I really like the idea of finite turret ammo and re-stocking at a supply depot. Now just make my fully loaded with standard modules of shield hardeners and boosters with a standard dropship actually useable ! I ALWAYS get exploded by the first five to eight minutes before blown up by a installation, forge gun or even mass driver, gosh dang it !

A standard vehicle hull should not be 1 shottable by AV, as it is.

A standard Scout Dropsuit is one-shottable by a decent variety of weapons without getting a headshot (weakpoint). LAVs should be one-shottable by some AV weapons (Forge Guns, Plasma Cannons) but others should need a weakpoint hit (Swarms, AV Grenades).

Logi suits can be one-shotted at their base by a couple of weapons without getting headhots. LLAVs should be tougher than regular and Scout LAVs, but still one-shottable by an equal-tier Forge Gun, and maybe a Plasma Cannon or AV Grenade if it lands a weakpoint hit.

Assault suits can be one-shotted by several weapons with headshots. Dropships should be vulnerable to one-shotting with Plasma Cannons and Forge Guns if hit on a weakpoint.

Heavy suits can't be one-shotted by anything short of AV weaponry. HAVs should likewise be tough enough to survive basically any single hit.

Obviously, this is before modules are added, because you can buff things a decent way with those. Logi variant vehicles shouldn't get massive PG/CPU buffs like they currently do though, that just makes them into better tanks than the supposed "frontline" models. They should get PG/CPU cost reductions on modules that actually suit their intended role, so they can fit those modules without the compromise that other suits are forced into.

All I got out of this is you're going to nerf vehicles some more by introducing more restrictions to how they work. Also the ammunition idea is terrible, to be perfectly blunt. They already overheat, they don't need another restriction.

The philosophy for how modules are working is basically how they work already. And what we've learned is that it's a pretty terrible philosophy for the investment unless you plan to make all vehicles absolutely dirt cheap.


Why don't you just copy the EVE capacitor and resistance scheme over to Dust instead of continually dumbing it down? You're underestimating the intelligence of the playerbase.

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.

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.

1. Haven't seen anything on it but they are making it harder to murder taxi in 1.4 as stated here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1210968#post1210968. Aside from saga II's and LLAV's you should be able to 1 or 2 shot LAV's currently.

1. Haven't seen anything on it but they are making it harder to murder taxi in 1.4 as stated here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1210968#post1210968. Aside from saga II's and LLAV's you should be able to 1 or 2 shot LAV's currently.

2. Stationary turrets don't cost you anything so they shouldn't be better than tanks.

3. Dropships have the aerial redline which adds a little more rome. Were also the fastest vehicles when using afterburners. Not only that but any successful pilot has practice being the biggest target on the fields and develops thier own strategy to survive. Finding cover and blocking line of sight from immobile AV'ers is a pretty common tactic.

4. Why should only forge gunners, swarmers or snipers be able to take advantage of the tower tops? I think if its available to infantry it should be available to HAV's. As to why a building should be able to support it, keep in mind that these are people who have had thousands of years to work on technology and they started from intergalactic space travelers whos first goal was colonizing worlds.

I'll leave it at that.

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.

I said nothing about changing LAV's just provided a link to what's happening in 1.4 which will address the murder taxi situation without nerfing LLAV's into uselessness. As far as HAV's on buildings it's less game breaking than forge gunners/swarmers on the towers because they can't aim down as steeply or track as well, or be revived by anyone with a needle.

2. Stationary turrets don't cost you anything so they shouldn't be better than tanks.

I would like to see murder taxi's take damage when they run into things, clones included. Thus far all other vehicles take damage when hitting things, tanks, dropping from an steep enough place, dropships bumping into things.

4. Why should only forge gunners, swarmers or snipers be able to take advantage of the tower tops? I think if its available to infantry it should be available to HAV's. As to why a building should be able to support it, keep in mind that these are people who have had thousands of years to work on technology and they started from intergalactic space travelers whos first goal was colonizing worlds.

I'll leave it at that.

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.

You seem to me an argumentative person.

I would rather every tower have hackable nodes at the base that would electrify the entire tower until un hacked. This would gradually destroy equipment, infantry and vehicles indiscriminately until counter hacked and add risk and counters to the tower camping bs going on now. You say an HAV on the roof is a problem which I agree to some extent, but consider it less game breaking the others.

None of this has anything to do with the changes in 1.5 or the topic at hand and is at best theory crafting and speculation. It's a moot point irregardless as there could be any number of justifications. They do have access to sufficient strength material to support heavy loads as evidenced by titans spacecraft which should be impossible with our current technology. But with our current tech we have these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_transport_aircraft which have less strutural support than those buildings.

I would rather every tower have hackable nodes at the base that would electrify the entire tower until un hacked. This would gradually destroy equipment, infantry and vehicles indiscriminately until counter hacked and add risk and counters to the tower camping bs going on now. You say an HAV on the roof is a problem which I agree to some extent, but consider it less game breaking the others.

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!

Please completely replace dropships with light aerial vehicles.

At now very few people fly dropships. Even less actually drop people onto battlefield.
Dropships are used primary for 2 things:
1) Fly to the building's roof (sniper spots)
2) Attack infantry with assault dropships

Both actions are performed alone, so solo manned light aircraft can do the same (and better), making a role of air infantry.
It should be cheaper, faster and blow up with 1-2 swarm shoots. Missile lock alert is a must before releasing light aircraft.

In one of the loading screens there are both a dropship and two smaller aircrafts making bombing runs so CCP may add the lighter ships as another variation along with the future pilot dropsuit.

In my opinion assault dropships are mainly used solo because teamates seem to either run pass my dropships or just hitch a ride to the nearest CRU then jump out, leaving me with two empty gunner seats.

I was so happy when I could finally take off with a DS and not go wildly out of control because of the hill it was dropped on started it out crooked. I went up...went down...turned a couple times....then pointed my nose at the ground, leveled out...smiled to myself...then exploded...it was the best 30 secs of my dust life. Okay thats off topic, im just agreeing with everyone saying ammo limitation is a good idea, as an assault DS guy it does not bother me. Might even see more dropship pilots if they can practice a little more without being harassed by the players that never leave the red line.