Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed.

EDIT: also the max possible repair rate a Madrugar can get when it has an advanced neutron blaster, is 512.5 HP/s when it has 2 complex and 1 advanced heavy repairer modules on with maximum fitting skills and vehicle armor repair systems to lv5.

Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal.

There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles:

Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is.

Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on.

While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage.

These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close.

This is not the case.

While paying for a vehicle upfront is more expensive, an Anti-Vehicle user is subject to death far more often than the average tanker, meaning that the true cost of AV is their fitting multiplied by their deaths as AV.

Take a look at these fittings.

Here, we have a fully decked, top-of-the-line AV fitting. It's got all of the tools an AVer needs to get the job done, and it's 3rd best AV fitting in the game.

The Cost: 227,490 ISK.

Now let's look at this fitting. Here, we have a Gunnlogi built for Anti-Vehicle purposes. It's also a top-of-the-line fitting, and one of the best Railgun fittings in the game. (I think)

The Cost: 448,020 ISK.

---

Based on my experience, an AVer using this suit can expect to die about 3-4 times on average. So now what seems like half the price of the HAV (227,490 ISK), is actually a cost ranging 682,470 ISK - 909,960 ISK.

That isn't "much more expensive" by any definition. So with that in mind, shouldn't it be the Pilot who barely lives solo?

In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret.

The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry.

Because the bug consistently goes away and you can see when it does, one can evaluate the forge-gun, it's just that you can only evaluate it when the dropsuit and weapons skills kick in when one's armor and shields fill all the way.

THIS POST MAKES ME SICK.

OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV.
AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION.
THAT IS WRONG.

I might make a separate post regarding the ISK balance argument that tankers often make. I think you can make a viable AV fit for around 50K, I also think a comparable tank would be 500K. I'm being generous to the tankers because the argument allows me to be.

If we look at ISK/efficiency ratios at different equipment and weapons what do we find. Let's start with swarms (you'll have to look the numbers up since I am using my phone) STD have 4 missiles as our base. Pay 10 times the ISK , you get 25% more missiles, proto cost 40X and gives you 50% more. Combat Rifle: 10X:10% DPS , 50X:20% DPS

My numbers are off but gives us the magnitude if change we should consider. Let's go with the 10X:25% increase in one attribute as a astandard. If we consider a tank a "module" then spending 10X the isk should give us 25% more efficiency. The fastest drop suit is about 12 m/s, a tank therefore should have a top speed of 16 m/s. Drop suit total HP is about 2500, tanks should have 3125. Continue this with damage and range and you will see where tanks should be to be truly balanced and consistent with the rest of the game.

The funny thing is no one is even arguing for true balance, we all accept that vehicles should be OP and out of line with the rest of the game. We accept that they are inherently unfair and what we argue about is just how unfair is tolerable and makes for good gameplay, but please don't try to convince us that you are owed this level of advantage because you paid more for it.

THIS POST MAKES ME SICK.

OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV.
AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION.
THAT IS WRONG.

In order to lower the sustained dps to 388, the reload speed would have to exceed 10-12 seconds. Obviously you didn't read my post in that thread.

And with max fitting skills, you run out of CPU before being able to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret.

EDIT: After checking protofits a second time, I found that I didn't have blaster fitting skill to 5 on my max skills character. It is indeed possible to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret. Of course, this means you have to leave two slots empty, but regardless I was in error.

THIS POST MAKES ME SICK.

OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV.
AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION.
THAT IS WRONG.

Repair Tanking: I've agreed with this point since BEFORE THE HARDENER NERF. It was a problem then, and now that it's been indirectly sort-of-buffed by hardeners become less attractive, it's more of a problem than it was before.

...

Railguns: Last, but definitely not least. Yes. SOMETHING needs to change. Railguns are meant to have high alpha/burst damage and long range. Reducing the rate of fire would make them less viable as a burst damage weapon, but at the same time, nerfing damage significantly would feel wrong for a railgun. SLIGHT damage nerf and SLIGHT RoF nerf combined should do it - but knowing CCP, they need us to emphasise the "err on the side of OP" nerfbat recommendation.

Railguns were never meant to have high burst damage, only missiles were.

The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, but at this level of effectiveness its far too much.

Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon.

As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay.

I would add a slight tracking nerf for blasters if that's not enough, but otherwise yea.

But missiles are still OP as ****. 1 bursting all day long.

THIS POST MAKES ME SICK.

