Basic experimentation rules are as follows:

1 - Identify all variables
2 - Change *one* variable, keeping all others constant
3 - Observe results, and repeat steps 2 and 3 until desired results are obtained.

CCP went and changed vehicles in a very major way. That is OK.
CCP went and changed AV in a very major way.... this too is also OK.

However, doing both at the same time is a problem, because now we're stuck with an infantry game being not just taken over, but dominated, by vehicles.

What's worse, the change to AV makes it significantly more difficult to kill the vehicles... essentially reducing the risk from the risk/reward equation and tragically unbalancing said equation.

CCP.... I like the idea of reducing AV damage. I also like the concept of the vehicle fixes you made. Doing both at the same time was just stupid.

Sorry, but there really is no other way to describe it. It was dumb... and that's OK. Everyone has a brain fart every now and then.

You have monthly iterations, and significantly lower barriers to making changes than you would if you followed a twice-annual release schedule. Please use this to your advantage.

I know you will re-fix and re-balance the vehicle/AV thing... but I have to hope that you will adopt a more gradual, scientifically-based process for changes (as detailed above) in future releases.

-Nightbird

Railgun tanks are the best AV and i don't know why not many people is using em, you can back up if being shot and you can take down tanks, infantry and aircraft at a safe distant.

CCP went and changed vehicles in a very major way. That is OK.
CCP went and changed AV in a very major way.... this too is also OK.

However, doing both at the same time is a problem, because now we're stuck with an infantry game being not just taken over, but dominated, by vehicles.

I'll try to avoid discussing too much over the extent CCP is following the scientific method, but CCP's approach in this matter isn't as "unscientific" as you portray it. If they changed only vehicles, then waited to see how they handle against 1.6 AV weapons, then apply a balancing pass to vehicles on that iteration, and after all that change AV weapons, they would have to do another balancing pass afterwards. This way, they will (hopefully) shorten the time it takes to put the entire thing to proper balance. On the other hand, their approach is also coupled with more risk of getting to a position where the imbalance is more acute then otherwise - which is exactly what's happening right now.

I have to agree in this case where CCP completely altered the entite philosophy of vehicles. They had to take a stab at balancing AV against the new paradigm to start things off. Basically consider 1.7 an entirely new game.

From here on they do need to make one change at a time. Even better would be to run a test server where they could run many separate tests in the same timeframe. They could change multiple variables if they wanted to run an ANOVA design which would be best as it takes into account second and third order interactions.