Way too long with alot of gibberish

Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead

Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things

Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range

Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles

Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap

Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc

All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them

The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc

Taka man, you are completely missing the point.

From a balance perspective:

Why is speed fine? It has an engine its fine

How are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners. - They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc

WHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs. - Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range

Missiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges. - All turrets are situational

Blasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away. - Not an i win button, how do you kill AV players? use a blaster because all the other turrets are useless at killing infantry, they are fine and they actually kill because hit detection has been fixed

Way to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back. - PROF 4 in FG and can use proto swarms, also proto fatsuit and complex dmg mods, i can solo tanks but prefer to use a 2nd FG since teamwork makes it easier

I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor. - Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus its flawed before you begin

You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID.

Madrugar is a Gallente tank. Gallente are supposed to zoom in quick and fight close. Therefore, the speed mods need to be reduced in duration but provide a faster spurt of power to overcome initial torque. Right now they have longer duration with less speed.

Rail is Caldari therefore it is supposed to be long range. It is BS right now that the rail is the best close range weapon too. Solution is to return the spool up time with the recharge time and quicker overheat along with a repeating feature like before that meant reduced damage for each subsquent shot. I shouldn't have to play dances with tanks so much at CQ with a rail and a rail user shouldn't feel comfortable in CQ.

Right now no SP non-tankers are finding it way to easy to call in mil fit, one off rail dmg mod tanks and that is effectively closing out any other type of play. Why use anything else when the rail does it all? Also, this is giving tankers a bad name because non-tankers are complaining about tanks when the problem is non-tankers are taking advantage of mil tanks to gain a cheap advantage. If only skilled tankers could apply that power you wouldn't see the tank spam.

Likewise, a mil or basic rail shouldn't have that long of a range. I'd like to see range added as a skill or module that increases therail range to the present range. Even better would be to have different ranges to the turret tiers. Standard would fire about one third the length of a map like iron Delta and the proto could reach to about three fourths.

Make infantry happy and bring back a need to have a small turret gunner for effective anti infantry by reducing the large blaster RoF to more an anti vehicle, particularly LAV, role.

I'd like to see only one small turret on the tanks and that would be on the top instead of defaulting to the front.

There was a post on the overall goal CCP was trying to achieve with tanks. I can't seem to find it, was back in 1.5 or so. If anyone can find it, please link.

They stated their views of how the tanks should work. The gallente were to be the stand and deliver, an in your face tank, that focused more on taking damage. Able to engage the enemy for an extended time.

Caldari are to be the Hit and Run type, get in fast, do damage, and get back out. Engagements are to be limited.

That was CCP's official statement on the matter, once they started working on fixing tanks.

As far as rails go, agreed, they can't be the best at everything. Some would disagree, but if we want balance this kind of thinking needs to stop. Want to do high alpha, then you have to give something up.

A lot of people like to compare a rail tank to a sniper. While there are similarities, the infantry sniper is at a disadvantage when not at range. That's the point people miss, said sniper doesn't generally kill in CQC or mid range combat. They MUST use the range, because they are far to vulnerable when close. See, that is the trade off, You may gain range and high alpha, but you lose out in defenses(trade off for damage) and range is limited by the scope(long range, not effective in mid or cqc).

A rail tank is nothing like that. They can kill at range, maintain a damage mod for dps, effective in CQC and mid range combat, can still fit for heavy tanking, immune to anything but other tanks and AV. Where are the downsides to using a rail??

Rails are the go to weapon for busting tanks, because they excel in all areas, and have virtually no weakness. Broken.

Milita tanks are another story, and I'm getting to them in my OP.

Snipers can be used at close range though. Its HARDER to hit close up, prehaps you could remove the 3rd Person view markings or something.
And don't bother arguing with Takihiro he thinks Rail tanks are the reason infantry AV is balanced.

Excellent work! Though I'm not so sure that's the right solution . . . perhaps . . .

Taka man, you are completely missing the point.

From a balance perspective:

Why is speed fine?

How are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners.

WHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs.

Missiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges.

Blasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away.

Way to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back.

I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor.

You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID.

