Teamwork kills everything possible in this fuckin game. The issue is : Why should one playstyle require teamwork when the other doesn't?

That's the entire problem. One option can kill everything in the damn game, while the direct counter is only that, a direct counter. And this direct counter isn't even efficient at countering the entire purpose of their play style.

Currently there are two roles in the game. Vehicle suppression and infantry suppression. Acting like hacking objectives isn't the role of a tanker is obscenely ridiculous. An infantry that decides to hack a point has just as much possiblity to fail as someone who leaves their HAV to hack the same objective. It's your own choice whether or not to decide which is more important, ISK through kills, or capping objectives for the win.

Now you may claim "but that infantry guy has skillpoints put into being adept at killing infantry, so he is better able to hack objectives.".... Wrong.

You decided to skill into vehicles who's sole purpose is to kill other infantry and vehicles. You already know there is no other role in the game beyond that. You know this. It's impossible to not know this, because the only thing you can do in this game is kill others, and hack objectives. You are choosing to play as a killer. Just like infantry choose to skill into either killing infantry, or killing vehicles (and we all know how ******* balanced AV currently is, which again, leads to the disparity of roles). You can choose to be adept at killing infantry, just as infantry can choose to become adept at running an HAV.

An HAV is able to kill everything the game. That is a fact. They are literally able to kill every possible thing in the game, with every single type of turret with relative efficiency compared to the other weapons in the game (i must admit that the missile turrets are in a decent place with infantry concerns. A 0.3 - 0.5 reduction in splash range would, IMO, completely balance missile turrets with the rest of the game however), also with more ease then any other weapon in the game. Stating otherwise is a lie. You know exactly how easy it is to dominate with a vehicle. Because you dominate, and complain that dying lost you 500k isk. For shame that you actually die in a game designed around everyone dying for eternity.

Infantry simply don't have this luxury. In order to excel in one area, they gimp themselves in another. HAV's aren't given this ultimatum. Anything they choose can kill infantry as easily as vehicles. They aren't only the jack of all trades, they are jack that has mastered all trades, and only for 200k-300k more then their direct counterpart. If i remember correctly, the community frowned upon a specific playstyle that could not only counter all other playstyles, but excel at them all (Cal Logi). They frowned upon a weapon that was able to destroy infantry pretty easily, as well as vehicles (Forge gun).

Why should HAV's get special treatment?

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I don't quite know what to say to that.

I mean, if you are saying you add turrets to your HAV so you can easily stack assist WP for people who dont even have to attack the same target to recieve those WP, while at the same time being able to increase your DPS due to your main turret being able to kill everything in the game on its own, and your small turrets being able to kill the majority of targets in the game at the same time....

I suppose that's fair.

Edit - Couldn't help to prolong my sleep deprivation to comment. Jesus True...many people claim you make logical posts. I suppose it's subjective to your favorite hobby.

So you think because I am a tanker and I put small turrets on my HAV it's entirely self centred and motivated..... as if mate. I could fit a significantly better tank, reps, hardeners, better modules all around better survivability.

You are also assuming I care about WP....that's a fallacy, no Tanker cares about WP, WP mean nothing to us.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

As I see it you are critiquing those who fit HAV for themselves, single seat HAV that can achieve great survivability and fire power.......and saying that it should require team work to achieve that kind of level of power..... then you are critiquing me who makes Tank fits that require multiple people to be at top effectiveness.

How could we humble tankers ever please such a mind that wants neither option available to tankers?

I don't quite know what to say to that.

I mean, if you are saying you add turrets to your HAV so you can easily stack assist WP for people who dont even have to attack the same target to recieve those WP, while at the same time being able to increase your DPS due to your main turret being able to kill everything in the game on its own, and your small turrets being able to kill the majority of targets in the game at the same time....

I suppose that's fair.

Edit - Couldn't help to prolong my sleep deprivation to comment. Jesus True...many people claim you make logical posts. I suppose it's subjective to your favorite hobby.

Also, how is that WP gain you are receiving from damaging vehicles doing for your 3 manned HAV?

Is it a coincidence that you are 3 manning HAV's after the fact that WP are now received for damaging vehicles? That must be a shitload of assist WP for them simply being in the same tank. Good for you for "playing fair"

No, I think True is saying that he makes his tanks designed for team-play, which I think is a rarity and admirable.

I also think that everyone could agree that small vehicle turrets are and should be powerful against infantry because that is what they are designed for. They are also less efficient versus vehicles.

