Tanks and infantry are the subject of a lot of GÇÿdebateGÇÖ on the forums. The purpose of this topic is to have a reasonable discussion about the subject without everyone telling each other to go back to COD. If you post in this thread, please keep it civil. ItGÇÖs my hope that both sides can explain their concerns and needs and then we (or CCP) can think of a good compromise.

This does not concern the current state of balance. Tanks certainly do need a buff in their current state, but thatGÇÖs not the point of this thread - this is to think about where they should be in the future.


I will begin by listing the concerns (at least the ones IGÇÖm aware of, IGÇÖll update this list) of both sides.

HAV concerns:
Not isk efficient, too expensive for their cost
Too easy for a single AV specialist to destroy them or lock the field down for them
Disparity in tech levels between tanks and AV - proto AV exists while proto tanks do not

Infantry concerns:
Possibility of extremely hard to stop pubstomping machines
Fear of a complete mechanical inability to stop a tank ravaging a team


Both sides have very valid concerns. If tanks are too strong, they could easily pubstomp endlessly, with infantry getting completely crushed bar some organised AV squads. At the same time, tankers are investing significant isk into their tanks, much more than is put into any individual dropsuit, and so it should certainly be capable of doing more damage than a single dropsuit.

If it only takes one AV specialist to kill a tank, then (as tanks are such large targets and AV weapons generally have excellent range) it doesnGÇÖt take much more to effectively lock down the field for other vehicles as well, especially if the time to kill is low. This is a problem. On the other hand, if it takes multiple AV to destroy one vehicle a solo HAV pilot is effectively worth multiple players and if there isnGÇÖt an organised AV group in every match then thereGÇÖll be heavy tank pubstomping.

ThereGÇÖs a balance to be found that keeps HAVs powerful machines of war in the right circumstances but still vulnerable in the wrong circumstances.

What do you think HAVs should be like in terms of power? Post your thoughts, and try to keep it civil please.

I think an HAV should be a powerful platform that presents a serious threat to infantry, but as a multi-person vehicle. Many of the complaints about the imbalance are coming from players who try to avoid having any infantry in their secondary turrets, which are there for the purpose of trying to take out or suppress enemy infantry that the HAV isn't focused on.

It's simple, really. We want our tanks to be worth the investment in SP and ISK. We also don't believe we should be soloed by some scrub with Lai Dais. We do feel they should take teamwork to destroy. Got 3 guys with MLT swarms going against 2 spider tanking Gunnlogis? Those tanks should never drop below 4/5 of their max shield. Ever. Got 2 guys with assault forge guns? At least one dead tank. Got 3 guys with MLT swarms going against 2 spider tanking Madrugars? Laugh at the guys using swarms. Got 2 guys with Wiyrkomi swarms? Dead tanks.

Manage to achieve balance between PRO and a hypothetical PRO tank? Should take 2 PRO AV to destroy it. One to chase it away. No, you shouldn't be able to solo that PRO tank with your PRO AV. Why? How would you like it if the STD sniper rifle was a OHK on your ADV suit?

Tanks and infantry are the subject of a lot of GÇÿdebateGÇÖ on the forums. The purpose of this topic is to have a reasonable discussion about the subject without everyone telling each other to go back to COD. If you post in this thread, please keep it civil. ItGÇÖs my hope that both sides can explain their concerns and needs and then we (or CCP) can think of a good compromise.

This does not concern the current state of balance. Tanks certainly do need a buff in their current state, but thatGÇÖs not the point of this thread - this is to think about where they should be in the future.


I will begin by listing the concerns (at least the ones IGÇÖm aware of, IGÇÖll update this list) of both sides.

HAV concerns:
Not isk efficient, too expensive for their cost
Too easy for a single AV specialist to destroy them or lock the field down for them
Disparity in tech levels between tanks and AV - proto AV exists while proto tanks do not

Infantry concerns:
Possibility of extremely hard to stop pubstomping machines
Fear of a complete mechanical inability to stop a tank ravaging a team


Both sides have very valid concerns. If tanks are too strong, they could easily pubstomp endlessly, with infantry getting completely crushed bar some organised AV squads. At the same time, tankers are investing significant isk into their tanks, much more than is put into any individual dropsuit, and so it should certainly be capable of doing more damage than a single dropsuit.

If it only takes one AV specialist to kill a tank, then (as tanks are such large targets and AV weapons generally have excellent range) it doesnGÇÖt take much more to effectively lock down the field for other vehicles as well, especially if the time to kill is low. This is a problem. On the other hand, if it takes multiple AV to destroy one vehicle a solo HAV pilot is effectively worth multiple players and if there isnGÇÖt an organised AV group in every match then thereGÇÖll be heavy tank pubstomping.

ThereGÇÖs a balance to be found that keeps HAVs powerful machines of war in the right circumstances but still vulnerable in the wrong circumstances.

What do you think HAVs should be like in terms of power? Post your thoughts, and try to keep it civil please.

How many times must we say this?

We get very stupid blue dots in our turrets practically every match. No, I don't want that idiot lighting me up on the map for Red Johnny Random to lock on to me with his cheap EZ-Mode Darkside CBR7s. I'd rather play half taxi to those idiot blue dots who may or may not jump out when I'm next to a red objective with no red dots in sight, where I KNOW for certain he can't light me up on the map, than stay in the redline for 1/3 of the match because the idiot gets mad at me that I won't give him air to shoot at.

You don't understand what it's like until you experience it for yourself. It's maddening to see some blue dot get angry at me because I won't ferry him around in my 80 ton limo (at least, that's how it seems to me how they themselves view blue dot tanks).

That mostly seems quite fair. What do you think of the current costs of tanks? How much do you think it would be reasonable for a PRO tank to cost with that level of power, given that isk to power ratio gets higher at that point?

Also, do you think that slightly lesser amounts of AV than your cited 'kill numbers' should be sufficient to make tanks take cover on occasion?

Turret prices need to be reduced. Module prices could be reduced by a small percentage. Why does my extra HP cost more than a PRO AV weapon?

Enforcers should be removed, and PRO hulls should take up the cost of 1.2 mil ISK.

If one guy with MLT swarms is launching at a good fit Madrugar, no, the tank should stay there and laugh.

HAV atm have no clear mission in the game. They are a crutch, an extra 7k ehp for a lone soldier to roll around and shoot at infantry while still protected by whatever dropsuit they use.

Its hard to balance HAV ehp against AV because all AV are situational, there are no omni damage weapons that deal with the different types of HAV that are present.

Straight up, get rid of HAV or buff them and make the gunner and pilot seperate. Making AV work in groups against a HAV is only credible if it takes a group to operate a game changer like a HAV in the first place.

Otherwise, let single AV destroy HAV, the AV runner needs to take the risk to be inefficient against the primary threat (infantry) while at the same time the HAV pilot effectively has a second life (his dropsuit).

Straight up, get rid of HAV

Thats like saying if one guy is shooting at me with a MLT AR I should laugh.

HAV atm have no clear mission in the game. They are a crutch, an extra 7k ehp for a lone soldier to roll around and shoot at infantry while still protected by whatever dropsuit they use.

Its hard to balance HAV ehp against AV because all AV are situational, there are no omni damage weapons that deal with the different types of HAV that are present.

Straight up, get rid of HAV or buff them and make the gunner and pilot seperate. Making AV work in groups against a HAV is only credible if it takes a group to operate a game changer like a HAV in the first place.

Otherwise, let single AV destroy HAV, the AV runner needs to take the risk to be inefficient against the primary threat (infantry) while at the same time the HAV pilot effectively has a second life (his dropsuit).

that actually counters all meaning for the personal vehicle investment in the game.

I did NOT skill into tanks for someone else to use the main aspects of it.

that thinking only comes from regular FPS games, in regular FPS games, there is no personal investment towards anything, in this game its towards EVERYTHING.