Taka I can't begin to describe to you how uneducated your responses are. I know your stance, I've seen a lot of posts you have made, and they are ALWAYS the same. Use some damn sense man. For example.

I ask, why is speed fine? You respond because it has an engine. REALLY! I did not know that, so all engines make things go fast. I feel SOOO enlightened. I can forget about generators, or tug boat engines, or any other engine that is meant for anything other than propulsion. Jesus, really???

Hardeners, your response : They are fine, i cant fit boosters/extenders/speed mods/dmg mods, its means i cant speed away as fast, it means if 2 FG work together to **** me i cant boost back shield etc etc etc. DO YOU TANK. Hardeners are the ONLY thing you want to use on your tank, with a damage mod OR a booster. Extenders are broken and useless in comparison to hardeners. The reason hardeners are used over the other types, because they are currently part of what makes tanks OP.

I asked about rails and you respond: Its long range high dmg like a sniper and generally useless in cqc and short range. Again I ask, do you even tank. Any good tanker knows, that rails work well at long range AND cqc to mid range. Add in a gunnlogi to the mix, and you can speed up turret tracking, turning your tank in the same direction you turn your turret. It works so well with a gunnlogi, because they are AGILE.

About missile turrets, you respond, all turrets are situational. Yeah, good job you are right. None though are as situational as missile turrets. Lol.

Tanks are not on equal ground in any situation, thus it's flawed before you can begin, you say. I ask AGAIN do you tank? I can't begin to count the number of times I have squared off on equal ground. You can't pretend that it doesn't happen. Those situations I described, those events actually happened. I don't make **** up fella, I speak from experience.

Speed is fine tho, i dont have a problem with it when im tanking or using AV, how is it a problem? i can see it being a problem for those AV players who stay in 1 spot all game and expect to get the tank on the 1st shot, if anything chances are webs maybe added in some form to counter the speed - long term things not just speed is OP gibberish like you spout out

Hardeners are fine, i can use 3 if i want to but i dont have a booster to rep back shield, i dont get extra shield because no extender, i cant get a speed boost because no speed mod. Hardeners are not OP, stop shooting at a shiny tank unless you have a rail or a FG

Rails are fine, so what if the pilot uses a gunlogi to solve the slow turring problem thats smart thing to do but for more agility you give up gun depression

Missiles are fine

If you square off on equal ground with an enemy tanker then you must be pretty ******* bad, rule 1 engage on your terms

Tbh i dont even think you tank since your that ******* bad

Umm, I know I shouldn't but...

Do you tank? It is IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS engage on your terms. But that wasn't the point, the point is, a tanker should know that a direct engagement can go either way, so tactics are something they use to gain an advantage over the opponent. But if the 2 should be face to face, and they start firing at the same time, balance demands they would drop at the same time.

That is balance

Tanks are OP, and they will be dramatically changing them Taka. All the good tankers have accepted that fact already, and understand that changes to their tanks are needed to keep this game going as a whole.

Enjoy you OP tank (which to you is just fine, imagine that) while it lasts.

They've already dramatically changed tanks. Why would they do it again because infantry didn't like it the first time?

They've already dramatically changed tanks. Why would they do it again because infantry didn't like it the first time?

Fantastic post, and one I'm very much a supporter of. The idea of making Large Turrets in particular focused around anti-vehicle/installation while making Small Turrets the infantry-killers in order to encourage teamwork within a tank is a particularly compelling one and something that may actually catch some fire given that you're still allowing control of the Large Turret to the vehicle operator.

Rail Tanks are most certainly a problem, I liken them to a shotgun with 600m range, far too powerful given the ability to stay safe in the redline and make use of multiple 30% damage mods and their effectiveness is in no way decreased at shorter ranges. It's sort of a multifaceted problem in that way, I almost feel like the damage mods as a whole should tier something like how infantry damage mods work in a 15%->25%->30% sort of progression but that's something that would only really effect the lower tier tanks and not the people that would actually spec into them. But it's partly the fault of the redline mechanics as well.

It was an absolute pleasure to read through this post, ignore the illiterates that ask you to tl;dr it. This is a post worth reading in its entirety.

Make sure to post it in Feedback/Requests as well!

Wanna "fix" tanks?

