Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed.

Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down.

tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage

tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point.

scenario 1
both tank and av are viable in this scenario

a tank is wrecking a group of infantry,
an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank
the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model)

if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield.

the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot.

scenario 2
tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario

a tank meets another tank on the battlefield.

neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even.
this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules.
a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo.

scenario 3
in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended

an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off

you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets.

the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets.
The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets.


discuss.

Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed.

Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down.

tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage

tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point.

scenario 1
both tank and av are viable in this scenario

a tank is wrecking a group of infantry,
an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank
the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model)

if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield.

the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot.

scenario 2
tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario

a tank meets another tank on the battlefield.

neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even.
this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules.
a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo.

scenario 3
in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended

an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off

you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets.

the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets.
The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets.


discuss.

@Dunce Masterson
A logi can't self repair at all AND they can't repair other people while firing their weapon. A tanker can do both with the most eHP of anything in the game WHILE doing the most damage in the game. Hardeners and reppers make them UNKILLABLE by anything but another tank OR 4 or 5 FGers (because of FG reload times). All while being able to quickly reach 110km/hr and boot out of a sticky situation. You can't even whine that tanks are expensive because they are about 1/6th the price they used to be and twice as powerful (a major cause of tank spam).

I have never thought it was fair in the past that a single member of infantry could take out a single tank. In 1.7, though, even an expensive tank costs 300k or 350k ISK. This isn't the old days where PRO fit tanks are 2mil ISK and MLT fit tanks are 400k. My PRO Logi fit costs more than your average tank nowadays and I die MUCH easier.

I think this idea is completely fair. You want to dish out absurd amounts of damage and kill infantry in 3 hits (or 1 hit with a good missile or rail shot), then you have to leave your hardeners turned off.

Either this idea or:

Add capacitors to Dust like they have in Eve. Using blasters and rails, or using active modules costs Cap. When your cap is dry...you can't fire or use hardeners or a speed booster. Using missiles doesn't cost Cap but make fitting a blaster/rail add a large amount of Cap. Either that or make a missile specific chassis that has lower Cap.

Frankly, Eskimorris' idea is something the devs could implement without hardly a breath whereas the Capacitor idea would take a good deal of time to develop.

Before you tow the tired old "you aren't even a tanker" crap...I have an alt account with 7mil SP. I used to run blasters on armor in 1.5 and now I run shields with missiles. Tanks are hard to drive, I will admit, but dish out stupid amounts of damage, can absorb more damage than anything in the game, can become nearly invulnerable to harm with two hardeners running and are faster than everything except DSs (including LAVs at top speed?!) AND barely cost more than PRO infantry fits.

You'd like my other idea for balancing tanks even less...haha.

This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage shortens by 5-10 seconds

That last part certainly sparks an idea.

Hardeners provide huge resistances, up to a certain damage limit. So say the hardener deactivates after 30 seconds of runtime OR after absorbing 6000 damage, just for example. AV would then have a reason to actively attack tanks with resistances active.

i have a dedicated vehicle account and your idea is terrible the simple and most effective solution to balance tanks is to restrict them to only one hardener like only one speed booster is allowed to be fitted this will give them time to finish off 1 or 2 more targets and get the hell out of their so the infantry can go back to shooting each other.

This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage expended shortens by 5-10 seconds

As some one with 20m SP into all vehicles and mainly tanks, this is perhaps the only viable way to change tanks. I believed that only one of any specific module should be fitted to any tank. Also the removal of militia tanks or severely lowering their potency is needed aswell.
Yes I know this is not real life but think of a militia tank as a T-55 or M-60, these tanks are good for what they are but they cannot stack up to a Soviet era T-80 or US M-1. To have it where a militia tank with a rail gun with 2+ù damage mods can take out anything on the field aside from a tank with double or triple hardners is not anywhere balanced.

Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed.

Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down.

tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage

tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point.

scenario 1
both tank and av are viable in this scenario

a tank is wrecking a group of infantry,
an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank
the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model)

if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield.

the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot.

scenario 2
tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario

a tank meets another tank on the battlefield.

neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even.
this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules.
a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo.

scenario 3
in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended

an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off

you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets.

the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets.
The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets.


discuss.

.

obvious troll is obvious

obvious troll is also obvious scrub. please articulate your concern. Are you saying tanks are fine and need no balancing? Please day something less idiotic k thx.