i think a lot of times when people think there op they forget how much these vehicle cost to run. i use a falchion that's got mostly proto on it and ill looking at 8k hp. i'm also looking at around 2.5 to 3 million in isk per vehicle. i better sure as hell take quite a few hits before i go down!

I like blasters and that's part of the appeal of the HAV's for me . If they were just cannons ( especially on this game ) with the way people can boost their speed and how they can jump and the unpredictability of your adversary , blasters are a perfect tool . It's like crowd control . Yeah they can get away but they will suffer some damage . I have hit people with my scattered neutron cannon and it just seems like the magically survive by some fluke . It HAS to be RIGHT on them for them to die and I MEAN RIGHT on them .That's why I can agree when it comes to those who say that they need to increase the splash damage at least .

I did but " over time " ??? How do you define that ???? Is it like if you had your shields knocked out and you don't have a charger mod or shield booster available so it's like , tic ... tock ... tic , aw come on already ???? The way you had the scenario going made it seem like if you didn't have support and you were to encounter another tank or swarms or even a few forge gunners and troops with av's ( just the luck you need and that can happen even now to someone who doesn't have the RIGHT mods ) then you will be dead in a heartbeat ???? It just seemed like there was no way that you had given to speed up this process without personal to support you .

"Over time" is a very, very simple term. Unless specified, it almost always means gradually over time. Secondly, I didn't specify how long it would take because I'm not good with pulling statistics out of my arse. Thirdly, that's right, there's no way to repair it faster using vehicle modules (because that would be such an incredibly situational module that it wouldn't be worth it). Fourthly, why do you assume it will be easy to take a turret out of commission? They aren't made out of paper mache, you have to do quite a bit of direct damage to the turret or it won't be disabled at all. It would usually be a better idea to simply do whatever does the most damage to the HAV instead of disabling it's turret.

I don't think it's a good idea for HAVs, since they are supposed to be able to shoot under intense fire..

How would an turret repair mod be situational if this is something that you have suggested ???? ( i.e. turret damage ) Shouldn't a tank user have a way to repair something that effects his or her tank's performance ??? Shouldn't that become an option ...???... just like your proposal ??? A turret is a part of a tank and actually one of the MAIN parts of it because it produces offence and defense and without the turrets , what is it then ????

They are made of paper mache as you have stated . Try using a SICA or a SOMA even with advance turrets and mods and see how far that will get you . THEY ARE HORRIABLE and are not worthy of being called tanks . But I guess that's why they are re-working the vehicles .

I'm going to stop commenting on this topic because clearly you don't understand me.

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)

AV TANK: railgun. INFANTRY TANK: Blaster. seems simple to me.