One module group allowed per fitting. No triple hardened Gunnlogi's, no triple rep Madrugars. It would still keep tanks powerful, but also bring them closer to the "waves of opportunity" model CCP wanted, rather than perma-bricks.

Of course, this would have to be coupled with the introduction of new modules, because right now we have a very limited selection and everyone would be running the same fits with very little variance.

My math, Proto hardeners have a cooldown of 24 seconds. The skills at max gives you 25% to cooldown and uptime.

So .25 * 24seconds = 6 + 24 = 30 seconds

Downtime is 60 seconds, so 60 * .25 = 15, 60 - 15 = 45 seconds

So I admit, I no doubt made a false statement.

Total up time is 30 seconds per one mod and 45 seconds down
Assuming we use them one at a time, there is an overlap. Individually no, grouped yes.

So 15 seconds into the second mod, assuming you are using 2 hardeners, you can activate the the first mod again. So, with max skills, you can maintain at least one hardener most all of the time. The point though, is that hardeners last WAY TOO LONG. That's a full minute of uptime with 2 hardeners cycled, and before the second wears off, the first is cooldown, but after this inital cycle there will be a few seconds of down time. But not until after a full minute and a half though cycling hardeners.

The point with 3 hardeners, is to maintain 2 when needed, at least one all the time. With skills this would be much easier, but I would think of a less SP invested tanker going this route, rather than one with the skills.

So basically, with max skills you can activate the second hardeners after first, and maintain hardeners nearly non stop. So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. While still a bit of downtime, this isn't until after at least a minute and a half.

In the gunnlogis case, downtime should be a huge issue as a trade off for such high resistances. What I think is needed though, is lower the resistance slightly, reduce duration to account for skills. And add in a speed bump, to compensate for the lower resistances. Place more emphasis on actually using hit and run tactics, while placing less emphasis on the absolute need for hardeners. It seems forgotten, that damage mitigation means so much more than simply taking damage.

Maddies on the other hand, are more focused on receiving damage, but rather than having high resistances, they have lower resist that last longer, but a constant rep to their armor. The reps helps to mitigate the loss of a higher overall resistance. Man are these things tough too. In all honesty, I don't have too experience to go too far into details on armor tanks.

What I can say though, is with 2 hardeners up and active, these things are beastly. Still, I would still rather go up against a maddie than a gunnlogi. At least these things are killable with hardeners active. I feel that armor hardeners are in a pretty solid place coupled with armor repairers.

They do the job they were designed to do, Stand and Deliver. But I think to complete that idea, speed is going to need to take a hit. You can't be a strong heavy hitter without trading something off for it.

If damage mitigation is focused on taking damage, reduce speed to compensate. I always imagined the maddie being the slow lumbering giant, and gunnlogi the small and nimble fox. While the Giant can easily crush the Fox, he's got to actually hit the thing first. And the Fox has to work down his opponent, little pieces at a time.



Namely rail turrets. When you think about killing another tank, Rails are always the first thought. It is the BEST weapon for the job. Using just one damage mod and a proto rail, you can drop anything in just a few shots. Often times before they can drop hardeners on. But some would argue, "well that's what they are intended for".

I say for the sake of balance, that train of thought is wrong.


I mentioned earlier that in order to gain an advantage, you must lose an advantage somewhere for the sake of balance. You can't have it all. A railgun currently has it all.

Highest Alpha damage in the game

Longest range

So of all the turrets, not only can it pump out more Alpha dps, it can do so from 600M away.

You could say that because of the slower turning turret it doesn't do well in CQC, because it can't track as quickly. While this is true, it only holds true if the other tank maintains a tight position on the rail turret, but at this point it is fighting it's own tracking as well. Outside of this extremely close range though, a rail turret struggles far less with tracking.

I use rails in all engagements, whether it be in your face or at a distance, the reason I always use them is because they work at range and up close. Much unlike blasters and missiles that require you to always maintain a close distance. With a rail, I can easily outdistance my opponents or simply stay out of effective range and pummel my enemy to death.

Rails need a trade off, and tracking isn't it.
If you want High Alpha, you have less effective range.
Or you can have lower Alpha damage, and more effective range.

