EDITORIAL NOTE: Copied directly from my post on the Feedback/Requests.

This build the AV/Tank balance is just ridiculous. Here's why.

Here's the stacking penalties on using more than one Shield Resistance on an HAV.

-25% 1 Shield Resist
-46.75% 2 Shield Resists
-61% 3 Shield Resists
-68% 4 Shield Resists
-82% 4 Shield Resists + Damage Control

Now, for the sake of argument, we're going to assume that a Sagaris with two resistances, a shield extender, a damage control, and a booster.

6000 (approximately) HP with 60.75% resistance.

Now we'll pit it against an Officer Forge Gun, which does 1080 damage - base - and with Weaponry 5 and Proficiency 3 would be an 24% increase to a grand total of 1340.

Now, we're going to take the resistances and apply it to our forge gun, which now makes it at 536.

6,000 divided by 536 = 11.19, approximately. This is about two magazines from your Officer Forge Gun.

This means that with two (officer) forge gunners firing at the same Tank, taking into account charge up times, it would take 10 Seconds for both gunners to exhaust their magazines and theoretically deplete the tank's shields. Round about's 20, for one gunner. In this time frame the tank has already disengaged the battle and has retreated to an area that it can use it's booster - all the while using a large array of weaponry to fire back at it's opponents.

Whatever happened in this build screwed over any balance there ever was between vehicles and Anti-Vehicle builds.

To counter the argument that Movement Nullifiers will "fix everything", you're very wrong. Movement Nullifiers will help but they won't solve the issue at hand - as this math is directed for -ONE TANK- and I have seen as many as five in a single match.

I'm curious as to what CCP was even thinking when they came out with the AV "hotfix" in the first place, to be honest. Reducing the speed on the tanks isn't the problem - it's their absolutely ridiculous invulnerability to conventional methods.

EDITORIAL NOTE: I know that the Officer Forge Gun has 6 rounds in the mag - but a Proto Forge Gun does about the same damage so it's a moot point.

well ive been sayin all along its not all tanks in general that are OP its just the shield tanks
swarms are more readily available and any suit can use em so armor tanks honestly arent a big of a deal

His calcs for resists are good

1st Module = 100%
2nd Module = 87%
Damage Controls are not affected by stacking penalties

25(1.00)%+25(0.87)%+14%=60.75%

Clearly you've never see an armor tank being remote repped properly. Remote armor reps are VERY good, far better than remote shield reps. Armor tanks also can be readily repaired by infantry with repair tools. Shield tanks are better for solo play, but with support the Armor tank wins hands down.

All these conversations about AV infantry vs Tanks; very few people seem to consider that drop ships should also be factored in. They already get blasted out of the air on a whim by pretty much everything, if you buff AV infantry more this is just going to get worse.

In conventional terms, tanks should be scared ****less of air power, at the moment they're not because it only takes one guy with a swarm launcher to scare the air power off.

Drop ship > Tank > Infantry > Drop ship ..... the cycle itself isn't balanced

All these conversations about AV infantry vs Tanks; very few people seem to consider that drop ships should also be factored in. They already get blasted out of the air on a whim by pretty much everything, if you buff AV infantry more this is just going to get worse.

In conventional terms, tanks should be scared ****less of air power, at the moment they're not because it only takes one guy with a swarm launcher to scare the air power off.

Drop ship > Tank > Infantry > Drop ship ..... the cycle itself isn't balanced

All these conversations about AV infantry vs Tanks; very few people seem to consider that drop ships should also be factored in. They already get blasted out of the air on a whim by pretty much everything, if you buff AV infantry more this is just going to get worse.

In conventional terms, tanks should be scared ****less of air power, at the moment they're not because it only takes one guy with a swarm launcher to scare the air power off.

