Please bring back all the vehicle modules and the logi vehicles.

I don't feel that GÇ£murder taxiGÇ¥ were a problem. It's physics in action. There's literally no reason to nerf physics. Here's what physics looks like in action: Exhibit A

My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.

Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)

To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.

In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.

It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.

This is what I want.

Response time:

* The main reason why Murder Taxis were nerfed is because it was obnoxious. It is the same reasoning you use later: "Because it is a video game."

* I don't buy the "we had better Tank battles before with more diversity" because how to fit your Tank was a problem, not a choice. The Triple Staggered Hardener Madrugar with a Plate, Repair, and a Heat Sink was simply the best option and would kill pretty much anything. Yes, it was more of an active process cycling them so that you had 100% uptime with 2 and like 70% uptime with 3 but it wasn't difficult. From a balance aspect, it was too powerful. I remember watching 3 people constantly shooting at me with their Swarm Launchers as my blaster was both super anti-infantry and anti-vehicle other than high flying dropships. When one role is so heavily more powered than others, it should not be the case "Because it is a video game."

* I don't understand your statement on "those national corps" and "while those that speak English." Insulting and pandering. It moves away from your attempts to be have reasoned arguments.

* I find that your statements on "you should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option" to be based on "because you are infantry." I would than hazard to guess that you would say that tanks should be "the nuclear option" because "they are tanks." Why does one reasoning not work while the other one does?

* I too am glad that AV Grenades were nerfed. They were simply too powerful as a slot that didn't cause you to lose your primary weapon.

* The LLAV and Marauder stuff would be interesting to have. Providing it was balanced, of course.

* Vehicle PG and CPU skills are unlikely to ever return. Vehicles were meant to be the push towards Tiericide that many have been calling for the game as a whole. PG and CPU skills made that far more difficult. It is strange that vehicles follow a different philosophy compared to Infantry at the moment.

* Ehh, the Tank Escalation was not that common. It was fascinating to see it though. It used to happen with Dropsuits too. Game starts basic, more and more deaths, the game gets more bitter, and you have a bunch of people running their best suits. Though, it could also go the other direction. The reason that doesn't happen now is because the SP is plentiful and the people that have been playing for a while have enough ISK to use their best gear all the time. Your memories of Escalation are the same ones that Infantry have of Escalation but like most nostalgia, it is gone.

* Yes, Vehicles have been a serious balance problem. There have been loads of nerfs, this is true. Triple Repair Madrugar is not someone "following Gallente lore", it is someone using one of the best tanks in the game that is pretty much immune to all damage other than massive Alpha Damage. Hardeners were nerfed first though. People went from Double Hardener Repairer to Triple Repairer because of the hardener nerf if I remember correctly, at least I deleted my Double Hardener builds before the Triple Hardener ones. The only complaint I have with the Repair nerf is that CCP acknowledged that it was multiple Repairers that were overpowered but rather than adding a stacking penalty they just nerfed the Repair rates. Screwed over my Plate, Repairer, Hardener build pretty hard.

* Yes, 1.7's AV reduction was caused by Tanks having a 'stat squish.' It wasn't because of your "nuclear option" philosophy. Again, "because it is a video game."

* Tanks were only critical because they were quite overpowered.

* I don't see how you can say that a newbie will kill you if you can't fight back. You can still run, activate hardener, or out maneuver them. Yes, the Railgun glitch needs to die but it isn't like it is different from when it happened before.

* Most of your post has been about tanks rather than all vehicles (I imagine that is what you are most comfortable with?) but now here it is with Dropships. I would agree that Dropships are in a rough spot. It is mostly fly in, shoot some missiles, and run away because the Swarm Launchers are coming to get you. Not super great.

* There are few tank fits now. This is true. However, I would still argue that there was really only one back in Chromosome because of how much better it was compared to the other options.

My take on the situation:
Yes, Vehicles don't really have a hard defined role today. When I am cruising about in my Tank, I am mostly killing other Tanks that are only there because I am killing Tanks. It is a rough spot but the role of the Tank before was "kill all the Infantry and be too difficult to stop." That was too powerful and as much as I miss the wonderful finickyness of the Triple Staggered Hardener, it was a balance nightmare. Vehicles do need a massive rework so they have a reason to exist. Maps made much larger with more people would give Dropships and LAV's more of a purpose other than one time transports to drop Uplinks.

Larger maps with more people would allow Tanks to whack-a-mole locations. Push into an objective, support your infantry with blaster fire, and when the enemy swapped to AV, fall back and let the infantry mop up easier. This is their current design with the "waves of engagement" where the hardener is worth so very much EHP with a longish cooldown but the game is too limited to make the most out of it. Something needs to happen but balance should be the end result.

I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game"

Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's.

5th reply needed

I'm going to assign infantry some homework they can think about night. Despite the nerfs to vehicles and buffs to AV, you continued to get on the forums to call for more nerfs to vehicles and more buffs to AV. There have been times when half the first page of General Discussions was filled with AV and vehicle threads, all saying that vehicles were too powerful.

First, think of that.

Then, think of how pilots continued to adapt to the ever-changing counterbalance of vehicles vs. AV. How you all made those threads, how many of you were so frustrated with vehicles that a good bunch threatened to biomass their characters if things didn't change.

Then, you think of that little tidbit.

If your brain functions at a normal level, you'll start to realize that, well... pilots are actually pretty intelligent. We've consistently come up with ways to make the most out of our fits and skills. We've continued to adapt to changing tactics and tweaks to various little things. We've even figured out ways to beat infantry's lovable suicide cars.

