Note to infantry:

You should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option. We've been telling you for over a year how to destroy us, tailored to individual vehicles. You've never taken our advice, instead sticking to your idea that you should be the end-all solution. I've said many times that a Wiyrkomi Breach is able to destroy an armor with base HP in one shot, but you've never believed me. It's called the rear end. You get 167% efficiency when you hit a tank in the power plant. The PRO breach at proficiency 5, on a Caldari sentinel could vaporize a tank in one shot. You all kept saying GÇ£you can't do that, it's impossible,GÇ¥ yet forget that infantry weapons have a headshot multiplier. Tanks have their multiplier in the back. But, you never wait for that perfect opportunity, choosing instead to engage it at the very first opportunity you get. That is when the pilot is aware, and more often than not has modules ready to go to prevent them from being destroyed. You cannot take out a tank in such a manner, unless it's a MLT tank, and the pilot has no clue as to what to do.

The previous Packed Lai Dai AV grenades did around 2000 damage each, after the armor damage bonus if they hit a vehicle with no shield. Those are nuclear baseball, and rightly deserved a damage nerf, and should get another one, to keep with AV being a deterrent. Swarms should do less damage, as they now travel faster than an assault dropship can fly, along with being able to travel 400m, avoiding obstacles, going around corners, and flying an inch above the ground to hit vehicles that are below the plane of a road. Forge guns are good in that they require aim, but again, should do less damage to vehicles in keeping with AV being a deterrent. The plasma cannon requires more aim and timing than the forge gun, and oddly is the only AV weapon that has a damage bonus against shields.

I'm not familiar with EVE lore, but that sounds odd to me.

General:

LAV: fast transport around the battlefield on the ground - lightly armored vehicle.
- Logistics LAV: slightly slower than the STD LAV; remote shield booster for vehicles, remote shield transporter for infantry; remote armor repairs for infantry and armor, separate modules. The remote modules should be area of effect, as the old modules were very difficult to use, doubly so when there was enemy fire and a vehicle or infantry needed repairs. When first activated, the driver was able to freely move the direction to lock on to whatever needed shield/armor, then the direction was locked back forward; the driver was able to move once the lock was established.

HAV: hulking behemoths of the battlefield on the ground GÇô heavily armored vehicles, able to take a beating and dish out punishment, putting the fear of God into the enemy.
- Marauder HAV: slight speed reduction from their STD level counterparts, able to throw higher damage at the cost of top speed. No more than a 75% reduction in speed when the siege module is active (infantry have called for them to stop moving completely, but there is no combat without movement).
- Enforcer HAV: slight speed reduction from their STD level counterparts, able to take extreme punishment at the cost of top speed. No more than a 75% reduction in speed when the siege module is active.

Dropship: rapid air transport around the battlefield GÇô able to take enough punishment to drop troops on the field, then leave the area to pick up and drop off more troops where they're needed.
- Assault Dropship: Fast flying, damage dealing ships with high agility. Missile variants for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle. Small railgun for strictly anti-vehicle work.
- Logistics Dropship: Slow flying, heavily armored with the sole purpose of moving troops around the battlefield, able to remotely repair vehicles and infantry, with an on board mCRU, no side turrets. Remote armor repairs and shield boosting should be area of effect in a cone shape pointed towards the ground. Should be high enough that it doesn't have to scrape the ground in order to use the remote modules.

Modules, current and proposed modules to return:

Shield extenders, shield boosters, active shield hardeners, remote shield boosters (infantry and vehicle), passive shield hardeners, active armor repairs, active armor hardeners, passive armor hardeners, remote armor repairs (infantry and vehicle), active damage modules, active coolant modules, CPU expansion modules, active scanners, powergrid expansion modules, nitrous injectors, afterburners.

Proposed skills:

Marauder Operation: +2% duration to siege module per level
Caldari Marauder Operation: +5% rotation speed to railgun/missile turrets per level
Gallente Marauder Operation: +2% rotation speed to hybrid/blaster turrets per level

Assault Dropship Operation: +2% damage per level
Caldari Assault Dropship Operation: +2% rate of fire and ammo capacity per level
Gallente Assault Dropship Operation: +2% rate of fire and ammo capacity per level

Logistics Dropship Operation: - 10% reduction to mCRU spawn time per level, +5% remote module range per level
Caldari Logistics Dropship Operation: +2% remote shield booster rate per level
Gallente Logistics Dropship Operation: +2% remote armor repair rate per level

Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote module range per level
Caldari Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote shield booster rate per level
Gallente Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote armor repair rate per level

Enforcer HAV Operation: +2% to duration of siege module per level
Caldari Enforcer HAV Operation: +5% shield resistance per level
Gallente Enforcers HAV Operation: +5% armor resistance per level

A triple rep tank is not following Gallentean lore. It was an exploit developed by players and masked as legitimate gameplay. No Gallentean ship will ever use triple reps.