Drop ship > Tank > Infantry > Drop ship ..... the cycle itself isn't balanced

Sure! lets buff a Myron! its not like I spent an entire match! shooting at one with my tanks railgun!!
Two guys with forge guns versus a sagaris??
Yeah those numbers sound bitching and leaves the poor forgegunners in slow heavy suits far behind versus the faster sagaris.
Yeah, yeah its not like the heavy can chase down the sagaris in a FREE MILITIA LAV right, right?......er wait!!

And its not like guys like Timesplitter can instapop my gunnlogi or three shot a sagaris......er wait!!

Hence why the thread is about Tanks being over-powered, not AV being under-powered.

So what YOU and others "want"??? is a heavy marauder tank that anyone can kill with a sidearm pistol??
Right since tanks are so "overpowered" that a tank driver can go AFK for a soda and the tank is still there with no damage instead of being insta toast the moment the tank stops moving??

Sure - Free Militia LAV that can be one-shotted by Swarm Launcher, Forge Gun, Tank, AV Grenade, Cavity Thukker, etc etc etc

Just another way to lose a perfectly good - albeit expensive - Proto-fit heavy suit because your suit has more defense than the damn vehicle your driving.

Are you stupid? The tank stops moving and he can survive long enough to still get out of there and boost the shields back to normal just by going to the edge of the map simply because he's got a faster top speed than the freaggin Scout suits - and don't even get me started skill-buffed shield recharge times.

Maybe we just want **** to go back to the way it was -BEFORE- this bullshit got out of hand, eh? Last build there was at least some balance with the only pressing vehicle issue being Dropships sitting at the top of Towers racking in spawn-kills - wasn't much complaints about the tanks; this build there is an obvious frakking issue and.... Ahem... YOU AND THE OTHERS can't seem to acknowledge the giant elephant in the room that has so obviously landed on the television.

Proto? dude! please!
Militia suit with basic assault forge gun and two buddies in same fits.
Militia lav with resists and extenders can survive unless its driven by a fool that decides to park it.

Noc Tempre drives up to my tank in a lav and jumps out and two shots my tank.

Yeah that 380 damage from each shot will totally bridge that gap - let me tell you. Even with three firing at the same time it would take a six shots, a magazine and a half from every single one of them, just to get through the shields. Provided they haven't died yet and aren't being suppressed to death from all the splash damage/camera jerk/movement reduction from every other gameplay mechanic currently going on.

LAV would do you a lot of good as well considering that you have to exit the damned thing in order to use these guns, assuming you survived the direct hit from the 1,500+ damage Railgun and two missile launchers which are sure to barrage the hell out of you being of your super-high profile on the minimap lighting you up like exactly what you are - a moving ****ing target.

Seriously, are you even thinking before you respond or are you just throwing **** out there to sound smart?

@ Tech Ohm Eaven i use buffer tanks mostly because it does let me afk for smoke brakes etc. Not lost a tank yet to smoking

What ifs and numbers sound cool.

I PREFER IN GAME RESULTS! instead of THEORY.
Results so far are my tanks die!!

Sorry if the results disagree with your THEORY.

Your horrible in tanks then. Not once has a corp mate of mine lost one of my tanks on his very first time in one to AV infantry.

I really mean that..the very very first time they have ever driven a tank and no I didnt babysit them with RR.

/me is now dead set on breaking that form !! Lol.

Your horrible in tanks then. Not once has a corp mate of mine lost one of my tanks on his very first time in one to AV infantry.

I really mean that..the very very first time they have ever driven a tank and no I didnt babysit them with RR.

Tanks should be balanced by one squad against an other squad.

What I mean is a squad of four militia suits should be able to take down a squad in. Militia tank.

A proto tank should wreck the squad of AV militia but fear a full squad full of proto heavies. People say "oh tanks. Ohhh tanks are SO expensive!" but a squad of four heavies in proto gear is just as expensive but also is vulnerable to everything else in the game. Tanks can't die to a militia scrambler pistol but heavies can.

Heavy tanks also shouldn't be able to roll around without infantry support without bein swarmed and disabled by enemy infantry. There needs to be a way for regular infantry to disable any type of tank. For instance if I'm able to jump on top of a tank I should be able to shoot or kill the crew of it. Or hack it while on top. Or set RE explosives on top and blow it to hell and back.

