Theres nothing like having a Madrigar survive your 3 boundless packed res, then your 3 Lai Dai packed nades, then your wyrikomi swarms consecutively and still have 75% armor, then 100% a second later. A pack of them together is HELL .

ISK should never buy invulnerability.

Simple question,

can 3 lai dais and a PLC shot take out a dual rep dual hardener madrugar with its hardeners up?

Yes or no?

And tanks are OP?

Either the grenades and a plc shot can or cannot kill the tank described. From there we can further the discussion, but not until you start to acknowledge some facts.

The fact is that an HAV need only roll away when hit by the 1st grenade to be out-of-range for the 2nd or 3rd. If you're suggesting in a 'round about way that AV Grenade toss range and homing capabilities should be buffed, then just come out and say it.

The fact is that an HAV need only roll away when hit by the 1st grenade to be out-of-range for the 2nd or 3rd. If you're suggesting in a 'round about way that AV Grenade toss range and homing capabilities should be buffed, then just come out and say it.

Options:
1. Make repairers active with a cool down time
2. Limit armour hardeners to 1 per tank.
3. Reduce hardener efficiency to 25% again

Also, I think armour hardener needs to have a higher CPU/PG cost, they're awfully low for the benefit they provide and differ hugely from their shield counterparts.

They do need some adjusting. Without their hardeners they're far too weak. With them they're practically invincible (-60.86% incoming damage)

They go from ~5k ehp & ~150ish reps to ~11.5k ehp (presuming the plate, dual hardener & single rep) with roughly ~400 effective reps once both hardeners get activated. Their reps outpace incoming DPS unless you can find some *massive* burst or have way, way too many people shooting at target. Their effective reps get even wilder if they drop the plate for a second rep.

Or something like that, I'm tired and not mathing well.

The problem is largely that this is all done in effective hitpoints, which means that the damage reduction is *insane*. If tanks were to have higher raw hitpoints, and lower hardened values alongside lower proportional reps... people wouldn't be as upset, as tanks would take damage that actually sticks for a bit.

The large other portion of the problem is that vehicles have isk costs that treat them like they're temporary powerups (and yes, isk IS used as a balancing feature in this game, like it or not) so when someone calls out a 1m isk tank they feel like it should 'buy' them a lot of power, because risk vs reward. Another issue is that vehicles take up an absolutely massive amount of SP to be any real good which really messes with their design, as it treats them more as a role than a temporary powerup anyone could purchase... so there's a second hurdle there. Thirdly vehicles lack a very well defined role other than 'roam around and kill whatever you encounter' which further adds to frustrations - If they had a clearly defined role, people would be less likely to pull them out in situations where they're not needed.

If isk costs remain so absurdly high, SP costs should go down, and survivability should probably be retained.
If sp costs remain so absurdly high, isk costs should go down and survivability should be lowered (no one likes dying, but I care less about dying in something that costs 20k than something that costs 2mil).

Vehicles need clear and frequently useful roles, without people getting upset when they perform well in the roles they have (currently people get really upset that some tanks are good at slaying... because well, that's the only identifiable role they have, and then vehicles get nerfed into uselessness... which causes a set of buffs later down the line that breaks everything because they still don't have a role).

Stop avoiding the question.

That you refuse to answer a simple question belies your intent. Are you really trying to become a CPM and you can't even handle a simple question without resorting hypotheticals?

Do three lai dais and a PLC round destroy an dual rep Madrugar with its hardeners up?

They didn't focus fire on anything. No debate about that.

Any time 3 AV focus their fire on a tank, it dies. That is not up for debate, and people who say otherwise have never tanked in a PC. Most of the time 2 will do, but 3 will always do it.

That isn't some long drawn out fight either, its 9 Lai dais and good night. Done in literally less than 3 seconds, no amount of hardeners will stop it.

Every large socket has more than a half dozen spots where infantry can huck grenades from cover. Combined with places tanks MUST travel through to impact the battle in the large sockets, and tank control is trivial for a team in PC.

You don't know anything about PC tanking.

