I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.

I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.

But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person.

80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights.

Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead.

IMHO, HAVs (with NOS active) should be able to move at roughly triple the max speed for Infantry (think fastest scout with nothing but KinCats in the lows).

If they have no NOS active, they should cap out at double max infantry speed. However, I also am of the opinion that they should be able to muscle over/through most any obstacle that isn't a 90 degree angle that they can get traction with both tracks on.

I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.

I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.

But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person.

80% and 60% could easily break Vehicle vs. Vehicle fights.

Additionally, you'd have to decrease the speed of vehicles, otherwise you'll risk creating an even bigger problem simply because a pilot could easily escape without needing to plan ahead.

No.

I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.

I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.

But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person.

Whats you're debate?

I'm for limiting hardeners to one per vehicle, and I've suggested that myself. But in return, hardeners need to resist more. 80% and 60% for shields and armor respectively.

I should be nigh unkillable while my hardener is up. It should take multiple AV users focusing all the DPs they can muster to break through my hardener.

But when that hardener turns off, I better have killed all the AV, or have infantry support, because I should be relatively easy pickings for one AV person.

Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models.

This is what most QQing AVers don't consider.

As it see it

LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP

MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Medium Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP

HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP

Agreed, but their lower HP values will cause them to suffer if AV receive direct buffs to damage models.

This is what most QQing AVers don't consider.

As it see it

LAV- Light Scout, Anti Infantry Small Turrets. Low ISK, Low SP

MAV- Infantry Support, the link between infantry and vehicles. Medium Turrets, or Utility Vehicles. Medium ISK, Medium SP

HAV- Vehicle busting, durable, but slow, requires multiple gunner to have anti infantry capacity. High ISK, HIgh SP

Then CCP needs to set AV damage models permanently. And balance vehicles properly around them.

What I fear from direct AV buffs is not anything regarding my HAV, but regarding how the current, and new, smaller frame vehicles will be able to operate, and be balanced.

That and logically speaking for every AV buff you must scale up the large blaster damage models, as it makes no sense for smaller weapon to do more damage than large vehicle mounter counter parts....

Oh and down with the Large Blaster!

lol, why you idiots keep on asking for more tiers? That would further break the system. It's bad to go deeper in a hole; it's better to dig yourself out.

I've yet to see an AV counterpart of the Blaster Turret, but the only way an 80GJ Blaster buff would be balanced is if you were to increase dispersion and decrease the RPM

Also, AV weapons are high alpha, while 20/80GJ Blasters are machine guns. Why wouldn't it make sense?

What I want for vehicles?

Lower Ammo Count

What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill.

As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo

However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have?
Agreed 100%

Lowered Blaster Turret Range

When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots.
Agreed 100%
No Hardener Stacking

I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite. Agreed

Relevant AV Weapons

Swarm Launchers

Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm.

Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well. I'd rather see range to go up by more than 15m, maybe 250-300m total

Plasma Cannons

Increase Max Ammo count to 12.

Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO)

It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy.

Agreed 100%

Proximity Explosives

Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you.
Meh...

Remote Explosives

Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives)
RE's are fine

Nerf Bolas

This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP.

-HAND