Dear crying child, this is not a beta. Also its not our fault we were stuck playing the same builds for 6 months and only "tested" 10% of the actual game.

Railguns get zoom, UNLIMITED ammo, less charge time. Railguns also can fire again like 4 times with half a second intervals without needing to charge again (more DPS). You can't balance properly if you only look at one aspect.

There's another fact that's not in the stats, namely that railguns are mounted on an actual vehicle, while the Forge Gun is carried by a squishy heavy infantry person who lights up like a christmas tree before shots.

Think I forgot to mention that he's a DS pilot.
Don't know when he acquired a tank this build

This might just be a hunch, but I'm pretty sure that's why they are called "anti-armor". Whatever that may mean...

Can I replace my Large Turret with a Forge Gun, please?

but your tank will live longer. you also have twice the range.

you wont be able to red line any more. your shots wont reach anything

Forge gunners are great for their job, but far from OP, they are easy sniper targets, have minimal fightback ability when closed down, leave as

I think that game mechanics wise, the FG is a little OP at the moment, but ADV and PROTO tanks should fix that.

On the other hand, lore and just plain common sense wise, it's rather messed up

Just be careful about firing it, because it takes 6 seconds to charge and you'll be a sitting duck while it charges. Then again, who can kill a tank in 6 seconds?

The whole argument that the FG is overpowered is based on pretty shaky math and an adherence to a certain idea about how things work. It's like when people complain that each HMG bullet should do as much damage as an AR bullet. There are a ton of balancing factors that don't even have to do with the weapon itself, but with the roles that can equip the weapons, the other modules that can be equipped, the mobility of the respective bearers, armor/shield levels, susceptibility to other battlefield roles, etc.

I realize this is all going to sound like gibberish to the person who says 2777 damage every 6.0 seconds is better than 1798 damage every 2.4 seconds, but there's a lot more that goes into balancing than just raw damage.

I guess they should allow you to but a breach on top of your tank, but bare in mind you will charge for 5+ seconds, while not being able to move at all.

Did you quickly compared DPS by the way?
Show us your results.

Raw numbers mean everything. Raw numbers are all that matter. Take nothing outside of math into consideration. Math is king. Math is omnipitent. If a number is greater than another number, the greater number should be reduced to the smaller number in the name of balance.

Ignore the fact that a rail tank gets to fire while keeping all of his speed, has unlimited ammo, never needs to reload, is nearly immune to all forms of non-AV weaponry, and makes children have nightmares of metal monsters drilling holes through their homes.

Ignore the fact that a forge gunner must deal with full damage from every weapon type, takes at least two seconds to fire, loses most of his already non-existant mobility while charging (or becomes immobile if you're using Breach), has a very limited clip, and can only watch in dismay as his prey leaves his sight with no hope of ever catching up to him.

But one number is bigger than the other, so forge is OP and should be nerfed.

So you're trying to call out Flying Pig for pointing out the issues you so conveniently ignored? That's pure ego right there. You get one argument shot out from under you and you find something else and you'll run this pattern in a circle. You're one of those people that just can't admit you're wrong even when something is laid out simply before you. If it's not damage, it's fitting, if it's not fitting it's cost. If you have so much problem with Dust 514's hard counter to armor, maybe you should go play something else. The forge is doing it's job as intended. We can tell because some tank jocks are QQing about it. Not all of them, not even a majority. Just some.

Knee jerk reaction here so I may be over reacting but it reads like you want infantry based AV to be a deterrent to heavy armor rather than a threat. You reasoning appears to be because one man can't be a threat heavy armor.

May I point you to the dragon missile system. One man carrying two missiles and a launcher quite capable of crippling, if not destroying, a main battle tank with one shot.

But then reality makes for an unbalanced game. A game where some tank jocks want the other team to severely handicap themselves to deal with one or two vehicular threats if they use infantry based AV. Requiring a four or six man AV team to take out a HAV will be fine when we're running 60 vs 60. But at 16 vs 16, it's just not a feasible option. Tanks will either run around opposed, but not threatened, while the non-AV infantry's ability to take and hold points will be handicapped, or all infantry based AV, except grenades, will become nearly extinct and people will QQ about there being too many tanks on the battlefield that they can't counter. Wait... That last one is already happeing. LOL

Personally, the primary thing I see wrong with HAVs is that they don't have the PG/CPU to properly fit the modules to fit the differing play styles of the various tank jocks. I'm sure there will be proto hulls coming, but until then... Tank Jocks are going to have to work with what CCP has available to them. And the advanced hulls... Their shield and armor bases need to be brought up to match the basics. I know the difference isn't much, but every little bit helps.

So no. In my opinion Infantry AV doesn't need much of a fix (cough, AV Grenades, cough), but HAVs do need work.

Oh wow. Look at that. A dedicated forge gunner arguing for HAV fixes. Imagine that.

LOL at all the tank drivers suffering from forge gun envy... stop being a bunch of aspies and think about this a bit.

Railguns are balanced for tank vs tank battles, not tank vs heavy battles. If they up the damage on railguns then tank vs. tank battles would be one shot shorter, they're fast enough as it is. A railtank vs heavy is a one shot victory for the tank already,.

This "discussion" is a waste of time that serves to real purpose.

I am a complete noob.

I have not driven a vehicle, aerial or land, but I'm coming in here to give my worthless opinion so my Assault Rifle can still trump anyone on the battlefield.

In fact, I think vehicles need a nerf, including those OP dropships, because they are the only things in the game capable of flight, and a Gunnlogi can get more eHP than my Caldari Logi, which is completely wrong, the Logi Cal suit is in need of a serious buff. I'd also like to add speed bumps for LAVs, because I have been destroying newbs too much with my no skill weapon that I have lost all of my reflexes and situational awareness, because all I'm required to do is point and shoot when using my AR.

Please CCP, I thought this game was called AR 514?

Lol at forge cry thread.... you want to talk op? Av grenades bro..... solo ANY tank without any effort, skill or strategy....

Forge is fine, rail is fine, blaster is fine, tanks are UP against adv/proto av.