All and all, a rail tank should not be the one turret that murders all other types. That is not balance. Each turret should be nearly effective as the next turret, the differences being in how they are used in comparison to the others.

Let's take for example a rail, with High Alpha but say a range of 300 meters max. It forces a rail tank to engage the other turret types very close to their max effective ranges. No more bombarding from a high area half way across the map. It would push them into an area, in which they can easily be engaged, but they still have a high alpha to counter the loss of range.

Not to mention the fact that a long range, and a high elevation, severely limits the places a tank can take cover from rails. Forcing them closer, forces them to interact more with the terrain around them, IE blocked shots and limiting avenues of attack.

Railguns SHOULD NOT BE THE END ALL to tanks, they should be balanced accordingly with Blaster and Missiles.

Im going to go ahead and state this now, missiles should have variations, same as the other turret types, that define the role they will fulfill.

First, let me restate my mantra, You can't gain in an area without losing in another, if your goal is balance.

So for example the railgun, I think a lot of people have forgotten that at one time we had different turret types. I know I have. But back then, they did not have clear defined roles. You knew compressed meant heavy damage, so that is what you wanted. Or scattered was the blasters. The other types really did nothing but serve as filler.

Lets take an example of what I'm saying here.

Let's take a few railguns.

One does 2000 dmg a shot, but the range is limited to 250m

The other has a range of 600M but the damage is reduced to 1000

Another does 2500 dmg a shot, but the heat cost is high, and spool up time long. Small ammo clip

Another has a lower heat cost, shot spool, and a large clip, but damage is severely reduced 650 a shot

See how that works, if you gain in one area, you must lose in another. This not only holds true for turrets but for modules as well. It's no wonder it's hard to balance, they are trying to do it with CPU/PG. Time for some out of the box thinking.

Let's take the damage mod for example, the only thing it provides is a bonus. 30% straight up for a set duration with a set cooldown. Well the way it is now, balance is attempted with cooldowns and uptimes, as well as CPU/PG. I think it can be easier than that.

If you want 30% extra dmg, you lose 15% resistance.

Or if you want 30% resistance, you lose 15% to dps.

Ok, now let's talk blasters for a moment, the bane of all infantry.


Are awesome at killing infantry. They are essentially, an AR, just on a much larger scale. And the "suit" they are attached to seems nearly invincible. To small arms fire it is at least.

I've seen a lot of grief against tanks, blasters maybe one of the biggest issues. See everyone would be fine with tank durability if tanks weren't controlling the battles. I know tankers argue that it SHOULD require more than one infantry to take their big bad scary tank out, but I don't see this as true. But I also don't see the converse of that statement as true.

I think, infantry and tanks need to interact with one another far less, at least directly. Or I could say, large turrets are vehicle focused while small turrets are infantry focused. Get where I'm going with this?

So you want it to take more than one person to drop your tank, cool I got a solution for that. To drop infantry, a tanker must have the support of a gunner, whose role is to kill infantry. So if a tank wants to drop some infantry, it's going to require more than one person.

Blasters are maybe the only turret that something needs to be done to, to move in this direction. They are very infantry focused, when they should be tank focused. I've seen a lot of good idea's out there, increasing dispersion and reducing rate of fire are a few I've seen that are great ideas. I really hope, CCP chooses to go this route, rather than attempting to balance a tank with infantry. Either the tank will be too squishy, or too OP. We have already seen both kinds, Op in the current build, and squishy in past builds.

This isn't to say that there can't be a variation of the large blaster that is more effective for killing infantry. But in this type, damage would be severely hampered, rendering you dead against another tank. I mean the possibilities here are ENDLESS!

You are making the mistake of assuming your first hardener starts cooling down as soon as it is activated.

15 seconds into the second mod your first still has 30 seconds to go on cool down.

30 seconds in your second mod goes into cool down and your first still has 15 seconds to go before it's ready to be activated again. There is no overlap until you add a third and your first has two active periods for its cool down. At that point you can probably do it with advanced mods rather than proto.

So a maxed tanker can essentially negate any amount of downtime needed. While still a bit of downtime, this isn't until after at least a minute and a half. While with 2 hardeners there will be about 15 seconds of downtime, this is after a full minute of uptime.

