As far as I'm concerned, one player = one player, regardless of what he's wearing or driving. So your assertion that a tank should not be solo'd always has and always will fall on deaf ears. Until a Dev says otherwise, I'm not going to quit pushing that.

However, I fully agree on the cost. Part of this is to push tank costs down so that losses of vehicles can be sustained and a single vehicle will not bankrupt a player if it explodes. If a tank is a role, then it needs to be sustainable by itself, not by being too obnoxious to deal with. Which means tanks need to follow dropsuits in the "expendable asset" category, rather than what they are now, an inducement to ragequit if I pop it for you.

And as said before, single hardener was the least asinine of a host of bad solutions. It was literally the only way I could make the numbers work in a sane fashion, mostly because of the passive reps.

The other option that would have worked easily would have been a significant buff to AV alpha.

If that were to happen Dropships would become extinct. And I don't want that.

I still maintain that a transition to active, rather than passive, reps is the right call. Gives another point from which to tune values.
We also need to look at the situation of value in each type of HAV when considering 'one player = one player' because a HAV with two gunners on board then equals three players and balance needs to account for that in some manner.

TL;DR it for me please.... what is the more central axis of balance based around.

And reverting the shield changes and a buncha other crap.

The fulcrum point is balancing AV weapons to Vehicles is balance by intended time to kill. The suggestions for this balance method and the suggestions for benchmarking are actually what I consider most important: establishing a method. Numbers and specifics can be shifted up or down as needed and at will depending upon results.

And no, it will not make tanks useless. It puts the benchmark madrugar fit at an identical TTK to the closed beta sagaris solo. That's hardly "worthless."

Bear in mind all of my proposals are designed to be easily shifted up or down the curve as needed in entire. I want to set things so that, were this proposal adopted and tebu correct that tanks are too squishy, the curve can be easily shifted to compensate.

A solid method trumps any numbers I can pull out of my ass any day of the week. And a solid method will make it easier to find the sweet spot.

But there is no room in a balanced environment for a single player to require 2-3 to kill.

Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective.

I actually agree with Tebu Gan on this one, specifically because he also specified "with just the main weapon".

I think that Swarm, Plasma Cannon, and AHMG users should be able to solo a tank, but only if they also have AV Grenades, or start with a Flux, or the tank is stuck and can't get away, or some other factor. A solo AV'er should only be able to solo a tank if they are lucky, or are supplementing the limitations of their main weapon with something else.

I would make an exception for Forge Guns though. First because Forge Guns are a ranged weapon, so you can't exactly pair them up with an AV Grenade. Secondly, the Forge Gun is an aimed weapon, with a charge up time, that can only be used by a Sentinel (with all the limitations to movement that implies). These are limitations the other weapons do not have. So I am fine with a Forge Gun being able to solo a tank, but it should not be easy.

I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal.

The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability.

I disagree. Anti vehicle weapons are anti-vehicle weapons. I feel that heavy weapons need to be dual purpose rather than ungodly and unreasonably more powerful.

The same applies to turrets. Making heavy turrets gimped against infantry by more methods than rotation speeds can create some issues.

Infantry should always be a threat unless they take no special effort to be so. By the same token, HAVs should always be a threat to infantry.

Problem with most dialogs is people willing to meet in the middle usually get drowned in a sea of bullsh*t when it comes to AV/v. Honestly I wish balance hadn't swung so hard that the community feels that one must have proto AV to avoid getting schooled without hope of reprieve by HAV and ADS.

I don't think that there are any easy fixes. Honestly we'd need to know more of rattati's intent for vehicles ultimately.

actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs

Honestly that might be the least idiotic way of going about it.

so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good.

For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footscrubs, but the UHAV would be the low DPS, splash weapon having death mobile that AV has a hard time dropping

with MBTs in the middle providing a baseline.

I actually wrote the proposal with the intent that the main battle tanks act as the baseline.

with four shots total in the magazine?

Waste of ammo and effort