Maybe 2 at best. One Ancillary and one standard.

how can you expect physics to affect infantry but not vehicles. i shouldn't have been surprised to see a 1 sided argument from you

your examples are 1) a car hitting a soft unarmored target. if that was a statue made of steel the approx size and weight of a dropsuit that vehicle would be destroyed also. if that vehicle hit a wall it would be destroyed, if that vehicle hit another vehicle it would be destroyed. 2) as for the guy getting crushed. well its all all down to ground pressure. dust vehicles don't slowly run over a soft target exerting its whole weight on one spot. its spread out. this is the reason tanks don't just sink into the ground. you can run over someones legs with a tank and not break a single bone.

hit a reinforced object like a wall and that tank is going to take huge damage. i have seen it before in RL a tank hitting a rock and virtually splitting in 2. i know what you are going to say and that this is not rl and we have shields etc. well so do dropsuits and physics is real. you can't have real physics for 1 thing and make up the rest for yourself.

i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way.

so that means a swarm hitting a flying vehicle will violently shake it, a rail hitting a tank will slow it down and shake it throwing off its aim slightly. vehicles colliding will destroy each other or have them sustain hugh damage

also why do you feel the need to always blame the infantry. you reap what you sow. you constantly place vehicles above all other playstyles like they are the most important things and i know you will turn this into me being anti vehicle like you always do but i never have been. i'm anti players with your attitude in every role that that thinks they are something special and that every other players views are irrelevant.

When jumping from 400m to the ground you guys have inertia dampens. I propose you take those away because those don't exist and make infantry have real physics. I would also take away the stupid strafe as well. Any person strafing with that speed is gonna break those ankles on the first change in direction. Let's also make it say 2-3 bullets kll any suit because that is more realistic. Lets make it so a missile from a tank will kill any infantry within a 8m diameter of where it lands. You know, you might as well give tanks really really long range like they gave in real with range over 2+ miles and unherd of accuracy. We should also make it more realistic because is real, tanks moving at top speed of 50 mp/h can hit a target the size of a plate from 2 miles away.

We should also add the fact that infantry have weapons that can severely injure newer tanks are destroy older tanks in a shot.

Trust me, you don't want realistic conditions.

Can I get a tl;dr?

Note to infantry:

You should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option. We've been telling you for over a year how to destroy us, tailored to individual vehicles. You've never taken our advice, instead sticking to your idea that you should be the end-all solution. I've said many times that a Wiyrkomi Breach is able to destroy an armor with base HP in one shot, but you've never believed me.

It's called the rear end. You get 167% efficiency when you hit a tank in the power plant. The PRO breach at proficiency 5, on a Caldari sentinel could vaporize a tank in one shot. You all kept saying GÇ£you can't do that, it's impossible,GÇ¥ yet forget that infantry weapons have a headshot multiplier.

Tanks have their multiplier in the back. But, you never wait for that perfect opportunity, choosing instead to engage it at the very first opportunity you get.

That is when the pilot is aware, and more often than not has modules ready to go to prevent them from being destroyed. You cannot take out a tank in such a manner, unless it's a MLT tank, and the pilot has no clue as to what to do.

The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences.

You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par.

Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs.

What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs.
I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks.

Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways.

I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot.

Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot.

Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits.
It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV.
Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem.

The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool.

For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players.

I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :(((((

You wrote so much text for someone who knows they won't be taken seriously. Though since we are balancing around Physics, I'd like to make 2 Propositions:

1. FGs Destroy Vehicles in 1 Hit; Sends DSs Into Orbit.

Forge Guns are powered by a capacitor, which fires magnetic slugs traveling at 3000m/s. That would be enough to not only destroy any vehicle imaginable, but would also send what's left of the remains about 3km away from the impact, which is the size of about 2.5 maps.

2. Firing 20GJ & 80GJ Turrets Kills The Pilot

20 Gigajoules is enough force to turn a Metropolitan area into a parking lot, which would surely destroy the vehicle that it's mounted onto. If they're using an 80GJ? Well, lets just hope that those corporations have Planetary Insurance.


Actually, Pilots are supposed to be a deterrent.

Back in the days of 1.1, Infantry have been telling you how to survive AV, and even supplied multiple methods of surviving different types of AV. You've never taken their advice, and simply stuck to the idea that you should be the god-mode class that goes 50/0 each-match.



Unless you're fighting a Sica with Base HP, that's not happening. Dispite you and ES's claims, this has been proven several times by multiple people. Then again you're both terrible tankers so I wouldn't be surprised if a MLT Swarm Launcher 1HK'd you.



Would you mind listing and presenting the data given to you by your multiple trials and tests you've performed to come to this conclusion?

Surely someone who's calming to know the actions of a community as a whole would have evidence to back it up, right?

Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology.

Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two.

- Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV
- Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse.
- Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds.
- Lack of Modules
- Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV.
- Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV
- Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier.

Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs.

I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel.

The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out.
The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG.

The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great.

Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You would go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari.

Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs.

I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel.

The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out.
The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG.

The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great.

Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You wouldn't go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari.

You learnt all that from the redline?.

K den.

Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP.

That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design.

Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP.

No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry.

I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank.

Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well.

Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60.

The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV.

I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi.

Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV.

Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff.

This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs.