all av/vehicles are broken... all of them

the best thing they could do is take it all out, rework it, MAKE SURE IT WORKS AS INTENDED, and put it back in.

with the exception of militia LAVs and packed av nades... they are the only things that work well...

What is the logic behind CCP's weapon development policy?? Milatary policy would be for bigger, better and more efficient weapon systems NOT cutting range on sub-par anti-armour weapons so that they are less than useless. Unless there are plans to cut the range of all vehicle mounted weapons by the same amount, at the same time, it would be a gient leap backwards in weapon development.

your post has ZERO relevance to a discussion on tank SPEED
learn to READ.............scrub.

distance 150 m
madrugar outran swarms

speeder fit soma or madrugar can out run a lav and swarms for five to seven seconds



fast tanks are a reality

the same as basic laser 84m elm 84m viziam laser 84m

games unbalanced

Yet tankers complain when one proto forge gunner makes them run or destroys their poorly fitted STD or MLT tank.

Can't have it both ways.

I can definitely see the point that AV should be able to kill tanks, but it should not be a simple job for a single Merc to destroy a tank. Proto heavy AV (ie, Heavy AV weapons like Forge Guns and future heavy weapons) should definitely be a massive threat to Standard and Advanced level tanks, which is why it's currently an imbalance issue: there is no counter to Prototype AV, because vehicles only have access to low-/mid-level hulls.

This is why the ground-up rework of both vehicles and AV is a good things. Sure, the swarm change will hurt for the month or so until 1.7, but not as much as every DS pilot has felt when they've been destroyed with impunity by an advanced Swarmer from half a planet away because their entire payload connects before you can reasonably react and get into cover.

To respond to your post more succinctly, poorly fit and/or STD/MLT vehicles should die to fairly decent Prototype AVers without much fuss: if they're using badly optimised vehicles then they should go down easily! If, however, you're looking at a full decked out Advanced/Prototype tank versus a good Prototype AV merc, you should be having a pretty back and forth duel: the AVer should be able to threaten the tanker but not immediately wipe it from the battlefield. Conversely, the Prototype tanker should be able to threaten their chosen target (ie, anti-personnel turrets should be extremely dominating when pitted against groups of infantry; anti-vehicle turrets should be powerful versus vehicles) and able to withstand STD/ADV AV reasonably well but must be threatened into caution by Prototype AV lest they get ambushed.

With the 1.7 change in how Hardeners/Reps, etc work, we should see periods of incredible power but also periods of incredible vulnerability (relatively speaking) - my only concern is the potential stacking of defensive modules (mostly looking at Hardeners) and being able to have one active while a second cools down. But that will be something to examine and discuss when 1.7 drops.

While I have no opinion either way on the swarm changes, one thing I would like to note is that the images Judge used to show the swarm ranges are a bit misleading. They would be accurate if the swarm user was at the same altitude as the dropship. The effective range on swarms will be shorter since dropships have a tendency to stay above ground level (as long as there are no forge gunners about).

He showed two images showing a circle of the swarm ranges before and after the change then referred to them as the area the swarm could defend which is not entirely true if the dropship is at a different altitude than the swarm user.

After calculating out different heights, it doesn't make too great of a change, but it is still something to note.