OP IS CLEARLY A TANKER POSTING GARBAGE TO KEEP CCP FROM BUFFING AV.
AV NEEDS A BUFF. NOW. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

MY PROF 5 WYRKOMI CANNOT TAKE OUT A PROPERLY FITTED SICA EVEN IF I HIT IT WITH ALL 7 OF MY MISSILE VOLLEYS IN QUICK SUCCESSION.
THAT IS WRONG.

You mean because the blaster actually works now its OP? i noticed nothing was ever said about blaster pre 1.7 because they didnt work, it was like missiles back in the chrome days they worked wonders but were again OP, fact is blaster is AI turret more than an AV turret but now thanks to the hardener nerf is can also be more effective against vehicles. If vehicles didnt have an AI turret then why would we bother with vehicles? the HAV has the blaster so it can defend itself from AV and scouts and FG etc, the small turrets are genrally useless for this role unless you happen to use small missile which for some reason make the large look bad for killing infantry even tho i full auto 12 at someone and get next to no splash

Passive repair mods work, but also they are against lore where shield always recharges and armor has an active repair tank unless you use remote reps which we no longer have. Bottom line is we have less choice than we ever had so the same fits which actually work are going to be more popular but that means less variety for everyone involved and half the mods wont get touched again

Its hard to take you seriously when your default reaction is to defend tanks regardless of balance issues. Most vehicle users I know about clearly see the problem with nearly indestructible permanently repairing vehicles. You can never recognize that something works too well when it comes to vehicles.

Before 1.7, blasters still worked, and I still experienced battles where they went 20/0 because of how east it is to get kills with. If small turrets are that ineffective against anti-infantry, then the reasonable thing to do would be to buff them (small blasters require more dispersion, its too hard to hit infantry with them in a moving vehicle); small turrets generally match the killing power of infantry weapons, so its a far more fair scenario. What is NOT the reasonable thing to do is allow an extremely powerful to effortlessly slaughter everything in its path. I am not proposing that large blasters be nerfed, or that they should become unable to kill infantry, I am proposing a change of role by giving them much more damage, and less rate of fire. Large blasters should be the best close range AV turret, and still retain much of their infantry-killing potential, but just less of it.

I can only work with what i have and what CCP have given us and frankly CCP have been taking away more things and nerfing them

Anyway this is the only real answer to vehicles

Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors
Part 2: Armor & Shield
Part 3: Modules & Skills
Part 4: Vehicles
Part 5: Overview

Its hard to take you seriously when your default reaction is to defend tanks regardless of balance issues. Most vehicle users I know about clearly see the problem with nearly indestructible permanently repairing vehicles. You can never recognize that something works too well when it comes to vehicles.

Before 1.7, blasters still worked, and I still experienced battles where they went 20/0 because of how easy it is to get kills with. If small turrets are that ineffective against anti-infantry, then the reasonable thing to do would be to buff them (small blasters require more dispersion, its too hard to hit infantry with them in a moving vehicle); small turrets generally match the killing power of infantry weapons, so its a far more fair scenario. What is NOT the reasonable thing to do is allow an extremely powerful to effortlessly slaughter everything in its path. I am not proposing that large blasters be nerfed, or that they should become unable to kill infantry, I am proposing a change of role by giving them much more damage, and less rate of fire. Large blasters should be the best close range AV turret, and still retain much of their infantry-killing potential, but just less of it.

While I doubt it will truly be the "only real answer to vehicles", I will give it a read.

Blasters are meant for AI. As such they should be the worst at AV, period. Blasters, due to their automatic nature, will always kill infantry the easiest out of all of the large turrets. This is why they must be the worst at AV. Making them the best at AI AND giving them CQC AV abilities is just wrong. I want to avoid the 1.6 blaster Maddy that could kill anything.

Blasters should keep their AI as long as they are the worst at AV. But their AV got a bit too powerful with the hardener nerf, so I think a damage nerf to large blasters will limit their AV abilities once again and also reduce the woes of the infantryman.

Repping fits are fine as they are. They increase their defense against infantry AV at the cost of being highly susceptible to railguns and missiles. I think that's a fair trade-off. Let's not even forget proxies and REs.

Madrugar Fit - two Complex Heavy Armor Reps, one Basic Hardener. Armor still reps against all infantry, and can survive two blaster tanks for long engagements, and survive any onslaught of rails, with enough time to get away. Madrugar can take against both types with relative ease.