You're the one who's mixing the roles. The HAV's we got now does what it's supposed to: decent DPS, decent speed, tank The tech 2 hulls will nerf one of these, buff another, and keep one the same:

Marauder- high tank, **** speed, decent DPS.

BO- High mobility, **** DPS, decent tank

Enforcer- High DPS, **** tank, decent mobility

This isn't about DPS, speed or tank. This is about how it applies them.

That statement could mean several different things. elaborate.

The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything.

Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo.

What changes for large turrets:

-Missiles and railguns lose their splash
-Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile
-Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage
-Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS)
-Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate
-Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently

Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage.

And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult.

Now, as for AP (small turrets):

-Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat
-Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat
-Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer.

Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI.

With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets.

Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers.

Hmm... I want a capacitor system, damnit!

I agree that HAVs don't seem to have a good role.

I'm not sure what that role should be though. As an infantryman I'm not keen on the invincible rolling death machine that a few of the tank players advocate for as it doesn't do anything that infantry can't already do (although it does it better while being a bigger target).

Dropships and LAVs have obvious transport roles.
A APC type troop carrier would have obvious roles in transporting, spawning, healing, supplying, boosting infantry.
Fighters would be anti-dropships vehicles (dropships would need more impact to make them worthwhile).
Bombers would probably be large area denial and/or anti-ground vehicles.

But what about tanks?
-"Breaking through enemy defences" sounds like destroying installations to me but installations don't play a large part in the games at the moment and blowing them up sounds like a terribly boring activity.
-"Supporting infantry" tends to mean killing enemy infantry (or scaring them so they hide) which is a role I would prefer to give to heavies and heavy weapons.
-"Destroying other vehicles" is a fine role but not terribly useful with the small imparct of LAVs of Dropships at the moment. Without other roles tanks killing tanks is a closed system.

Perhaps if turrets were serious threats to infantry?
If turrets flipped with null canons (or some other area control panel) instead of individually then disabling them would help infantry take an area.
If the turrets couldn't be permanently destroyed, just temporarily disabled, then that might give tanks more to do.

Just brainstorming.

I agree that HAVs don't seem to have a good role.

I'm not sure what that role should be though. As an infantryman I'm not keen on the invincible rolling death machine that a few of the tank players advocate for as it doesn't do anything that infantry can't already do (although it does it better while being a bigger target).

Dropships and LAVs have obvious transport roles.
A APC type troop carrier would have obvious roles in transporting, spawning, healing, supplying, boosting infantry.
Fighters would be anti-dropships vehicles (dropships would need more impact to make them worthwhile).
Bombers would probably be large area denial and/or anti-ground vehicles.

But what about tanks?
-"Breaking through enemy defences" sounds like destroying installations to me but installations don't play a large part in the games at the moment and blowing them up sounds like a terribly boring activity.
-"Supporting infantry" tends to mean killing enemy infantry (or scaring them so they hide) which is a role I would prefer to give to heavies and heavy weapons.
-"Destroying other vehicles" is a fine role but not terribly useful with the small imparct of LAVs of Dropships at the moment. Without other roles tanks killing tanks is a closed system.

Perhaps if turrets were serious threats to infantry?
If turrets flipped with null canons (or some other area control panel) instead of individually then disabling them would help infantry take an area.
If the turrets couldn't be permanently destroyed, just temporarily disabled, then that might give tanks more to do.

Just brainstorming.

Make large turrets "AV Turrets" and small turrets "AP turrets". These changes are keeping in mind the upcoming turret ammo.

What changes for large turrets:

-Missiles and railguns lose their splash
-Missiles get more missiles per salvo, higher damage per missile
-Railguns get longer initial spool time, higher direct damage
-Blaster RoF is reduced to 120RPM (2RPS)
-Blaster damage is increased accordingly (around 3-4x) to compensate
-Blaster should overheat in the same amount of time as currently

Mostly these are changes to the blaster, obviously because currently as a large turret it's the most devastating against infantry. With the RoF nerf, infantry should essentially be able to run past a tank without being killed, BUT if they stand still or if the tanker is exceptionally accurate, they're goners because bullets will deal massive damage.

And without splash damage, railguns and missiles will lose much of their AP capabilities. Still possible, but difficult.

Now, as for AP (small turrets):

-Railguns need more splash, more direct/splash damage, slower overheat
-Blasters need a tad more range, and slower overheat
-Missiles should stay the same but perhaps lower the RoF to make the ammo feel like it lasts longer.

Essentially buffing railguns up so they actually have a chance against blasters and missiles in terms of AI.

With these changes, instead of small and large turret slots tankers will get two AP and 1 AV turret slot. Make it clear from the outset what the tank driver's role is, and that it is the job of his passengers/crew to support with anti-personnel small turrets.