I would also like to see heavies get 1) a bonus resistance against vehicles weapons.

Tanks can solo anything in this game except other tanks. I would love to see tank on tank battles but the problem is that tanks have no hard counters. Having to have half of the enem team switch to AV just to kill a squad of three is unacceptable. It should be balanced by three versus three/four. It's much easier coordination a team in a vehicle anyway.

Tanks should be balanced by one squad against an other squad.

What I mean is a squad of four militia suits should be able to take down a squad in. Militia tank.

A proto tank should wreck the squad of AV militia but fear a full squad full of proto heavies. People say "oh tanks. Ohhh tanks are SO expensive!" but a squad of four heavies in proto gear is just as expensive but also is vulnerable to everything else in the game. Tanks can't die to a militia scrambler pistol but heavies can.

Heavy tanks also shouldn't be able to roll around without infantry support without bein swarmed and disabled by enemy infantry. There needs to be a way for regular infantry to disable any type of tank. For instance if I'm able to jump on top of a tank I should be able to shoot or kill the crew of it. Or hack it while on top. Or set RE explosives on top and blow it to hell and back.

I would also like to see heavies get 1) a bonus resistance against vehicles weapons.

Tanks can solo anything in this game except other tanks. I would love to see tank on tank battles but the problem is that tanks have no hard counters. Having to have half of the enem team switch to AV just to kill a squad of three is unacceptable. It should be balanced by three versus three/four. It's much easier coordination a team in a vehicle anyway.

Ahem to the OP you're forgetting to drop booste for extender, and natural shield recharge into account
Then bottom rowing with power diagnostics which increase shield recharge rates and amount.

What we have here is a land drake. Eith an effective EHP in the 20k+ shields.

You also forgot to take skills into account ont eh tank driver side.

Either way the natural shield regenreation on some of these buffer tanks would recharge damage lost to an assault forge gun in about 4 seconds.

Also on muraders there is natural resists too.

Oh really? Didn't know about that.

Either way the natural shield regenreation on some of these buffer tanks would recharge damage lost to an assault forge gun in about 4 seconds.

Also on muraders there is natural resists too.

Damage bonus and resistsances but they're hidden stats last time I looked at them (THANKFULLY Resists are getting dropped off on the murader next build)

So how do you get 1500/fg skills- tankresists 500 damage fixed in four seconds??

More like 600-700 damage a shot with mods unless you want to do it all in ehp math.

Shield Amounts/shields per second and from current observations the shield in dust 514 are not scaled so that 30% of shields is peak recharge. However there is a scale os some sorts as 90% shields on vehicles take the longer than 10% to rechage. How much this 'arc' goes up and down is not yet well known or understood. Where as in eve's its more like shields at 30-40% having 1.5% recharge rage vs 95% shields 0.25 rate.

I unfourutnately dont sit down in front of a spread sheet to get exact numbers, maybe I should.

More like 600-700 damage a shot with mods unless you want to do it all in ehp math.

Shield Amounts/shields per second and from current observations the shield in dust 514 are not scaled so that 30% of shields is peak recharge. However there is a scale os some sorts as 90% shields on vehicles take the longer than 10% to rechage. How much this 'arc' goes up and down is not yet well known or understood. Where as in eve's its more like shields at 30-40% having 1.5% recharge rage vs 95% shields 0.25 rate.

I unfourutnately dont sit down in front of a spread sheet to get exact numbers, maybe I should.

In conventional terms, tanks should be scared ****less of air power, at the moment they're not because it only takes one guy with a swarm launcher to scare the air power off.

An ELITE FPS guy with an ELITE tank build.
Oh kay then.

ELITE FPS guys with ELITE tank builds are OP.

Yeah lets buff the AV to the point where tank builds like yours are killable so that tank driving is pointless.
Ok.
You win.

