Out of curiousity...

What do you mean Active Tanks, and passive Tanks? And What do you mean Damage over time, and burst damage?

(when you describe these can you include the weapon as well please to clarify a little more.)

It's quite the opposite in EVE

Active tanks are tanks that rep damage to negate enemy damage for long enough for you to kill them.
Passive tanks are buffer fits that are supposed to last long enough for you to kill the enemy through attrition.

I say this every time and I will say it again, fck that noise. There is absolutely no reason AV shouldn't be able to solo a tank, at least on the same tier. Here's the kicker about the video and what you said, that tank ain't any where near being proto. Sure it's likely got complex reps but it's still a standard tank being shot at by proto swarms.

Again, to anyone that says AV shouldn't be able to solo a tank up to it's tier, f u c k that noise. It should be a challenge for standard AV to take out a standard tank with basic or enhanced modules or but not fcking impossible and proto AV should be able to kick that same tank around like a tin can. Of course that last part is for when proto AV can be balanced against proto vehicles at which point it'll be as hard to properly fit complex modules on a std tank as it is to fit them on a std suit now.

Though I can agree that as it stands now with only std vehicles it should take effort to solo them with proto AV but standard AV should still actually stand a chance against a fcking standard vehicle.

Also in regards to tanks specifically, the "it's a tank" argument only works against weapons not designed to kill it; it does not and will never work against weapons specifically designed to kill it.

Not a dev, just a player.

Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.

In a pub, that's never going to happen.

Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.

This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally

1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker
2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player
3a) proto AV vs proto tanker
3b) proto AV vs standard tanker
3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1)
4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well
5) efficiency against infantry
6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.

Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?

Aah and so the truth comes out, it should require a tank to kill a tank?
Where is the balance in that, please explain it to me

After all if you are being redlined by a squad of tanks its game over right, you should just leave the match!

Oh by no means am I saying a tank shouldn't deal with a tank, that's like saying a HMG heavy shouldn't kill a HMG heavy, it just shouldn't be a requirement, you should be able to use othe methods.

Personally I have no quarrell with a large turret killing infantry provided, it's not nearly as effective against infantry as it currently is.
If I may reference titanfall which has done the whole infantry vs vehicle thing rather well.

You can solo a titan as pilot, though a variety of methods, my favourite the lightning gun inflictsnearly a third of an atlases health in 1 shot, but it requires getting enough time to charge the shot, at the same time, titans will carve through grunts like there is no tommorow, but the mobile and fast pilots provide a relative challenge.

I can contribute some tanks for testing if need be.

@Monkey MAC

When disproving the SP argument, it should also be noted that even if the AVer spent less SP (which has been proven false), the SP the AVer spent may only be used if the team has called out a vehicle; as opposed to the Pilot's SP that can be used at any time.

(Albeit to a lesser extent due to maps such as Iron Delta).

Isn't that what I just said?