And vehicles needing to be resupplied in the same way dropsuits do adds a level of strategy.

Otherwise, why can't my swarms regen passively ?

And that brings to mind another important point ...

PLEASE REMOVE WP FOR ASSITS IN VEHICLES !

I'm sure vehicles drivers would generally agree ... There's no reason to give assists to people in passenger seats unless they damaged the target ... The owner fine ... maybe even if he's not in the vehicle ie. call in 2 vehicles and get assists off both ... but not for passengers who just jumped in and get points for someone elses kills !

Edit ... Sheepishly asks 'They haven't done this already have they ?'

no bud, he means the +35 Vehicle Kill Assist you get for just riding along in a tank, not the +25 Kill Assist you get for damaging an enemy.

Buried in replies!

Thanks for the comments guys. Remnant and I are reading and itGÇÖs given us things stuff to think about. I donGÇÖt have time to respond to everything right now but IGÇÖll quickly throw a few more details out there.

*When we say weGÇÖre establishing a foundation with the most necessary archetypes that doesnGÇÖt mean youGÇÖre only getting basic and standard. You will have access to proto modules.

*We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.

*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).

so are the minimatar and amarr getting their own vehicles now

Four quick observations, and one point of explanation .... I admit I did not read every post in this 20 plus page thread so perhaps the following four observations will be redundant.

#1 Is CCP planning to nerf ... err I mean rebalance the high rate of speed at which LAV's can tear across the terrain? Right now they can frequently outpace swarm missiles fired at them.

#2 Comparing an immobile stationary turret to a tank is laughable. If anything the turret should be the vulnerable destructive lord of the battlefield with range that goes redline to redline but is blocked by buildings and terrain. Then team cooperation and strategy would need to be employed to counter, control, or destroy them. Having a stationary turret run out of ammo is just plain dumb.

#3 Why can drop ships fly up out of range and simply vanish? Is this a glitch? If it's not please allow my clone in his drop suit to leap high enough into the air to get out of range when I get targeted also. Fair is fair.

#4 Why can a Massive HAV land safely on top of any building? It seems counter intuitive that the roof/ ceiling structure would be able to support them.

These are three vehicle fixes that need to be added rather swiftly imho.

LAV's still need to be fun to drive, no different than HAV's or dropships. For the HAV's on top of buildings, I thought we are talking about game balancing, why should ground vehicles, be able to reach into arial vehicle domains? I wouldn't want to see a dropship with wheels rolling around the battlefield, no more than I would want to see a ground vehicle that can shoot at arial vehicles no matter if they fly high or low on the battlefield, from some structure that climbs up to the sky. Then we haven't talked about anti air tanks that haven't been introduced, and the other arial vehicle variants yet to be introduced like fighters. Looking at this from a broader range states future complaints when these things are released.

So let me get this straight, if it's available to infantry it should be available to HAVs? A single killing shot from a Thale sniper rifle is available to rooftop infantry if you are willing to lose your HAV to this I'd concede your argument is consistent, foolish but consistent.

Infantry can hop into an available LAV and speed around the battlefield, so consistent with your statement you are proposing that HAV's should be able to take a high speed ride in the passenger seat of an LAV?

As to the thousands of years of building technology that makes every roof top support an HAV according to the lore you are incorrect. After the EVE gate collapsed the civilizations of New Eden collapsed into several thousand years of dark ages where the ancient knowledge and skills were lost, they are now re-emerging and trying to relearn, copy, and find the technology of their ancestors. So super strong roofs? Highly unlikely.

Putting a HAV in a place in the middle of the battlefield where it cannot be reached by weapons to counter it's weapons is a game breaker and should not be allowed. Plain and simple, otherwise it's an immediate "I Win The Match Card" when played by one side or the other.

If you present a better founded "argument" for why HAVs should indeed be "any roof top" capable then I'll agree with you, currently you have not done so yet sir.

Surely you are honest enough to admit the "HAVs should be able to do whatever infantry can do" type of statement you made are not exactly logical or convincing, correct?

I think hacking a tower to remove it's viability for roof top camping is a very good idea. Although i'd restrict it to roofs that were not accessible by ladder as in the towers. This adds yet another role for the swift footed scouts to attempt, and requires team play to counter. Very good suggestion sir!