I would understand a single AVer destroying a tank by himself if the weapon or dropsuit hes using was the size of a vehicle.

What is the main aspect of a HAV then? Aside from your personal murder wagon?

Single AVs have been destroying tanks since tanks were invented I dont see the difference in this game, however if they change the fundamentals of HAV operation to make it more of a squad/tandem design, then yea that would warrant a greater response from the opposing team.

1 trooper rolling about in a HAV himself? Gtfo lol, let that thing die to solitary FG and SL all day long.

this is where it all differs.

it comes down to a simple question...

Why should you decide how HAVs work when you do not have anything invested in them, why not let the drivers decide what their purpose is? why are you the only opinion that should matter when deciding the fate of other styles that you do not even use?

this is where it all differs.

it comes down to a simple question...

Why should you decide how HAVs work when you do not have anything invested in them, why not let the drivers decide what their purpose is? why are you the only opinion that should matter when deciding the fate of other styles that you do not even use?

your tank was almost mine void echo
remember?

What I've taken from Wolfman's posting about how survivability is going to work for tanks, is that Pilots can either use high defense machines with low killing power, or they can build high damage fragile models that can use defensive modules with high cooldowns, but the era of the murder machine with consistently great defense isn't coming back. You gotta choose one or the other. Makes sense to me.

Am not speaking from any bias but from a perspective of achieving balance. For instance all my SP invested in SL would be a waste if there was no vehicles to shoot at. On the other hand why would a HAV pilot want to give away any of his advantage?

I enjoy shooting HAV/LAV/DS but I do need targets, I dont think what I said was so unreasonable a suggestion than say, HAV pilots wanting to be in a position where 1 player necessitates a response from more than 1 other on the opposing team.

Its not even the players fault that there are so many HAV/AV hate threads going about, CCP released PRO AV and not their counterparts, am in favour of losing PRO AV if CCP have a plan to balance vehicles on the whole at STD level, the problem isnt just with dealing with HAV though, AV runners need to deal with all vehicles and if HAV are slow then **** man, thats your problem. However it becomes everybodies problem if HAV become powerful to the extent that it breaks the game. Why would people log in to the threat of getting stomped by HAV if the game itself forces people to spec into FG/SL to take out errant HAV or otherwise just be murdered?

I cant speak of the effectiveness of STD FG against your HAV but am damn sure if your a good pilot then STD SL wont be causing you greif if its comming from 1 red. **** needs to be balanced.

and that's where it needs to start.. vehicles are not dropsuits and shouldn't be balanced as such, they are entirely different from vehicles, it needs to be separated from infantry balances entirely if anything were to be done properly.

So then as a HAV pilot what do you consider a balanced AV response to the threat you bring to the battlefield? In your opinion what is the fair equaliser to HAV in terms of manpower the other team needs to bring in?

your tank was almost mine void echo
remember?

in my version of balance, all the enemy team would need to compete against a tank would be 3 proto AVers. and I know what your going to say "well if that's the case, then 4 tanks will equal 12 AVers and the whole team will have to bring out AV", to that I say, no your wrong... if it only takes 3 people to kill a single tank, then those 3 people would be all you need to deal with the other tanks on the enemy team..

So then as a HAV pilot what do you consider a balanced AV response to the threat you bring to the battlefield? In your opinion what is the fair equaliser to HAV in terms of manpower the other team needs to bring in?

-- snip position paper --

I want them to be used to absolutely wreck fortified positions. For 10-30 seconds (shields) or 30-60 seconds (armor), tanks need to be nearly unstoppable. However, when their modules wear off or capacitor depletes, they should be as weak as militia dropsuits against a mass driver.

Then a tank can be a tank in the hands of a good driver, but in the hands of an idiot, wont last a minute.

Turret prices need to be reduced. Module prices could be reduced by a small percentage. Why does my extra HP cost more than a PRO AV weapon?

If one guy with MLT swarms is launching at a good fit Madrugar, no, the tank should stay there and laugh.