This is wholeheartedly agree with. With Shield regen able to be halted, Shield tanks need that extra resistance, especially considering that their hardeners are also both shorter lasting and longer cooling down.

So, the AV vs HAV situation aside, instead of looking at how we can nerf Madrugars what can we do to bring the Gunnlogi up? I think that is where we should start..

I don't think we should bring Shield HAV up to a competitive level alongside armor HAV while we have two modules breaking tanks on a fundamental level.

These being Armour Repairers and Hardener Modules.

With the modules so broken what value would there be in bringing Shield HAV up to match?

Right right, I cover that in my previous post. I'm starting to think that the problem isn't Hardeners so much as the Armor Repairers, honestly.

But Shields -do- need to have their technical issues ironed out, don't you think? How is it fair that boosters are intended for a quick recovery but don't work while under fire whereas Armor Repairers work regardless?

Right right, I cover that in my previous post. I'm starting to think that the problem isn't Hardeners so much as the Armor Repairers, honestly.

But Shields -do- need to have their technical issues ironed out, don't you think? How is it fair that boosters are intended for a quick recovery but don't work while under fire whereas Armor Repairers work regardless?

Yes and its good that you are seeing this. They're the greatest part of the problem however it extends further than and into the Hardeners that as I see it. In this case I'd argue we need tanks less reliant on those modules as they are killing tank fit diversity by being too useful.

Rather than have low raw HP and massive eHP I'd argue we'd need higher raw HP values with less prolific eHP buffers.

A one hardener limit would doom shield HAV.

Spitballing: What would happen if Armor Hardeners only were limited to one / loadout?

Thanks for confirming this.

The biggest reason Madrugars are considered overpowered (by those that do feel that way) is now they are able to remain highly resistant for long periods of time without needing to retreat for longer periods.

Simply put, they repair too quickly. I, personally, feel that they both move too quickly (able to retreat out of harm's way) and can take too much punishment without flinching. Basically, one repair under one hardener grants too much effective resilience. Look at the following example.

A PRO Forge Gun (1400 damage per shot), Prof 5 (1656) and Profile (1822.)
A Madrugar with one PRO Plate, one PRO Rep, two aHardeners: 1200 Shields/4585 Armour

One PRO Rep repairs 137.5/sec with L5 Skill. This is roughly equivalent to 1/13th of each FG shot. Given a charge/fire rate of, let's give a rough time of five seconds per shot (charge time plus lining it up) that means that the FG is 'winning' by 8/13ths per shot. If you understand what I mean? Essentially it's out damaging the repairs by 8/13ths.

Vs one Hardener each FG shot will deal 1822*.6= 1094
Now, each second of repair is equivalent to 1/8th. Now the FG is 'winning' by only 3/8ths per shot.
We also have to consider that the FG only gets four shots before it reloads (6 seconds with Max RR.) ((1094*4)-(137.5*15)= 2314. The Madrugar is roughly at half armour. Now the FG has to reload (6 seconds) which grants another 825 (2314-825= 1489) meaning that the FG damages the Madrugar at only 1489 damage to armour per clip: it will take four clips of that FG to kill this Madrugar. That's roughly 84+ seconds of continuous, accurate fire. Against a single Hardener and a single Rep (Well the Hardener only lasts for 48 seconds: which is where a second one comes in, I guess...)

(*15 is 15 seconds of repair, as the first shot will have done no repairable damage during the charge, unlike the follow up shots)


If a second Hardener is added, that damage is now 1094*.656= 718
The repairs are now equivalent to 1/5th. Now the FG is actually neutral with the repair rate: no damage is actually 'sticking' to the Madrugar.
Factoring reload time, the FG has no possibility of killing the Madrugar, even if it make no attempt to evade.

Essentially, the high resistance granted by the armour hardeners combined with the incredible and unstoppable repair rate of heat armour repairers makes Madrugars essentially unkillable unless attacked by three or more players.

While mathematically the numbers might support the AVer (I doubt it, actually, but would need to run the numbers further*) the typical battlefield situation supports the notion that the HAV will survive, due to the actual mobility of it.

2516 (previous damage to armour) + 76 = 2592 damage to armour is still insufficient to kill the Madrugar.

Applying the Warbarge bonus to the 'No Shields' situation I ran gives an armour damage total of 2930: sufficient to kill the Madrugar assuming a 0.5s of repair (137.5; 2792.5) but insufficient if the Madrugar has a full 1.0s of repair (275; 2655.)

This is still assuming that the Madrugar is entirely immobile/the AVer is able to land all three grenades without the Madrugar moving enough (which is perfectly possible with a Fuel Injector.)

Essentially, the math is extremely close to killing the Madrugar for a perfect ambush, but any kind of imperfection sees the Maddy survive. Similarly, however, if the Maddy hasn't activated its hardeners then it is definitely dead.

A one hardener limit would doom shield HAV.

Having to play here is the doctrine, drive it or die in a fire, also, when you see AV run far, run fast is not exactly entertaining gameplay is it?

[Is my proposal on making Armor Repairers active again acceptable?

Having to play here is the doctrine, drive it or die in a fire, also, when you see AV run far, run fast is not exactly entertaining gameplay is it?

You assume we can't buss shield gardeners to account for a limit. 60% for instance.

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 .

On the blaster note, I think CCP should just make them AI.

On the blaster note, I think CCP should just make them AI. They've tried making them AV and we still don't use em' to that full extent. CCP ain't never gonna make an IFV for this game, So why not make the blaster what we tankers always used it for - Killing infantry.

Besides, When CCP turned the Blaster into a more Compressed AV version, It chews through shields like nothing. Even double hardened shields. Its all swiss cheese to an Ion Cannon. Again, I say one of the main problems here is lack of turret availability for variants and race.

Also I don't think the XT-201s needed to be messed with.

Those are the turrets you camp CRUs with for free kills, right? Aren't they already pretty good at mopping up infantry (and everything else) as is?

Do you know what a compressed blaster is?

Those are the turrets you camp CRUs with for free kills, right? Aren't they already pretty good at mopping up infantry (and everything else) as is?

If Large Blasters are officially rebranded as "AI", then I'm thinking they should be reduced to crap when used in any AV capacity. Thinking the guy who whips out an anti-infantry blaster tank should lose pretty much every time when up against a proper AV missile or rail tank. You know, for balance for stuff.

I don't play many single player games these days. Is that the best gun to use against the bosses?