Its not that 90 % of FPS folks are average and 10% are elite.
Nope its the 90% of folks that are horrible...ok noted.

Most epic response ever

You and your 2 gunners with aoe weapons cant hit a slow moving fatsuit ? Your prob right i bet hardly any hvy forge gunners get killed by tanks

yea you have a good point with that one.
If you then try to flank him so his cover is no longer giving cover well he would prob just sprint away or climb up one of the hills like a goat.
I'm with you buddy I hate the fact that heavys can run about and hide so easy. They need to be slower or somthing.

A tank is a KITTEN TANK!

Even a forge gunner should have trouble. it MUST take a team effort.

trus me, it is equally frustrating having a forge gunner bunny hopping around, or popping up from cover with a charged gun let loose a round, and then go back into hiding. We can't hit that, so NERF Forge guns!!!

See a trend here. STFU, learn to play.

a forge gunner bunny hopping

Did I actually just read this????

Wow, yea you're definitely a tank driver >_<

Why do people want to change the dynamics so a tank is destroyed faster but still destroys everything very quickly while it is alive? Wouldn't it be more interesting for the tanker and the infantry if the battles lasted longer and gave room for more tactics by balancing the turrets and terrain instead?

Which is why I liked the last build alot, tanks didnt murder everything quickly HAV pilots acutally had to upgrade thier guns.

This isn't true at all. Tanks were way more powerful last build by pure math. Just proving it's not the numbers that are causing the most problems.

Why? The dropship is the equivalent of a transport helicopter with two door gunners, not the Dust analogue of an attack helicopter.

As I see it, the tank is currently missing its natural peditor, the gunship. Modern tanks fear the A-10 which can cut them in half with depleted uranium slugs from its Gatling gun. Then there are precision bombers who scream in before a tank can find cover and drop guided munitions that can take them out in one punch. DUST has no equivalent, and without a natural preditor this beast multiplies until it consumes all its food source.

I am hoping to see one of these natural preditors introduced in the next build. Then (if the gunship doesn't just replace the tank as a good for everything role), we will see a balance.

Are you stupid? The tank stops moving and he can survive long enough to still get out of there and boost the shields back to normal just by going to the edge of the map simply because he's got a faster top speed than the freaggin Scout suits

Tanks are expensive. Even with militia builds there expensive. Some people dont have the money to buy tanks to counter tanks. When the only counter to tanks is tanks, theres no reason to skill anything else.

As I have always said you dont have to nerf tanks to balance them. Just make War points match dependent.

You start with 0 war points then you gain them for preforming tasks during the match. This causes the match to escalate instead of having it start with 5 tanks and one team getting steam rolled.

I like to cite Tribes Ascend as an example. You Earn the ability to deploy tanks shrikes, supply depots and orbital strikes and air strikes. You dont start the match with them you earn them.

I say just make them slower in both speed and weapon turning. That OR bring out some specific AV grenades that don't do damage but rather cut down the speed or cut out barriers. Seriously. Just make these grenades fairly expensive, so that Mercs can't just throw them like hot potatoes, and I believe that's all we need.

I'd be fine with a turret damage reduction across the board(again) but with an HP increase there have been several times today where militia swarms have gotten through my shields when there were 3 people shooting at me(which is appropriate because 3 people fit in a tank) tanks are fine maybe they reach there top speed too quickly but there HP isn't the problem maybe the regen is but not the hp I often go around 20-0 in a round with my tank and range from 30-80k sp depending on how many RDV's I kill in said round. pretty much suck it up tanks were worse last build.

your reading 'dropship' too literally; read Skihids' post for essentially what was meant:

Yes, you can carry a couple team mates around and hand them assists, but you don't require them. Each of them can call in their own and run along with you, or pick up a gun and kill the AV guy before he can get close to you.

