. It may not kill the tank but it denies the tank that area plus that should increase plasma cannon use as AV instead of anti infantry in enclosed spaces.

again my 2 cents as an AV guy

I hate to bring lore into the equation, but ultimately, this is what will become of tanks (i think)

CALDARI = best glass cannons because they have fast enough shield recharge to get hit once, when OHKing something from 500m away, then drop back, charge up in 20 seconds, and shoot again. No other tank can use the railgun the same way a caldari tank can.

MINMITAR = Basically the Gunlogi in Chrome. Super fast, lightly defended, and with the ability to stack a good damage mod, while still being able to 'speed tank'; this enables it to run in, kill everything it can in 10 seconds, and run away. It is either the weakest tank, or the tankiest LAV; much like the winmitar assault suit.

GALLENTE = Fast armor tankers. Make the best tankers for shock tactics. Able to become nearly invincible for a minute and fight on the front, then run away with exceptional speed and rep back up in the rear.

AMARR = Slow omni-tanks. The highest HP of all tanks. Not fast enough to close distance, hit, and run away, but fighting at a medium to long distance, and providing direct fire support; while being able to fend off even gallente tanks, slug it out with caldari in long range engagements, and tank most of the winmitar's damage. However, the loss of speed and poor shield recharge, combined with e necessity to use armor plates, disables this tank from being a good glass cannon, or a powerful offensive tank for more than one engagement.

Everyone is focusing on whether vehicles need more HP or less, or how much damage and range AV should have. These are all stopgaps.

What we need are completely new features. We need capacitor. We need electronic warfare. Without those vehicle balance is never going to work.

I don't think you really appreciate the degree to which those two factors are going to change the vehicle/av landscape. Depending on implementation it could mean HAVs tha can perma-run their reps and hardeners. It could mean stasis webifiers so vehicles can't flee when they're getting low. Saying "let's get the basics done before we do those" is like saying "it's about to snow, I should shovel the driveway" because at that point everything we know about vehicle balance will be irrelevant.

Everyone is focusing on whether vehicles need more HP or less, or how much damage and range AV should have. These are all stopgaps.

What we need are completely new features. We need capacitor. We need electronic warfare. Without those vehicle balance is never going to work.

It should be easier to disable a tank than outright destroy one.

I cant really comment on amour tanks as i've only +3 in skills for them and never use them, so for shields... and maybe both

a pg increase so i can play with my fits a little more, it seems even after going the full hog on a useless skill tree (gunlogi skill tree is full of cpu reducers that seem worthless) im still stuck with the same boring fits

possibly, a little hp buff, 500-1500

again, i dont like the skill tree, madrugers got a + to reps and a - to pg used, where all we got is useless cpu, i never run out of cpu, so am left thinking wtf is up with our skill tree...

speed, i dont know the lore and whats meant to be faster, but g'logi is slow as hell, and to fit a booster, i need to sacrifice a passive hardener, same for the scanner and heatsink, this goes back to wack fitting options for a gunlogi

shield hardener only lasts for 10 seconds (if my mind is correct), which is kinda useless ( the hardener not my mind)

I think like dropsuits, the skill tree should buff tanks the more you put in, and while they do to a extent, i dont think they do enough

and active modules , which is where i think the balance should be, should be a bit beefier from what they are now

all in all, actives need buffing and something needs be done when it comes to maddy vs g'logi to even them out a little



"post written while drunk **** my spellings"

Vehicle capacitors! This will reward skilled players by giving them more flexibility than long cool downs, but has the same result that vehicles will have times when their cap is low and they're vulnerable, and other times when they have full cap and are ready to be very nasty.

Vehicle prices are probably fine where they are. For tanks, look at the ISK cost of all suits and vehicles killed by tanks, vs the cost of all tanks destroyed. This will give you the ISK-efficiency of tanks and is a reasonable starting place for balancing price if you guys decide to make changes here.

If tanks are too squishy, (I"m not convinced they are) focus buffs on the support, and not the tanks themselves. I.e. focus on making remote repping from LLAV's and dropships with a decent range, and gameplay mechanics that make it practical for them to regularly run together as a team. If swarms are a problem, don't nerf swarms, make a turret that can only be mounted on LAV's that will counter swarms (either defender rockets, or maybe a very wide e-war beam that does 0 damage but signals all warheads to detonate prematurely).

The focus should be away from the solo tanker in an invulnerable box of destruction, but more of a tool that is incredibly powerful when properly supported by the rest of the squad, but weak when alone.

Also CCP, you should do my Quick/Dirty Test Range Implementation Idea. This would help pilots/tankers test fits and strategies against various opponents, so they don't have to do it under fire with lots of real ISK on the line.

Edit: Forgot to add that they do need to fix rendering issues for vehicles. It's not fair for vehicles to get blown up by invisible swarms and forge gunners.

Yea, this. This is basically how the racial HAV's should work. Although, you were (hopefully) exaggerating on that range for the Caldari HAV's......

If I see EWAR coming after me, I'm gone.

1: Like I told the gentleman on the last page, according to what Wolfman has told us so far, caps won't really work for vehicles anymore, so I'd rather not. EWAR that would work like vampires or neuts would just lower active times or raise cooldowns, but full caps, no.

2: Countermeasures are needed for swarms, and to be able to shoot down swarms by any means are needed as well, but making a single weapon the only thing to shoot them down, but suck ass in all other areas is a very bad idea.

3: Swarms have gone from being DS oriented to becoming a insane HAV killer. They need a complete overhaul.

4: It's already about getting support from others. If I see AV, I'll call it out then run, while they do the dirty work (they=my squad). I do covering fire for them to move to another spot, etc. It's already about teamwork and support. Don't make it completely reliant on support to do anything.


EDIT: Before I forget, hopefully, SOONtm, we'll get the weapons lab to test our **** before we take it out on the field.

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.