1: That armor list can be shortened, as a lot of those don't make sense as AV (locus grenades? Really?)

2: Nope, adding in new weapons would suffice.

Any time you make a weapon "neutral damage" you INCREASE it's overall efficiency rather than reducing it.

And adding new weapons can be done without overstraining the game. Heavy lasers can use the forge gun model and largely steal mechanics from scrambler rifles or laser rifles.

Or we can add more shields.

Av flux. Same flux we have but with an av varient.
Laser rifles with full damage to shields.
Hmg can out rep shields.
Take a re and make it gallente, working like a flux.
Flux mass driver? Just Reskin.

Thats 5 weapons that can be used without adding a new weapon.

First of all, locus grenade is not an AV grenade, merely a grenade with higher armor centric effect on AV opposite to flux grenades, contrary to, say, AR, Scr, RR which's effect on AV is negligible low. Same grenade rationale counts for AssHMG, FlayLock, Massdriver. Therefore in the list, therefore it makes sense. To clarify, AV does mean HAV here, not LAV which can be downed by even a SMG now (done that...ridiculous).


Nope adding new weapons is way more work for similar effect and puts more strain on system, where de-straining the existing appears a bit more important and reasonable to me as a first approach. New weapons can be implemented after, but I already mentioned that, didn't I?

Or we can add more shields.

Av flux. Same flux we have but with an av varient.
Laser rifles with full damage to shields.
Hmg can out rep shields.
Take a re and make it gallente, working like a flux.
Flux mass driver? Just Reskin.

Thats 5 weapons that can be used without adding a new weapon.

1: Can you reasonably and reliably kill a HAV, DS, or LAV with a Locus grnade, FL, MD? Hell no. That's why they don't make any sense. By that Logic, NK's should be on that list. Hell, every small turret should be on that list before those things.

2:: No, it's not a similar effect, it would be giving them a damage profile they were not meant to have, changing the balance of them. No.

No thanks. This idea is not in the interest of a strategic game

Idk...

But normalization takes away the super effective, and makes it effective in both cases.

If it's normalized, it got to have a damage reduction. IMHO

Or we can just add more Anti-Shield AV weapons and problem solved?

Adding new and more weapons and content in general is always welcome, to everyone I guess.
I only wonder what will be faster to implement and balance: new weapons or old weapon tweaking?

in this case everyone but a small minority will fight the idea like rabid dogs. because it's a bad idea.

Please, I implore you, read first, before you move. I did nowhere talk about reasonably and reliably killing AV, I was talking about inflicting reasonably much damage, more than the scratches the AR or RR do. Yes, I could have listed NK as well, but did not yet know where to place it, and small turrets were left out due to redundancy. Moreover, the weapons I mainly mentioned for hybridization were AV Grenades, Swarm launcher, Missile turret. ForgeGun and PlasmaCannon, Blaster Turret and Rail Turret were still untouched, and the first mentioned ones do have greater impact on AV than infantry wherefore they kinda qualified for hybridization in the first place. RE was the exception here, as it does kill infantry as good. Giving it damage profile neutrality was an idea because no clear shield centric RE exists as a counterweight atm and I did not want to suggest flooding the market with more weapon specializations to chose between when fitting.

"The damage profile they were meant to have", what is that supposed to be: an argument for everything to forever be untouched and unchanging, as it was "meant to be" this way? Safe the balance?
This is nonsense and I think you know it. Every patch or hotfix had changes of some sort for our existing balances as a result, and things meant to be does not exist in this context. We discuss here, because balance is missing or off, and making balancing and standardization easier what I was aiming for when proposing to roughly mirror the amount of anti-armor weaponry to anti-shield AV, not by making some anti-armor weapons anti-shield or adding new variations to the anti-armor arsenal, but by placing some anti-armor weapons in-between the metas: +0/-0

And you are allowed to believe that. Without more arguments that a simpleton "No. Is bad, is no." I fear there is not much to discuss with you, or to be taken serious. Additionally, your belief says nothing really about the rest of the community, which is why this post is welcome to everyone else who likes to contribute and exchange ideas, preferably in a constructive manner.
But thanks for participating.