I read it.

New toys like you described would be nice however those toys by themselves would only annoy the tank pilots and could be huge SP sinks for little to no gain.

What kind of WP gains are you going to hand out to the guy that just slowed the tank down but did not destroy it?

If it takes CCP removing all SP's from tanks and AV and making them ISK only to balance then so be it.
TBH it is not that bad of an idea.

I understand that forcing you to have three persons in your tank is not fare but right now I run Logi and have invested no SP's in either tanks or AV so I am forced to hope that someone on my team is running AV or we are just screwed and even then lets say it is just on Proto AVer up against two tanks or even just one, the tanks still win 90% of the time.

Well unless it is just standard tanker someone like me who has no clue about tanking.

But Your forcing AV players through that route currently

If you can't solo vehicles with your SP investment because you don't have other AV friends on then all the SP invested in AV is useless

Something to consider:

Properly balanced, over time a tank is only as powerful as a single infantry unit. It is X times more powerful for 1/X amount of time. It packs a bunker busting strength to break through heavily defended objectives, but then must run away or be protected by others fr a longer period of time.

That's the new "waves of opportunity" philosophy.

That means we can have it both ways now. One AV player can solo a tank when it's in cool down, but it takes a coordinated effort when it's in power mode.

In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance.

okay, I've been avoiding this post like the plague but I do have one question.

what does the reloader do? does he just sit there enjoying the view pressing one button on occasion? are you so desperate to make it 3 people instead of 2 that you made up a nonsense position that has no purpose just to shove another person in the tank?

I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV.

My proposal:
1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank.
2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew.
3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield.

In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down.

I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV.

My proposal:
1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank.
2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew.
3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield.

In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down.

my tank has no small guns, it is largely due to PG constraints and given the opportunity I would probably put back the top gun and ditch the front gunners position.

I've gotten bad gunners over and over again and completely understand the motives of anyone who said bucket and removed all their smalls.

small gunners are really useful and yes I did cater to them when the situation presents it self. however neither gun is well placed on the tank.

the top gun can't track down far enough to to be useful in short to mid range combat and smalls are really bad at any range at all, so unless your target was above you(in which case it is likely that they are protected by a railing) it is essentially useless, another strike against the top gun is that is off center of the main turret rendering tracking with both simultaneously turrets nearly impossible.

the front gun is worse than the top gun, the front gun's only saving grace is that is substantially more accurate than the to gun due to the a fore mentioned placement issue. it's field of fire is horrendous and catering to it very often endangers the integrity of the tank. the full 360 movement ability of the main turret means that broadsiding your target is possible and if the situation arises you can pull transversal on any threat perpendicular to your tank often breaking line of sight. facing your enemy so that the front gunner can line up shots is preferable however if a threat arises the only means of escape is to eliminate the threat or reverse which never breaks line of sight and can't take advantage of transversal.

there is one situation where pulling forward into the enemy lines in a blitz is a viable option and in fact preferable to any other maneuver. in the case that you are facing enemy lines and parked, good squad leaders will often plant an orbital on the back end of the tank because allied infantry often use the tank for cover and many tankers first instinct is to full reverse out of danger and into their own lines. this gives the squad leader a 2 for 1 taking out the panicked driver who reversed further into the OB and his infantry support.

there is of course the human element of having gunners, I have had excellent gunners but more often than not I get very, very bad gunners. the guy AFKing in my top turret(the semi useful one), the impatient blueberry in the front gun firing very angrily at nothing in my front gun because I'm not lining up shots for him, as doing so would endanger the tank. the ******* shooting at blues for sport, the guy who refuses to leave so I can recall the tank. the guy who doesn't understand the basics of tanking and shoots at nothing giving my position to the whole wide world while I wait for favorable conditions to engage. the guy frantically switching seats trying to get the drivers seat(he's probably moving to fast to notice if he actually got it).

I've spent a lot of time tanking and gunning for other tankers, I hope that this helps the community at large understand the decisions we make with our machinery and why we do what we do how we do it.(say that last bit 5 times fast for extra fun!)

and I hope this post helps at least some people realize that while tanking may be EZmode now, good tankers put a lot of thought into when and how they move.

No, tanks need a buff.
They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible.

Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous.

Not sure is serious or...

Ive seen this one come up a few time while i agree its a nice solution it does put crew tankers against solo tankers at a simular disadvantage to the current AV vrs V, in that it would be more effective for someone and 2 friends who wants to kill a tank to bring in 3 solo tanks and hit the crew tank with the main turrets AV, its just something to keep in mind i guess.

I like this +1.

rate of fire nerf is a bit large and well doesn't make sense. my HAV is missing 2 people so it doesn't fire as quickly when all all of the projectiles come in magazines. perhaps a minor increase to reload time(like 2.5 seconds per person making 15 seconds solo 10 seconds occupied) would make more sense and be a better option?

also fitting small turrets is a burden on the tank, we are extremely tight on pg/cpu and that is the reason a lot of us myself included don't run smalls. however if you gave us a pg/cpu buff it could work, the advantages of smalls would have to out weigh the deficits though.

I posted this a while ago and it sums up the current issues with smalls. there is a lot that would need to happen to make smalls a good idea again but fixing these is a good start.

Not really, why?

Think about it.

Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right?

Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank.

okay, I've been avoiding this post like the plague but I do have one question.

what does the reloader do? does he just sit there enjoying the view pressing one button on occasion? are you so desperate to make it 3 people instead of 2 that you made up a nonsense position that has no purpose just to shove another person in the tank?

I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV.

My proposal:
1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank.
2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew.
3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield.

In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down.

A loader would be a bad solution as it is outdated even by todays standards, the best option for seat 3 if there is a need for one is commander who is essentially in charge of intel with access to scanners and defensive capabilities and is located in top small turret. There may not be a need for seat 3 but in my opinion this would be the most usefull one. The 2 seat option would be driver and main gunner which would now be a AV weapon in a ideal world.