In the gunnlogis case, downtime should be a huge issue as a trade off for such high resistances. What I think is needed though, is lower the resistance slightly, reduce duration to account for skills. And add in a speed bump, to compensate for the lower resistances. Place more emphasis on actually using hit and run tactics, while placing less emphasis on the absolute need for hardeners. It seems forgotten, that damage mitigation means so much more than simply taking damage.

What I would suggest for hardeners though, is to add a stacking penalty in. Where any mod after the first, increases cooldown time. So stacking 3 will not mean you can cycle them non stop.

Maddies on the other hand, are more focused on receiving damage, but rather than having high resistances, they have lower resist that last longer, but a constant rep to their armor. The reps helps to mitigate the loss of a higher overall resistance. Man are these things tough too. In all honesty, I don't have too experience to go too far into details on armor tanks.

What I can say though, is with 2 hardeners up and active, these things are beastly. Still, I would still rather go up against a maddie than a gunnlogi. At least these things are killable with hardeners active. I feel that armor hardeners are in a pretty solid place coupled with armor repairers.

They do the job they were designed to do, Stand and Deliver. But I think to complete that idea, speed is going to need to take a hit. You can't be a strong heavy hitter without trading something off for it.

If damage mitigation is focused on taking damage, reduce speed to compensate. I always imagined the maddie being the slow lumbering giant, and gunnlogi the small and nimble fox. While the Giant can easily crush the Fox, he's got to actually hit the thing first. And the Fox has to work down his opponent, little pieces at a time.



Namely rail turrets. When you think about killing another tank, Rails are always the first thought. It is the BEST weapon for the job. Using just one damage mod and a proto rail, you can drop anything in just a few shots. Often times before they can drop hardeners on. But some would argue, "well that's what they are intended for".

I say for the sake of balance, that train of thought is wrong.


I mentioned earlier that in order to gain an advantage, you must lose an advantage somewhere for the sake of balance. You can't have it all. A railgun currently has it all.

Highest Alpha damage in the game

Longest range

So of all the turrets, not only can it pump out more Alpha dps, it can do so from 600M away.

You could say that because of the slower turning turret it doesn't do well in CQC, because it can't track as quickly. While this is true, it only holds true if the other tank maintains a tight position on the rail turret, but at this point it is fighting it's own tracking as well. Outside of this extremely close range though, a rail turret struggles far less with tracking.

I use rails in all engagements, whether it be in your face or at a distance, the reason I always use them is because they work at range and up close. Much unlike blasters and missiles that require you to always maintain a close distance. With a rail, I can easily outdistance my opponents or simply stay out of effective range and pummel my enemy to death.

Rails need a trade off, and tracking isn't it.
If you want High Alpha, you have less effective range.
Or you can have lower Alpha damage, and more effective range.

All and all, a rail tank should not be the one turret that murders all other types. That is not balance. Each turret should be nearly effective as the next turret, the differences being in how they are used in comparison to the others.

Let's take for example a rail, with High Alpha but say a range of 300 meters max. It forces a rail tank to engage the other turret types very close to their max effective ranges. No more bombarding from a high area half way across the map. It would push them into an area, in which they can easily be engaged, but they still have a high alpha to.

Rail turrets can kill in 3-4, and sometimes even two shots, so it should overheat in 3-4 Shots, and it needs a nerf to magazine capacity.

I think, hardeners are not the BIGGEST problem. Right now you are absolutely right, selection is limited, and there is no variance in the fits.

That is because, CCP isn't finished with tanks. They stripped that variety with intent to add things back in later. It's not that a gunnlogi shouldn't use triple hardeners, it's the fact you can run them non stop.

I'm wondering, how could you go about allowing a ultra high resistance, for an extended time. What negatives are associated with that.

Maybe they could add in a penalty for stacking hardeners, that every mod after the first increases your cooldown time on all modules. So stacking 3 hardeners means you won't be cycling them nonstop.

Whata ya think of that?

Impossible for you because you are a bad pilot

lolface to face, what is this pistols at dawn 50m away from each other? lolno

Dramatically changing them i doubt it, they already did a massive overhaul

OP for bad players, i dont have problems with tanks as infantry