I'm going to assume you were here pre-echo. right? If not people considered Madrugar's inoperable and asked for it to get a buff all the while people wanted a nerf on the Shield side of things which basically caused what we have now... A more extreme case of what we had pre-echo...

What we got out of these two sides is what both sides wanted... A nerf for one side and a buff for the other which ends up giving us a worse version of pre-echo...

Which basically means the only thing that has changed is the face of the "op" tank...

It is a problem because Versatility in HAV's is key. If the Gunlogi can be stepped up just a tad from where it was in echo as far as fitting capabilities... I feel like tank battles would be put onto a whole new level.... That's just my input

After my visiting family Go home I'll check out the new HAVs.

Overpowered isn't likely to be my assessment honestly from what I am hearing so far.

there are too many factors at work not being addressed.

the original problem with the maddrugar was that it did not have the fitting to field a propper defense vs a gunnlogi that had tow low slots to boost it defenses. if the gunnlogi didnt have those two low slot then the gunnlogi would have been equal to a maddrugar.

the simple fix wouldve been to simply increase the maddrugars fitting.

---

the issue with the gunnlogi will always be its ability to use low slots to field a better defense.

to keep shield tanks and armor tanks from dual tanking, we shouldve use a fitting reduction bonus to them so that shield tanks could fit shield modules without an issue but not armor modules. the same for armor tanks. then we adjust the fitting to allow for "proper" defenses without the need for fitting mods on shield tanks but also leave them without enough fitting for armor mods.

use a percentage bonus to reduce fitting costs. so that armor mods can have crazy high pg costs that get reduced to nothing on maddrugars but remain for gunnlogis.

---

the cpu cost of shield hardeners is crazy. yes

the fact that armor hardeners last longer than shield hardeners while providing equal bonus with cheaper fitting costs? thats just wrong, and should be changed.

lower the armor hardeners to 30%. why? because they also effect armor reppers. by reducing incoming damage to to levels low enough that the armor reps can rep through them. thats a problem because armor reppers are passive, so they never stop. you currently cant kill a dual hardner maddrugar with a gunnlogi because the gunnlogis hardeners stop before the maddrugars. and neither tank can kill the other before its hardeners end.

Well at that point it comes down to secondary attributes the define the differences between the two which gives shields advantages over armor's higher eHP. This is admittedly more difficult to balance, so it may be simply more viable to make the resistances different. I was honestly shocked at the choice to move armor from 25% to 40%. I expected something more along the lines of 30-35%

If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd remember that large turrets take up well over half of your PG

At this point the only thing that makes sense is to give shields the original 60% damage reduction to hardeners. Unless Ratatti is looking to slash armor hardener duration to 24 seconds base from 41 or whatever they are.. his shield nerfs so far make no sense unless hardener efficiency increases dramatically.

I don't believe continuity between EVE and Dust is necessarily a negative thing. In fact your yourself have said the earliest builds were some of your favourites if I am not mistaken. Those builds are arguably the closest to EVE mechanics Dust vehicles have ever been exposed to.

Rather than reverting back to a figure we know was bad, in a climate where multi hardener stacking is rife, and one that was changed because of its imbalance we should look to other values. I'm sure there will be many suggestions.

For a whole six seconds 20% extra resistance is rather unreasonable don't you think? Consider of course how easy it would be to exploit fittings using two such hardeners and being still able to attain very competitive raw shield values.

The large difference between armor hardeners and shield hardeners (15% difference) was a huge contributing factor in the power difference between the two taking styles. Moving Shield hardeners to 60% would bring back the same problem but even worse with a larger (20%) difference. That really seems really counter intuitive to me.

Let's reduce the fitting on the shield boosters, get the regulators in the low slots, and at least for the time being match the duration of the shield hardeners to that of the armor hardeners, and see where things play out over the next couple of weeks. I think you've said yourself that some things can't be figured out on paper, so lets just make some minor corrections/fixes on the most glaring issues for now and see what needs to happen after that.

Regulators would also need a cut in fitting requirements; for a passive module it uses up a lot of PG and it also takes up a slot that could be used for fitting mods.