I have yet to be popped by a knifer...

The nk vehicle damage thing, was always a bad idea imo. The only reason it got deployed was a very vocal group at the time.

I understand, they are space future knives...
Guess what.. I'm in a space future tank.


@Godin. You remember a very different lds than I do. I had my prometheus stacked and skilled. I could bumble in all wood bee style, float right over an objective, and let the team pour out. I honestly used my lds more than any other vehicle back then, due to its nigh-invulnerability. It could take so much punishment.

The reps were gimpy, agreed. Getting low enough to use them was garbage. I did enjoy the free mobile cru though.
Idk, different strokes I guess.

I'm actually OK with jlav, it is New Eden. XD

I'm not. I'd rather the LAV have enough fire power to threaten HAV and ADS.

the only successful nova knifings of tanks in-game that I have ever seen were staged by the people involved to "prove" that nova knifing tanks was unfair. pretty much every single nova knifing vid could have been countered by a hard drive into the redline.

Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms.

Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance.

Better HAV balance is the goal, right?

KNIVES ARE ONLY GOOD AV AGAINST RETARDS, IF YOU DIE IN A TANK TO KNIVES ITS CAUSE YOU STAYED STILL. the knives shoulld never be nerfed just cause a few good scouts managed to kill your dam tank, like honestly its a cqc weapon, if your being knifed you probably have RE's on you already and are gonna die anyway.... and also wouldn't you want to have the hardener cap and then bring back logi vehicles first so you can have those balanced as well rather than just get things 'balanced' and then new logi ds comes and then that turns out to be op with the mods or something like that. but also what exactly needs to be balanced? can i have a little list of what needs to be balanced so we can all see whatss 'wrong' at the moment?

1. Priorities, TA. Here we are in yet another HAV balance thread, and once again we find pilots scratching heads, dragging heels, and tiptoeing around serious and longstanding balance issues. Yet somehow, the same find the strength of mind to reach consensus on something that "the other side" has that they don't like ... something with little-to-no effect whatsoever on True HAV Balance. I'm glad you guys have made up your minds about Nova Knives, but just how many of these HAV "balance" threads will there be before real solutions for real problems are put forward?

2. Consider the cloak. It is truly bad, and yet dropsuits are limited to one per loadout. If CCP can find reason to limit something that's largely ineffective to one per loadout, why should they not do the same with something that's overly effective? Perhaps more importantly, if doing so would improve HAV balance -- which it would -- why would you and other pilots oppose it? Is it not the goal of this thread to find ways to improve HAV balance?

3. Let's assume that CCP oops'd one day and gave the best Assault suit in the game two light weapon slots. Would you expect that suit to account for some of the most popular fittings? Would you expect that suit to outsell and outperform available alternatives by wide margin? Sure, fixing the oversight would upset many an Assault user and put to pasture many a "most popular" overpowered fitting. But it'd still be the right thing to do. Right?

Free Perspective:

Very Vocal Scouts
* OP from Uprising 1.8 to Uprising 1.10 (254 days)
* UP for nearly a year prior and UP for over a year after

Blaster Madrugars
* OP from Uprising 1.7 to Present (761 days)
* "Don't touch my permahardened Blaster Maddie. It's popular!"

---

If you don't like the nk vehicle damage thing, then by all means propose that CCP remove it. Scouts are accustomed to getting their toys taken away, and there aren't enough left to raise much of a fuss about it. Go for it. Seriously. See how very little resistance is put up by that "very vocal group" you guys love to hate. But while you're at it, why not also propose some specific fixes for those things on your side of the table which are truly broken and have been for years now? Things like permahardened blaster maddies.

Okay, then for infantry, only one plate per loadout.



But we all know that won't fix ****, so let's cut it.

... instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers.

That's the new type of plate that confers short-term invulnerability, right? Exciting!

I agree with you. Probably a good idea to limit it to one per loadout. Wouldn't take infantry long to figure out that running more than one of those bad boys wholly negates the intended "windows of opportunity" design.

Over two years of broken tanks, hundreds and hundreds of "Let's fix HAV" threads, and guys have yet to make up your mind on what the actual problem is. But one thing's for sure ...

"Hardener stacking isn't the problem!"

Given the spirit of what Devadander's trying to do here, why take cards off the table? Perhaps hardener stacking isn't at the root of the problem, but you can't deny its relative popularity and effectiveness. If hardener stacking doesn't work, why do so many do it and why would anyone oppose its limitation? If hardener stacking is popular because it works, perhaps it is working too well. How can you safely rule it out as a non-issue?

C'mon man......

There's no ONE thing that makes Maddy's so strong. That has been laid out several times in this thread. We are beyond "limiting hardeners"

It's the whole package.
2x hardeners
120 plate (or two reps if you are ballsy)
Complex heavy rep (having these passive is a problem in my eyes as well)

My goal here (one I'm already beyond the "what's the problem?" phase) is to break the ability to fit the full package. Making operators have to choose.

Do I want to dual harden? I'll have weak reps and no buffer.
Do I want great reps? I'll only have one hardener.
Do I want a tanky buffer? No hardener and mediocre reps.

This is taking my thread backwards....
You've got me dangerously close to back in character..




There will be no hardener limit.

Now that my rant is out of the way:

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of basically shoehorning people into choosing a single tank, that doesn't seem like it'll work to me.

1: If people can't fit the configuration you into a Madrugar's slots, then I assume that they can't do a pure one anyways. What would they then fit? iirc the only thing in the lows is ammo and regulators.

2: This would vastly cut down on the variation, and possibly introduce another FoTM.

3: Inversely, these defensive modules complement each other. Otherwise, a vehicle needs a solid amount of teamwork to live, which pilots are simply not getting right now. But even if we were graced with 128 man duels, we still would have to contend with the fact that the only support we got as repair tools, which suck.

There will be no hardener limit.

... hardeners aren't the problem ...

That's a shame. Scenario #2 represents a serious and frequently observed balance problem. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will remain broken. Limiting hardeners might furrow brows but it fixes this problem without creating new problems. The only other conceivable fix involves weakening dual-hardened HAVs by such degree that the AVer in Scenario #2 solos the tank before it can activate its second hardener. Good luck getting that one past your peers.

Can't think of any other solutions to this serious interplay problem. But I wish you luck!

I get it, people want to run up solo and kill a tank.

This may be what some people want, but it isn't at all what I suggested. I suggested that you account for and protect against Scenario #2 in your design. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will not be balanced.

Done with this thread and the restraint it takes to stay out of character.

Archduke is a god among men for putting up with us.





Aaaaaaand on that note..


Edit: because I'm not going to keep explaining stuff that has been laid out three-four pages ago

Edit: oh and if one person can easily kill an HAV, more than one (oh idk, a fireteam?) could wreck HAV before they left the line. Making gameplay for operators complete ****.

Sorry, not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.

Also, instead of screaming "HARDENERS HARDENERS" how about we look at the thing WE as the pilots have figured out months ago: Repairers.

Months ago, huh? Glad to hear you guys figured it out, Godin. Though if so obvious, I have to ask ... why did it take took two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour?

Months ago, huh? Glad to hear you guys figured it out, Godin. Though if so obvious, I have to ask ... why did it take took two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour?