There is a mistake in your post. Forge Guns actually have a +10% modifier towards armor.

I have to disagree with that part where you state that shield based vehicles should be able to resist and repair through a vehicle.

To begin, this throws balance completely out of the window, because it requires a dedicated AVer to spend an outrageous amount of SP to remain viable against both vehicle types.

It costs 5,907,480 SP to max out the skills for the Swarm Launcher. Take the SP and double it because youGÇÖd need an Anti-Shield AV weapon to remain viable as an AVer. Now weGÇÖre looking at a whopping 11,814,960 SP. And thatGÇÖs just for the weapons alone. Throw in some accessories such as Weapon Upgrades and now weGÇÖre looking at 12,436,800 SP. This is far too much SP for a role that is only useful when someone brings out a vehicle; which wonGÇÖt be a guarantee once they are no longer broken.

Some could argue, well vehicle users have to spend that much SP, so why canGÇÖt you? Well for one, a vehicle user can use their vehicle at any point and time, and still have use for it. While there are some maps that limit how useful a vehicle is, they can still manage to be of some service with it. AV on the other hand, relies on the enemy team fielding a vehicle, which as I stated earlier Is not a guarantee, and it wonGÇÖt even be close to one once HAVs are balanced. Half of your SP for a role that has only 1 use, and its use will sometimes not be used at all? That doesnGÇÖt sound right.

Furthermore, there is still only one Anti-Shield AV weapon in the entire game, and that is the Plasma Cannon. If you make it to where Anti-Armor AV weapons are useless against shielded HAVs, then everyone will flock to the Gunnlogi, as the only effective way to destroy them (using conventional AV) would be either the Plasma Cannon (which isnGÇÖt effective at all), or another HAV. I donGÇÖt believe I need to explain why making HAVs the best or only counter to HAVs is a bad idea (at least in its current state) and how it is bad game design.

Awaiting your next post.

Oh before I forget, I think 60% shield resistance should be at proto level while 40% is militia/standard. 60% is too much resistance for no SP while 80% at proto is game-breaking. And keep the current cooldowns. 45 seconds of cooldown is long enough at max skills for proto.

You're a tanker? I've never seen you before. Did you pick up tanking when 1.7 came out?

To be honest, IGÇÖm a bit weary with increasing the price by too much. While I do agree that you should not be able to lose 4-5 HAVs and turn a profit, I believe every role should be able to turn a reasonable profit. If we made HAVs cost about 900k ISK, what would happen when they are lost? YouGÇÖd be forced to run another role to grind ISK, and are effectively locked out of a role that you spent a majority of your SP into.

I agree that there needs to be a consequence for loosing a tank, but lets not make it to where only the wealthy and elite few can afford to run HAVs consistently.

[...]

that's a lot of numbers which you have no means of testing of verifying in any way shape or form.

at a glance your hardener numbers look to high, blaster accuracy looks too low (40m, my scout has a passive scan of around 40m), swarms need a fix(see judge's video). buffing rail damage? no. just no.

regards Ko6, chromo tanker

I like it, although you won't be able to tell the difference between standard swarms and proto swarms before you get hit. Also, will they still travel at the same speeds, or will they increase with cost? Or will that be the new assault swarms. I don't see many people using assault swarm launchers, so maybe if you gave them an increased flight speed, they would become more common. Anyways, +1 for the original topic

I'll keep this short as it turns out my next video contains my full reply. And I don't mean this in a nasty way; but everything you suggest in the OP (post 1; not the continuation) will not help at all and will in-fact make things worse. I can't type up a response as it's way too much. But Suggesting an 80% resistance module shows a limited understanding of the mechanics of the vehicle damage model. I almost stopped reading as soon as I saw that.

That said, I do approve of the effort and thought you put to this, I just think you missed the mark by a long, long way.

You seem to have given some thought to this but from my point of view all you are suggesting is to make tankers who have invested in tanks be nearly unbeatable. 8.1 forge hits to kill a tank is reasonable? Have you ever tried to get 9 forge hits in a tank?

I disagree. Hardenes should not make tanks almost invincible against AV. Why should tanks get hardeners at all? Drop suits don't get magical hardeners? Your answer will probably be some variation if "because it is a TANK" . That is not an answer but merely a reiteration of the question.

To objectively look at AV/tank balance we first have to get rid of any preconceived notions of what a tank should be and do. First, it is like a suit that goes over another suit, you can run precisely the same suit I am using in your tank so any disadvantage the tank may have is completely negated by the fact that you can jump out of it. Therefore besides cost a tank confers only advantages. What are the advantages? Invulnerability to most weapons, and a 400 or 500 percent increase in HP, plus a regeneration ability, a 700-1000 percent increase in speed. A 400-500 increase in DPS.

What is the argument for why this should be? ISK expenditure. A MLT tank cost 70-100K, less than a proto suit. A fully fitted tank costs 10 times that but look at the perfirmance/cost ratio on any other gear or suit and you will see that tanks are not commiserate with cost. A proto suit costs 10 times as much as a STD suit yet the performance is probably less than 50 percent better; STD to Proto weapons the ratio is even less. MLT tanks confer a 2000 percent cumulative bonus, with no disadvantages, for the cost of a second STD suit. A really good tank may cost 6 times as much as a proto suit but it confers a 3000 percent cumulative performance increase.

This is not balanced with any aspect of the game. The only reason it is accepted at all is because everyone come with preconceived notions of what a tank is.

THe issues is the way swarms apply damage. In some cases the two damage modles mean as little as 45 damage difference between the two methods, but with swarms its a huge deal. that 45 HP, as I show in the video is the difference between shields regenerating or not. Makes a very noticeable impact on balance.

The video has a nice example that I hope will make it clear. The first 25 minutes is done (i know..loooooooooong, but this stuff is complicated) Wrapping up the special effects and edits tomorrow. It turned into another rail tank type video. Make sure your brain is in gear when you watch it and have a beer to hand.

You know shield dont regen as fast as you would like to think....not in EVE...not really in Dust..... just pointing that out.

Nothing stops shield regen...to my knowledge....but I am sure that is wrong.

My only point is Shield get a regen without a module to compensate for their lower HP values, and make use of instant regen modules. Arguably very useful.

Armour is not supposed to have lesser reps, armour reppers in EVE cycle pulses whilethe module is active. Its not as useful as a 1 off boost, or natually regen, but its designed to be in between and reliable.

I personally would love to see shield modules for the low slots like armour to boost rates to move away from dual tanking.

Not in terms of repping but mobility takes a hit on armour tanks, will be worse with the Amarr HAV, and resistance module being 20% less effective.

Fitting option on Shield tanks also seem to be better.