I can agree with the idea that Large Turrets should be primarily AV and Small Turrets should be primarily AP, but I still think that Small Turrets should be reasonably effective against Light Vehicles. So, would Medium Turrets be middle-ground?

NAME: % AV / % AP

Large Blaster: 80% / 20%
Large Missile: 90% / 10%
Large Railgun 90% / 10%

Small Blaster: 20% / 80%
Small Missile: 25% / 75%
Small Railgun: 40% / 60%

I've just thought of something to alleviate the issues with Large Turrets being overly effective against infantry.

In World of Tanks (bear with me here), your aiming reticule widens and your gun's accuracy diminish when you either A. move the turret or B. move the tank. When you remain stationary, your aiming reticule refocuses and your gun's accuracy slowly returns to normal. There is no such system in Dust 514, which means how well you can fire at something is completely dependent on your level of skill. While rewarding skill is certainly a positive thing, I personally think it makes it too easy for tankers to hit infantry. I say this mechanic should be added. Large Turrets would be the most affected by it, and Medium Turrets would be somewhat affected by it, while Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by it at all. Also, modules and bonuses that increase tracking speed would reduce this phenomenon.

Any thoughts?

I like it, BUT this could be negated by the 'future tech' argument.

Maybe projectile dispersion should increase based on whether or not you're taking damage. Taking more damage: bigger, unfocused reticle. Therefore the longer the tank withstands a pounding from AV, the more ineffective it gets in combat.

How the reticle is restored to maximum potential is something to be discussed too though. Should it be based on the current percentage of HP the tank has, or should accuracy keep diminishing until the tank returns to 100% armour? Explanation could be repair nanites focus on survivability/mobility first and offensive capability last.

And my bad with the percentages. To be honest all I wanted to show was whether the turret in question was better in AV or AP.

We've already seen how often balance is chosen over realism in Dust 514.


I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire. Though I did have an interesting thought. When a turret gets hit directly (instead of the chassis, for example), it could suffer a penalty in the form of a "damage meter" (for simplicity's sake, it won't have a separate health bar, just a damage meter). The higher the damage meter, the less heat capacity the turret has, and the less accurate it is. When it's 50% damaged, for example, it can only handle 50% as much heat, loses 'focus' (let's call the reticule/accuracy mechanic that, shall we?) 50% faster, and regains focus 50% slower. When it hits 100% damage, it auto-overheats and isn't able to be used until the damage meter goes back down. The damage meter automatically goes down over time, and using a repair tool (infantry equipment) will remove damage from it more quickly (armor repairers won't repair it, as that would give an advantage to armor tankers. I also think this makes infantry more valuable to tankers).

The problem is basically that CCP's trying to do pretty much everything, with everything.

If you ignore the terrible balance relationship between HAV survivability and AV weapons for a moment, and consider the HAV.

Literally every large turrets' damage numbers are balanced around taking out other vehicles, whilst still being able to combat infantry. Those numbers in turn when used against infantry mean that they're pretty much always going to get instablapped by HAV, creating the 'unfun' experience.

CCP's all about toting the 'side grade', so why isn't there AV and AP variants of the turrets that allow a pilot to excel in one of the two, and disadvantage themselves against the other?


If specialization is indeed the key, then an 'all around' tank should (In equal circumstances, even though those do not exist) be less ideal and lose against an AV spec tank, whereas that AV spec tank will have a harder time killing infantry (Though ideally not impossible) and likewise with an AP spec tank having a hard time killing an AV spec or 'all around' tank in turn.


I do not think "HAV" qualifies as a role in and of itself, and that unless CCP allows for an actual specialization, we're always going to be struggling to find a good place for HAV to shine on the grand scheme of balance.


If we set aside the 'real life' examples of what tanks do, I think it's safe to assume that in a video game that will always be pretty much completely out the window. In certain competitive environments you might see some pretty amazing and organized infantry + tank maneuvers, but at the end of the day while you should aim for high end play when doing balancing work, if you set that bar at the /very top/ then you uaually fail to account for the daily 'stupid factor' of the majority of people on the internet, which will pretty much break any illusions you had about how people will use your stuff. (Failing to account for stupid and/or player greed has been one of CCP's greatest shortcomings in terms of gameplay design and balance thus far)

Someone phrased this best, but the new roles of HAVs are what was described as 2 min / sporadic battering rams with how active modules are going to change. So HAV pilot main role is essentially going to function as stall breakers.

You had me on the turrets until you talked about , " how the armor repairer shouldn't repair the turrets ." Then they should have a turret repairer ??? One more thing that you can't place on your tank due to the computer and programming capacity and also the slot limits . The turrets damaging effecting the performing overall makes since but they should be repairable and WITHOUT help from SQUAD MATES

The damage meter automatically goes down over time

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but...


I said this already. Furthermore, it was in the middle of the post, which I know you read from start to finish.