Just looking at my suggested fit would you consider that "fair" or could you see ways to abuse it?

Also consider that under your model and armour tank will require 2.5 cycles of a rep module to return to full HP, that could be up to 30 seconds per module activation with a down time of 30 seconds again..... that roughly equates to the same down time for armour HAV.

The more I talk about Drake Tanks the more I can imagine 3 man squadrons with 2x 10K Passive Tanks and one light tank behind the lines fully equipped with Remote Shield Reps.......

The whole cost for the column would be well over 5 million ISK...... and wholly reliant on that small HAV to keep them alive.

I think that with the new 300WP OB that drops almost instantly, the shield tanks have now something real to fear. I destroyed many shield tanks with friends using this OB tonight and it's an amazing technic!

Just saying tho^^ I don't know enough about tanks to deal with them much more than that x)

IMO, gunnlogi should stay where they're at while removing the ability to dual tank. That's the biggest problem is when I see 3000 armour 4000 shield gunnies on the field. Maddies should rule in ehp, like 6000 ish armour, along with a choice between either a active or passive rep. Maybe 75 hp/s for a complex passive and 450 hp/s for 15 seconds on a complex active rep. Please tell me how bad my suggestions are.

Besides the Scriptures this is my Bible.

what about increasing armor plate hp values?

again, current av vs vehicles is fairly balanced. is reducing shield tanking hp necessary because it's OP, or because armor plates are too weak?


also, its a very strange thing to note, that armor is superior to shields PASSIVELY. a passive tanked shield tank is not as good as a passive tanked armor tank. but an active tanked shield tank is better than a active tanked armor tank. active shield modules have much shorter duration than active armor modules.

do you think that perhaps we should flip things around? make shields much more rep focused, and armor more hp focused? what about damage mods? arent they supposed to narrow the eHP gap between armor tanks and shield tanks?

I feel that they are enough anti shield mechanics in place that we dont need to nerf shields, just yet. id be interested in seeing how the new warbarge strikes do in future meta.

yes but isnt that what av'ers have to deal with anyways against shield tanks? im thinking we could increase the plate HP to provide the needed raw HP for the hardener to make up the difference. they really wouldnt have much more eHP than shield tanks.

the armor tanks dont have enough cpu to stack damage mods. and they dont have enough eHP to survive getting instapopped, but that ok IMO because missile are the counter to armor. what we need are lasers to counter shields.

also we could rebalance damage control modules to be more effective( if we can bring them back). perhaps an active variant that gives an additional 50% damage reduction for 3-5 seconds? just enough time to survive the initial volley and react to the threat?

the vehicle landscape has always been incomplete. even if we brought back every module and tank variant, we would still have gaping holes of missing content. we either balance with the goal of having the missing content in the form of placeholders, or we balance with the idea that we wont be ever getting the missing content.

oh no, not a damage mods. damage "controls". they are different. high slot module that works like a hardener and gave 10% damage reduction with no stacking penalty. it was basically a back up hardener for armor tanks

i read that document last night. i want to read it again a few more times though. it was a very good read. i just want to make sure i understand it all first

Im not sure what CCPs vision is regarding the place of vehicles but from what I observed over the past 2 years it seems that shields are suppose to be alpha tank. While armor is more anti av, tanking small sustained damage over time that would otherwise break shield regen cycle.

You cant tell me you want armor gone from the low slots, and less base regen, and less effectiveness on shield hardeners.

164 to 82 is a 50% nerf. Cant compare that to armor that reps without delay. New miny flux OB rain on me every ******* minute. & Im not sure where the 5h/3l talk is coming from. I haven't seen any of that confirmed or even hinted. But then again im not very involved on forums :(

If PDU and effective passive regen modules return, then we can tweak numbers. But im not waiting 3 minutes for full regen. This is not EvE. Im playing a lobby shooter.

*side note* - Anyone bothered by the extreme saturation of the battlefield by OP 12k hp free turrets? Or the fact vehicle specialists cant really play ambush........and the game has like 3 game modes total. Lol 2 games total if you a dedicated pilot.
Or the fact we working hard to balance and discuss stuff, then jihad jeep rolls outa nowhere. Or you have a awesome tank fight, win by like 800 hp, then the loser of the tank fight pops out last second and boom its a min mando with swarms I never hated a dev so much as I hate Rattati. Now he wants to buff proxy mines. Oh did I mention every noob and their mom can shoot a fukin flux from the heavens on my Cal tank?

Go ahead and push for a bigger nerf to shield regen. Not like it matters in the big picture.

Thanks for organizing and compiling all the stuff though. Read your google doc...good stuff. And you not even a CPM. LOL!

Unlike Pokey I am willing to keep suggesting adjusting both shield regen AND hardener values.

When a Shield Tank Passive Tanks it should have comparable HP to an Armour Tank that is passive tanking.

