Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me.

The primary problem is the imbalance of Jihad Jeeps versus shields and armor.

A tanked gunnlogi who hasn't been sucking on AV fire for a little bit can survive an impact.

A madrugar with the same ISK/SP investment cannot.

I will definitely admit that this is indicative of a problem. While I would like to see the gunnlogi brough to the level of the maddy, there REALLY needs to be options for the maddies to take explosive damage and not collapse like a punk. The Gunnlogi needs to retain the ability to trump explosives as well.

I'd like to see the efficacy of standard RE's dropped by 30-50% versus HAVs only and then the Gunnlogi raw survivability dropped. The packed REs can do full damage to HAVs but their blast radius makes them less of a sure thing with JLAVs.

A major part of the problem is that the baseline tanks are not roughly equal in power and survivability. I see this as a problem.

Honestly my wishlist would be all things being equal a maddy takes 4 forge shots, a gunnlogi takes 5 at best overall tank. (I'm assuning the hardener timer has run out and it's either recharging, or you haven't activated it)

But we'd need a shield busting weapon that takes out the gunnlogi in 4 and the maddy in 5. there needs to be some kind of parity where the weapon you bring to the field to kill an HAV whether that is a Forge Gun, PLC, Heavy Rail Turret, Heavy missile Turret, Heavy Blaster Turret swarms or what have you, there is another equally effective (not identical) weapon that can do the same to the other tank.

It's possible to have an asymmetric battle if one side has the right type of tank and guns to weather the assault of the enemy and the enemy doesn't have the tank or the correct guns to do the same.

Another thing is the turrets on HAVs desperately need a rework. I think they should behave more like cannons. Not everyone agrees with me and I can respect that while still arguing.

But they need to have SOME reasonable utility versus infantry because it's the purpose of Infantry AV to fight, drive off and destroy enemy vehicles. It is NOT the job of Infantry to maker the players of HAVs feel impotent and helpless in the face of oncoming fire.

my wishlist for how many shots an HAV should take to destroy is a guideline for a non-hardener active. THe "waves of opportunity" concept is a respectable one, and if Tankers have to time their attacks just so AV should absolutely have to follow suit.

I don't think that being able to mount two or more hardeners and keeping them always up is great design space though.

Finally... variety. There isn't enough variety in fittings. Too much crap was homogenized into the base hull. What happened to people who were willing to suck up the old horribad slow tank speeds in exchange for monster tank? Oh wait, they're gone because most of the modules were made obsolete by the changes packing most of the bonuses into the base hulls.

The biggest b*tch I have heard from vehicle drivers (and running my Maddy Pilot Good Lord do I agree) is that the fittings we have for vehicles is lackluster. I blame the fact that vehicles are now hull-centric rather than fitting-centric. When tanks are fitting centric you can HAVE variety on the field. You can have glass cannons. You can have slow, overtanked demon boulders of atrocity. You can have a balanced loadout.

right now there's a cookie cutter.

Right now the gunnlogi and madrugar are the vanilla tanks with the sica and soma being the cheap seat tanks.

If the Enforcers are supposed to be the murderers of vehicles where does that lead marauders? What do they counter?

IMHO the marauder job should be suppression of infantry and support AV rather than primary AV. Make it so the gunnlogi and madrugar can fit for AV or Infantry suppression but neither does the job as well as the marauder/enforcer.

If we aren't going to pre-define a role, then give the drivers enough options that they can CREATE a role for themselves on the field.

Breakin, I agree mostly on that quoted post there. My biggest point of contention is that I think Gunnlogi's should not be nerfed down to current Madrugar levels. I feel the Madrugar is too weak against AV and Gunnlogi is too strong (admittedly this might be largely due to current AV damage profiles). I think for now I'd like to see the Gunnlogi get a slight nerf and the Madrugar a slight buff to meet in the middle of where they currently are.

note my 4 shot kills are dependent upon you not having a hardener running pokey. Not only that but the IAFG (the only viable forge) and the plasma cannon are grossly underperforming versus the gunnlogi currently. The PLC is bonused for shields.