Right now a tank is the equivalent of a super duper heavy proto suit that one man can strap on. It has superior armor, shields, rep, mobility, CPU, PG, and weapon slots than any other suit you could possibly build. It is faster than a scout, has more HP than a dozen heavies, more rep, and a gun that's over a magnitude better than anything a heavy can carry, and it never runs out of ammunition. Other than not being able to hack, having a large hitbox, and being swarm lockable, there is no downside.

I'm still waiting for a tanker to debate this point with me.

and just think about what your saying for a minute if there was an uber downside that would let an infantry men kill a tank why would tanks have been invented?

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And it has been this way ever since, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

lack of mobility is a downside there are a lot of spots tanks can't go. well shouldn't I know it's fun taking a joyride down the side of a mountain. and just think about what your saying for a minute if there was an uber downside that would let an infantry men kill a tank why would tanks have been invented? arn't tanks supost to dominate infantry? maybe the heavy needs something like in Valkyria Chronicles where Lancers(AV Units) had explosive resistant armor(some weird thing that lets you survive multiple tank shells to the face) I donno I don't think there is much trouble from what I gathered on this thread 11 shots from a forge gun kills a tank sounds like a lot but when you have 3 guys thats around 4 shots each think the charge up is 3 sec each shot so in 12 sec the tank goes from full hp to empty.

I already acknowledged that this super duper Titan suit is too large to go everywhere, but it can go just about everywhere that matters and faster than a scout to boot so that's hardly a limitation that matters.

What I want is either a recognition from a tank driver that he basically has a Titan suit or a convincing refutation.

I haven't gotten either so far, just side tracking. What say you to my question?

I think a lot of this will be fixed when we can create teams instead of 4 man squads and there is a larger form of organization! I know that the TCD would not have issues due to the way we communicate with each other. Right now teaming is gimped in my perspective.

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And this has always been the case throughout human history, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

The same thing I always say, the problem is the maps, not the stats. The turrets are a bit too multipurpose, but fundamentally the mobility restrictions (separate from limitations) are not sufficient. Who builds a hyper-expensive space defense facility and then leaves the command console for the gun outside?

I already acknowledged that this super duper Titan suit is too large to go everywhere, but it can go just about everywhere that matters and faster than a scout to boot so that's hardly a limitation that matters.

What I want is either a recognition from a tank driver that he basically has a Titan suit or a convincing refutation.

I haven't gotten either so far, just side tracking. What say you to my question?

So you agree that it's a one man Titan and believe that the only limitation that power needs is but more map restrictio?

How much of the map should it have access to?

well then let me have a crack at refuting it.

1. it's not upright it's laying down
2. it's on wheels
3. 3 people can fit in the tank
4. lets see you outrun a tank going at 1/2 speed to (compensate for you not running as fast as a scout suit)(yes the acceleration is a little too high right now but not the speed)

So what you're saying is...it's like a super dropsuit, but better?

That doesn't sound like a refutation.

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And this has always been the case throughout human history, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!

Why do people want to change the dynamics so a tank is destroyed faster but still destroys everything very quickly while it is alive? Wouldn't it be more interesting for the tanker and the infantry if the battles lasted longer and gave room for more tactics by balancing the turrets and terrain instead?

TLDR tanks don't necessarily need to die more. They need to be more fun to play against.

I say just make them slower in both speed and weapon turning. That OR bring out some specific AV grenades that don't do damage but rather cut down the speed or cut out barriers. Seriously. Just make these grenades fairly expensive, so that Mercs can't just throw them like hot potatoes, and I believe that's all we need.

well ive been sayin all along its not all tanks in general that are OP its just the shield tanks
swarms are more readily available and any suit can use em so armor tanks honestly arent a big of a deal

Saying you can blow up an Abrams with an RPG-7 is just asinine. A well placed hit will disrupt the treads. That's quite a bit less impressive than actually destroying such a monster..

unless I am mistaken(which I might be I wasn't there) 1 person didn't shoot an RPG at a tank it was a squad of people ambushing said tank. another thing I'm also betting that they didn't shoot their AR's at the tank then wonder why it turned around and killed them -.-

Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!