ive always preferred to rep tank.


but as it stands tanks dont last nearly as long in our typical engagements with out hardeners..

the fact that hardeners are easier to fit than reps or plates doesnt help either.


honestly i bet if we could get hp closer to that of those large turret installations. and greatly nerf hardeners. tanks would have sufficient hp to deal with most encounters.


speed could then take a hit.

and possibly reps too. if it proves to be "To Much" for av to handle.

Slightly different twist:
Reduce hardener up-time by 67%, also reduce hardener downtime by 67%.

The basic idea is that right now, per HAV-HAV or HAV-infantry fight hardeners are (mostly) only activated once. Either the fight is won before the hardener runs out or one party bails. This is not exciting gameplay.
With the reduced hardener cycle time a pilot needs to time his hardener's uptime precisely to the incoming damage. The 10 seconds of hardening are worth nothing while the enemy is reloading his turret or while line of sight is denied. If one pilot is better at anticipating the flow of a fight and timing his hardener accordingly he will win over a pilot who doesn't.

The same theory can be applied to damage modules. However I advise against choosing too small cycle times as it'll make the micromanagement of modules a chore (two hardeners, a damage mod, a shieldbooster / fuel injector and maybe a scanner all operating on 20 second cycles? That'd be one module activation every 4 seconds on average).

Nah, for the armor vehicles, the delay is well justified.


But, for Shield Hardeners - YES reduce delay, they deserve it!
There is a huge logical difference between those two, and shields are still underhand currently.

After completing my assessment I will have considered the economics of HAV units relative to how much I view driving around in a Tank to be "easy mode" relative to infantrymen.

That's right...I said "easy mode".