1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out

I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.

2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken

Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.

3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV

To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.

4. Vehicles have no variety

Agreed. I made this point as well.

5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now

I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.

6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising

The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.

1. JLAV are fro scrubs, HAV are easy to take out

I note that only HAV drivers are defending the overtanked Gunnlogi. Re-read where I said that REs should eat a nerf because packed (AV) REs exist that are harder to use on a JLAV.

Gunnlogi isn't overtanked, it's just the better hull with better mods and has resistance to 2 turrets and 2 forms of AV. The Madrugar is the really weak hull, having terrible PG and CPU with terrible reps because all infantry did was complain, and CCP bent over backwards to accomodate you.

2. Your 150k AV fit is all proto/adv at minimum and can destroy most tanks in 4 shots with no reload needed, BASIC HAV cannot fit all PROTO on it and if you add small turrets its more expensive - SL is the easiest AV weapon in the aim and requires nothing to use it, fire and forget and points come your way and its still broken

Re-read. My 4-shot wish is with a hardener turned OFF. If HAVs must obey waves of opportunity, AV should have to be patient and seek an opening.

But AV isn't patient, and fire at the very first opportunity. Don't shoot a shiny, that's all there is to it. I had a PC a few nights ago, with some mad forge gunner on a building and a terrible redline tanker shooting me from his redline. It's not hard to destroy a tank. I went blaster because we needed it - I still destroyed his tank: because experience.

3. To make a HAV that will stand a chance of surviving PROTO AV against a BASIC HAV with PROTO modules then you need 15mil SP and up into vehicles, even so half the skills offer no bonuses yet the infantry equivelent do and also its cheap to skill into AV

To make a proto AV fit that will consistently gank vehicles (Sentinel ONLY, I haven't built a real light AV fit) you need a similar SP investment or you're basically putting up a sign that says "EASY WARPOINTS." My AV fit alone is WELL over 20m SP on each of the sentinel suits because I made damned sure that my SP focus was on AV, everything else was secondary. So attacking and surviving long enough to pull the kills, which means maxed cores and armor/shield skills.

You're counting core skills, aren't you. The forge gun is one weapon. Infantry core skills don't make a weapon better, it just allows them to fit better modules. Our core skills only make the armor repper better by itself - everything just makes our active mods last longer and cool down better. Aside from the aforementioned repper, our core skills don't make the mods better. Then there's turrets, which require level 5 in everything to get the most out of them. Infantry weapon operation decreases CPU usage by a small percentage - we don't have that for our turret operation.

5. Chrome was fun, Uprising (ignoring the heavily broken swarms and AV nades) was fun at least in PC where you could take on 2 HAVs and a FG whacking you and win with experience, modules timing/usage, core skills - Essentially uprising without the SL and AV nades at OP levels but yet with all the variety for pilots and useful skills and bonuses would be more fun now

I wish we could just revert to chrome for AV/V. That... was... FUN. Even if the other infantry whined about the Marauders. I had fun soloing them, even if I was burning through 5-7 proto suits for each burn down.

I'm surprised you'd say that.

6. Half the ideas in the this thread are trying to nerf the Maurauders before they come into the game - 5/3 slot layout should be standard and 4/2 for the basic HAV - Add in all the modules from Chrome and Uprising and HAV vs HAV damage from Uprising and in my book would be perfect - Even the FG from Uprising was perfect - HAVs were useful in PC in Uprising

The AV would have to be buffed for a 5/2 and 2/5. there is no getting around it. AV is balanced for CURRENT HAVs. So if you got your wish and Rattati makes a tier up, the AV (except swarms) would need to be buffed accordingly. Because your Vehicle driver argument that there is PRO AV but not PRO vehicles means that because the PRO AV is balanced against a STD vehicle it would have to be stepped up accordingly.