When a Shield Tank is active Tanking it should have comparable regenerative capabilities to an Armour Tank that is doing the same thing.

Slot layout?

1. If Surya and Sagaris stay as a 3/2 layout then there is no point in using them and they are worse than before, its like having a proto amarr logi suit being 2/2/2

1. If context you mean keeping it the same to make up some numbers then yes i did

2. Slot layout will only effect EHP numbers but either way if they are worse than the old Sagaris and Surya then they will not be worth it unless the reduced slot layout is to make way for proto HAVs then i could deal with it

1. Best to ignore slots and work on basics of tanking but the problem is also the reduction in useful modules and what happens if they eventually make a return, plus possible skill bonuses and useful skills

2. Need to really see everything that they plan to bring out and make some theory fits with everything upto level 5

Well then, infantry slot layout should stay the same from STD to PRO. Sound fair?

Also I'm going to have to disagree with your analogy. Marauders and Enforcers are no Prototype Tanks, they are Specialty Tanks. So comparing a Standard Amarr Assault with a Standard HAV and then a Prototype Amarr Assault with a Marauder, is simply incorrect. The proper analogy would be Comparing Prototype Frame Suit to a Prototype Specialty suit. The slot layout doesn't differ much, if at all, but people still prefer the Specialty Suits. Why? Because Bonuses are a substantial benefit that the Frame Suit lacks. So while I am not against the idea of increasing slot layouts for specialty vehicles (Hell the Assault Dropship has 2 *less slots* than the Standard Dropship), I also feel it is unreasonable to innately expect an increase in slots, simply because it's a specialty vehicle.

Pokey, have you ever tried tanking consistently? If not, what makes you think you know the direction vehicles should go in? We just tell you how to destroy us, not the direction infantry may go in, unless we have significant SP into infantry, which I now do. 5 PRO suits and weapons, which means I have a voice with infantry. I also love being in a tank, so I have a voice there too. If you don't have SP in vehicles, then you have no voice as far as vehicles are concerned.

Both the Marauders and Enforcers were ADV tanks. There's literally no reason they can't have the slot count of something that's ADV level.

Because contrary to what you think Spkr Pokey current has the best break down and rebalance of the issues presenting in modern tanking.

Tanks in Dutst 514 aren't tanks, tanks that resolve with no damage vs AV fire are not tanks, tanks that regenerate their HP too quickly are not function like tanks should and I know Pokey understands that.

As pilots we cannot have the best of bother worlds. Cannot have eHP, mobility, AND regen power.

So you supposedly have been tanking, yet want to severely limit an ADV tank by keeping the same slot layout? You're an idiot and should find another game to ruin.

1. Yes you can, lets take the 4 races, Minmatar - speed/dual tanking, Amarr - Armor tanking, Gallente - Reps, Caladri - Shields - then you can look at how many mods you have for each area such as speed, shield, armor, turret modules etc and build around that and decide on slots

2. Take vehicles - You can improve alot in a vehicle, its far bigger than a suit and requires alot more to make it work, if you take a standard tank on todays battlefield you can improve various things such as the gun/engine/suspension/radio etc and to compare a HAV to a dropsuit it has 10times the PG/CPU and require modules which require more PG/CPU than a suit module
2a. Take Planetside 2 - Every race has a Lightning tank, fast light kinda weak but they also have a specialized vehicle beyond that which is tougher and stronger and can hit harder than a Lightning tank
2b. World of Tanks - Take the Heavy tank, as you go through a nations Heavy tank tier the tank itself will generally have thicker armor, a more powerful gun, sometimes it may forfeit thicker armor for a faster movement speed and better traverse or maybe a heavy top turret to support a more powerful gun which having a weaker armor but overall the next tank in line has more HP and better stats in someway even tho there is the odd tank which is terrible than the previous tank (Churchill VII you are the worst tank ive ever used)
2c. The ADS in DUST, you can argue it has less slots so it can be more agile and move faster but really for a 8x skill it needs to have a bonus that reflects what it has to give up which is 1 high and low and frankly the bonus does not
2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle - Now when you get something more specialized its generally better in all ways than the basic HAV, thus i do expect more PG/HP/Shield/Armor/Slots, i dont expect a better turret because they are out, i dont expect a faster top speed because it has more basic HP and slots for modules but i do expect something to be worthwhile when its a x12 skill

Yeah, because I won't compromise enough on vehicles for infantry to be satisfied.

2d. HAV in DUST stands for Heavily Armored Vehicle

1. Its both, mentioned in the description, it should be both but the majority of the time im not on the attack unless its against another vehicle im on the defence against AV since i dont want to die

2. I noticed you are only going on about this 1 point, i know i debated your points since i went past 4 but yet this is the only point you are yapping on about, looks like i might have to make another Sagaris thread