CCP has been trying to balance tanks for awhile. They pretty much flip between "Expensive Butterflies" and "Invincible Death Machines"

My problem is that Tanks fill a very odd role in Combined arms. To Infantry, Tanks are SUPPOSED to be OP as F*CK. They are immune to small arms fire, have insanely more range, and far more firepower.

In exchange, they need to be weak to something. I've always been of the opinion that AV is supposed to be DETERRENT in the hands of Infantry. More of a "Engage and you might die", not "CHASE AND KILL THE TANK".

Tanks need to be on equal ground with other tanks in terms of fighting. Then what are tanks weak against?

Tanks need to be weak to AIR. Dropships need heavier ordnance specifically for taking down tanks. Personally, I think that the main guns on ADS's need to be redone. Make an actual "Missile Launcher" for the ADS, just like the main turret on tank. Would be used for anti-tank/anti-infantry. Blaster would be akin to a mounted Plasma cannon with a larger clip for popping tanks. Rail would be where its at now, with a damage boost.

With all this anti-tank abilities, dropships would still need to be weak to Infantry AV, with their fire and forget AA weapons, they will be able to terrorize dropships and keep them away from their armor.

Now the Weapons Triangle is complete. Tanks > Infantry > Dropships > Tanks.

Combined arms then boils down to this: Tanks protect the infantry, and the infantry protect the Dropships. Dropships then work as both infantry and vehicular support, much like the standard attack helicopter of today.

Since Infantry still hard counter dropships, you can't stick a dropship into enemy territory, as swarms will quickly kill or dissuade attack. They also dissuade Armor from engaging due to damage. With enough AV, infantry can buy enough time to deploy their own ground or air power.

Combined arms is always the way to go, and engagments are won from the Air down. Air Superiority is king.

Just my thoughts on how Vehicles should work in Dust. I'm fully aware that this probably won't happen.

It's funny how many people think AV is OP despite the fact 3-4 guys can be trying to kill a tank and just die in droves. It's no joke that most proto tanks can kill 30+ people and never die, even withstand a major laser strike. The biggest joke is swarms for all that people seem to think their still OP after the latest nerf in their lock on range I have to wonder do these people ever try the other side of the coin?

They keep say jump in a tank and see how bad it is, but when was the last time they chased down a tank that can cut you down in half a second with AV weapons that require you to hit it 3-5 times minimum? Even a militia tank with full proto swarms, proficiency 5 and at least 4% dmg on the war barge takes 3 missiles most of the time. A hardened shield variant is even worse due to the dmg penalty vs explosives. You won't even see their shield bar move when you hit them. Keep in mind with swarms it has zero use against any infantry running around with a huge visual effect every time you fire that screams "Kill me".

Over all I don't mind tanks being hard to kill, forcing half the team to chase them down is a valid role in wasting the enemies time. I do think however tanks anti infantry capability should be toned down drastically. Imo the large turret should be nearly useless against infantry while the small turrets should be extremely effective within 100-150min range max. That not only solves the problem of being to easy to kill and a waste of ISK but their ability to be one man killing machines. I can accept a tank slaughtering it's way threw the map if 3 players are required to operate it. But 1 man tanks going 40-0 is insane.

As it is now not only can tanks work fine without gunners, it's usually a waste of time to have them. The small turrets are largely ineffective and having 3 players ride in one tank is a large waste of man power on a 16 man team. But one major thing to consider when you think about vehicles... if they get nerfed to bad no one will ever get the vehicle kill assist mission done ever again ;)

In your scenario, 3 units manage to sneak into grenade range, and then manage to keep your HAV in grenade range while tossing one grenade after another after another. That's not an impossible scenario, but it certainly isn't a probable one. Don't tanks move around sometimes, especially when taking damage?

The scenario you've provided demonstrates plainly that you have it too easy. What's more concerning is that you seem to think it's OK. Focused Fire from 2 sources should be enough to make you sweat. Requiring focused fire from three or more is imbalanced. And AV shouldn't have to be prototype to threaten you.

A tank can be killed by a single dropsuit.

The rest of your argument is invalid.