AV has consistently been buffed for well over 2 years, probably more like 3, while tanks have been nerfed that whole time. Enough with the AV buffs. Seriously, they don't need to be buffed anymore. Rattati is designing tank destroyers, and conversely, tanks with great defenses. You shouldn't be the end-all nuclear option, ever. AV was balanced around the idea of ADV tanks, which the Enforcers were not.

Oh I don't disagree with that, but even so I feel like for being an armor vehicle, my overall raw HP is still a little too low. That's why I'm a fan of the 180mm plate with a steeper speed penalty.

You're also compromising before the horses are even in the gate. If Rattati takes your ideas, we won't have the 180 plates back, and the Madrugar and Gunnlogi will still only have 3 HP slots.

@_@ What are you even talking about? I'm still a fan of the 4/2 and 2/4 system.

Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him.

Indeed. It's frustrating when I try to have a conversation and people just want to act insane.

Though, Breakin, thoughts in general about Madrugar's current HP from an AVers perspective? I feel that given current mechanics I have to bail out a bit too early when facing AV, particularly Swarms and Forgers due to the damage profile. I know you've used Maddys a bit yourself, what are your thoughts on it? Would a heavier plate with more HP and speed penalty be reasonable?

Maddys are four shot kills. three shot for a non-optimal fit and an utter rapefest if you get in his back quarter. I've tested this stuff from BOTH sides and it doesn't matter what you fit.

Four shots with a modded or unmodded IAFG. Two from the weakspot. Period. End. And that's with optimal skills from all I can see. The presence of a hardener on a madrugar does not change this equation.

In short, Spkr IS correct in that the madrugar is UP. Because the maddy cannot take advantage of the waves of opportunity the way a gunnlogi can ABUSE them. The Maddy needs to be able to fit no less than it's current EHP, at least ONE rep, minimum and have a functional hardener. The hardener ADDED to the madrugar EHP would do wonders for all of the fits because right now there is no functional difference between a madrugar with one plate and a hardener and a maddy with two plates. there's no real efficacy addition.

Without that waves of opportunity function the maddrugar is, and will always be the joke on the field.

Until he stops acting toxic towards everyone you should ignore him.

So with a 2/4 layout you could be looking at something like 180mm Plate + 2 Hardeners + 1 repper for your average fit?

that's because you never read what I say. You take statements out of context and go berserk.

It's why I mock you relentlessly.

When you keep going on and on about how difficult it is to destroy vehicles, yet I get completely annihilated by national corps, it makes your half-argument look pathetic by comparison.

Let's just assume the 4000 HP stays and the plate gives 2827 Armor HP. That's far from final numbers but lets just go with that for this exercise.

So
1200 Shield
6827 Armor
x2 25% Armor Hardeners

eyeballing it? I'd say keep the HP totals, replace a hardener with a rep and up the hardener to 40%

Just by RAW HP... that's a four shotter. five with one hardener, maybe six with both. Like I said, the hardener would be better at 40% and remove the ability to double stack them.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the shield armor interaction. But versus a maddy unbonused... if the readout is to be believed I'm doing around 2175-ish to armor direct. So call it... most likely four shots because the first toasts the shields and bleeds through so 9 second TTK with no hardener. After efficacy falloff the hardener's just over 40% anyway...

six shots tops to blow that madrugar up with both hardeners running concurrently.

See I don't have an issue with double stacking hardeners. Burst tanking is a common thing in New Eden so it fits here as well, imo.

So 4 shots...9-10 seconds against a non-hardened full health Maddy....gives time to get the hardener(s) up and running. I assume max skills for the forge, is that a damage modded fit?

that's because you assume I'm having a problem killing madrugars. Get over yourself.

takes a little more thought to kill a GOOD tanker than LOLpointandshoot.

It doesn't take any thought. Get 3 forge gunners behind a tank in a LAV and that's a dead tank. No thought

I run AV solo successfully. Your example is irrelevant to me. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if THAT is going to be the example you present when we are all WELL aware that teamwork is OP.