You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.

I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.

Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.

The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).

1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.

2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.

Solution:

You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.

Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.

Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time.

We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.

Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.

There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.

A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.

Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.

Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.

Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.

Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.

The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.



I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.

Suggest, discuss.

I'm going to go out of a limb here and suggest that HAV universally weight more than 100 tonnes a piece given the super dense alloys used in their base construction, weight of additional protective plating, internal systems, not to mention being designed to accommodate a 2.5m tall super soldier.

Normal MBT's are huge enough especially when you get a look at the internals of something like a Challenger..... ones designed for cloned soldiers would go far beyond conceivable proportions and trying to imagine something twice as big as a Challenger or M103 (old school I know) is very difficult.

1: The constant idea that hardeners are the main problem of why HAV's, particularly Madrugars is still silly to me, because they didn't change much about the system (eHP actually went down because of hull and extender/plate nerfs). I'm perplexed as to why people still haven't figured out that the repair change is what caused this shift of a massive Maddy meta after rails have somewhat been brought to Earth.

2: Adding situational modules would although be nice and a step in the right direction doesn't solve the main problems, and wouldn't change the fact that our call for a nerf is misguided.

3: I still don't see the point in this. AV doesn't need general damage buffs, they need to be given niche and be tweaked accordingly. Having all of them in general being good AV is part of the problem. Also, I don't get the reason why a giant shot would do less damage towards a smaller target vs. a larger target.

4: The blaster does need to be reworked to become more of a "Large Turret", but to help with Cal HAV's use them to fight Gal HAV's with blasters? No, that doesn't even make sense considering the damage it does, plasma, which is more hard hitting towards shields in the first place. As for a reduction in %, Same as #3; it's illogical.

5: "Missiles" are certainly not getting their instagib flow back. Nerf the damage, and they can have a fast reload. Might as well rename them to rockets while you're at it.

6: As I said in #3, they need to find their niche, not just get general buffs. We know that general buffs simply don't work.

Repairs are part of the issue now that they are passive and constant. It is that in conjunction with the Hardener changes that have ruined HAV combat. The issue is not total raw HP or EHP it is the great disparity between the two and one that gives rise to periods of night invulnerability or utter vulnerability as opposed to a happy middle ground in which HAV have a respectable RAW HP value and are supplemented short term by active repairs and low yield hardeners.

My objection to this is why can't we have both high yield hardeners and to be able to have the high passive tank? Having this either or situation is just boring, and it won't help differentiate between the racial vehicles if we can somehow actually get a port.

kill the fuel injector module on tanks.

then see how maddys perform without their crutch

Then remove myrofibs and any other movement enhancement module from infantry.