When that's all swirling around in your heads, and you reach that eureka moment, you'll realize the problems you've been having with vehicles isn't us, or the vehicle itself...

It's you.

CCP, if this needs to be moved, please do so. I'm never sure where to put certain stuff, but I do know that General Discussions is the most-read part of the forums.

I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game"

Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's.

The yellow brick Logi Dropship was removed because it was OP, no ?

Maybe If the Gimsnes doesn-¦t have turrets but 7 slots for 6-infantry and 1-pilot and the speed of Incubus, could be an excelent DROPSHIP... for infantry, maybe return the rep-in-ship ... so you can take your squad... move to another point and bring it back to the battle full rep.

We need gameplay modes like Skirmish 1.0 to restore the vehicle role. As long as vehicle users can't simply snipe the objectives, there will be a a strong element of mobile siege/transportation gameplay for vehicles, and close quarters assault/defense for infantry.

Driving/flying in endless circles has always felt wrong. Conquest, blow up the fortress, destroy a series of ground objectives, or anything like Skirmish 1.0 is essential for any modern FPS. We spend entirely too much time in redlined battles waiting for timers to run out.

Please stop saying AV is supposed to be a deterrent, because its not. It is designed to blow your tank sky high. Swarms can't hurt infantry, why should it only be able to scare you off until you have recovered and not kill you? Tanks do need to be made better, especially armour tanks. Also if you want to have sufficient AI capability fit small turrets, because if you want a main gun that wrecks both vehicles and infantry, you're being a douche. You wouldn't like it if an AR did full damage to your tank.

Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?"

Don't get me wrong, I love tanks...but as they are now, they're pulling double duty. Until we get some sort of Infantry Fighting Vehicle for the tanks to blow up, tanks will largely only be relevant to other tanks (assuming that they actually make the tank turrets you know, designed as tank turrets)...

I think we need to introduce the MAV, or at the very least, a variation of the current HAV hulls designed to be close infantry support...something with extremely high EHP and Regen that provides bonuses to infantry around it, and functions as a re-supply beacon and transport for them (see this thread)...

And yes Adamance, I believe we all know about the fitting disparity between Armor and Shield Tanks, although I disagree with the statement that no vehicle should have both High EHP and High Regen, since there is a third factor to base measures off of: Firepower...I'm fine with a vehicle having high amounts of all around general tanky-nes so long as they sacrifice their firepower to achieve that end (see passive regen based brick fit drakes in space...I know they're not really a viable PvP fitting, but they're a cheaper representation of what I'm talking about (not to mention they actually sacrifice their firepower compared to something like a passive Tengu))

Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (by definition of tank)...but they we currently need a reason for them to exist other than to kill each-other

I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game"

Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's.

Op tanks are fine av is fine armor hav needs some love but its fine. Tanks are area denial if your assaulting your doing it wrong. Tanks dont assault heavily fortified defenses. Why? Infantry is the deadliest thing to tanks in real life. Because they arent built for that

The only nerf tanks should get imo is a major reduction in armor repair.
not only do you have very high shield/armor hp but you can use a modifier to reduce dmg while repping.
Ive seen tanks laugh at my adv swarms with 2x dmg mods

It doesn't make any sense to me to spec into a proto weapon that is only a deterrent.

My problem with av is always the same

I have my av scout fit that is not good vs infantry

So when you tell me to "get behind the tank, or wait for that perfect opportunity" what you're really saying is " go waste your time trying to annoy that tank and get killed"

Most have scanners and see me cloaked as I approach from behind, or I uncloak get two volleys out and I'm gunned down by infantry.

So I do some dmg and lose a clone but really all I'm doing is wasting my time.
It is much more fun, effective and rewarding to jihad you
Or avoid you all together with a cloak scout

Fact is infantry need more options to deal with tanks from a distance. Other weapons like lazers should be able to do reasonable dmg to vehicles (if only shields)

I was in a pub match this morning and was up against 3 tanks. Two maddys and a missile gunlogi.
Their infantry was good too
Do I have to go further about the results from that match?
They just rotated around the map.
Couldn't get close to use proxies or use nades bc of infantry
I couldn't get more than two shots off before I was killed or had to run.
Yes we had a forge gunner....we had a forge gunner
Clone reserves depleted.
All three tanks were in the 20's with I think a couple deaths

My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.

Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)

To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.

In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.

It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.

This is what I want.

I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game"

Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's.

Call of Duty >>>>>>>>>>>

My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.

Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)

To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.

In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.

It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.

This is what I want.

I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game"

Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's.

I can agree, taht if a tank is controlled by multiple players it has the right to be that many times effective.

So i second Kaisar's idea.

What im against is 1 Man uber tanks.

I agree that vehicle pilots are a minority. But you have to admit the derpship pilots are the minority of the minority. While its always been tankers vs infantry.... we've had to struggle with derpships vs infantry and/or tankers.

I also agree that the ADS was nerfed too much. But it wasn't when the rate of fire or ab got nerfed.... It was long before that. Til this day I have yet to get a reason as to why the 2nd low slot was taken away. I can not stress how important that slot is for the Cal ADS or the 2nd high slot for the Gal ADS.

Yes they needed nerfs.. but now more than ever do they need that second slot. The OPness overshadowed that necessity... but now that the OPness is gone I hope that everyone can now see why I keep saying that we need that 2nd slot back.