See this is probably the largest problem I have, well other than no amarrian vehicles and standard swarms being crap. Tanks (specifically blaster tanks) get the luxury of weapons that are 100% efficient versus ALL things. Infantry have to decide if they want anti-infantry capabilities or anti vehicle capabilities.

Infantry are immune to nothing (save for swarms), tanks are immune to many things.

To me that is an imbalance. I just think that large turrets should be ~20% efficient versus ground troops. It is easily justifiable and explainable, and it would stop the vehicle QQ in an instant.

You are struggling to understand my argument?

Let me put it in layman's terms : You are a much stronger asset on the field then any infantry could hope to achieve. You are able to counter everything by simply existing, yet are immune to most weapons by simply existing. The only weapons in the game are either **** poor against you unless they are attacking mutliple amounts (infantry) or solo'd by a single enemy HAV (rail tanks, or even high SP totting blasters).

We all know you are aware of the disparity. Stop trying to act like an HAV isn't the best asset on the field, period, regardless of circumstance.

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I also feel inclined to disagree because its

A.) Not tenable to play HAV all the time, on some maps you can become worse than useless so other roles are required.
B.) EVERY suit type and role is a slayer since they all kill things
C.) You opinion is heavily biased one way..... seems like you don't even try to approach this from the point of view of a tanker...

However I realise this is a legitimate issue of imbalances.

I am a Tank........ and you compare me to infantrymen...... tanks are naturally designed to slay infantry.......if not by using its single main cannon to destroy entrenched enemy positions then with one of several smaller hull mounted machineguns.

If I were able to counter everything then I would win every game. I can counted most things. Infantry Mobs, LAV, the occasional low flying dropship. But I too have plenty of counters. Despite what people say AV mobs....sorry I mean smart AV are my hard counters. Missile and Rail HAV are my hard counters.

That's however doesn't mean I cannot beat them myself, it simply requires more effort on my part, and effort I am wholly willing to put into my game to develop the associated strategies and skills related to taking down those threats. Hence why I developed the 3 man HAV. A typical blaster never had the fire power to take down its Rail and Missile counters easily..... but 3 guns do/did.

I don't think you understand the premise of tanks..... impervious to small arms fire.....

As for your last point..... I have never stated I wanted HAV to be some invincible shell, impervious to all harm. I want to feel vulnerable. Without vulnerability their is no enjoyment of HAV, no reason to strive to do better than I did before, or not to lose my Tank. Without my vulnerability there is no balance and other players cannot fully get out of the game what they have put into it.

However there is a difference between what I would do to balance the game, and what you might do to buff AV or nerf HAV.

I firmly believe that we cannot achieve a meaningful vehicle balance if we are not prepared to put the time and testing into the opposing roles to determine where all fault lie and where changes might be made. However this cannot be done in earnest until all basic AV weaponry is implanted into the game as well as a full racial vehicle line up.

Trying to balance AV vs Vehicle on what we have now will only provide us with half the necessary data that we need.

You are preaching from a podium in this thread either your frustrations of your bigotry against a specific aspect of this community as though you were some appointed judge.

You are making assumptions based about my mindset as a tanker, and in many cases the wider community. As a tanker I can say that I most certainly am not out to ruin anyone's game, I am not desiring to pad a non existent KDR, WP, or E-peen.

I see little point in discussing this futher with you as you seem to have no desire to discuss and suggest, only instead a desire to make assumptions and statements of your own opinion as though there were fact.

Why in god's name do you even comment?

You just said that HAV's are only good on some maps, then said all type of suits are killers...which is true, which includes yours (your "suit" is obviously an HAV shell).

then claim my view isn't from a tanker? are you serious? i'm using MLT tanks. The lowest possible form of tanks you can use. Unless you are claiming that putting SP into tanks makes absolutely no difference between MLT hull / MLT mods opposed to an HAV that has all proto mods...you have no leg to stand on.

Are you seriously acting like you can compare a dropsuit and an HAV on equal terms in the current iteration?

You are struggling to understand my argument?

Let me put it in layman's terms : You are a much stronger asset on the field then any infantry could hope to achieve. You are able to counter everything by simply existing, yet are immune to most weapons by simply existing. The only weapons in the game are either **** poor against you unless they are attacking mutliple amounts (infantry) or solo'd by a single enemy HAV (rail tanks, or even high SP totting blasters).

We all know you are aware of the disparity. Stop trying to act like an HAV isn't the best asset on the field, period, regardless of circumstance.

I'm not trying to compare them they are completely different from one another.

Teamwork kills everything possible in this fuckin game. The issue is : Why should one playstyle require teamwork when the other doesn't?

That's the entire problem. One option can kill everything in the damn game, while the direct counter is only that, a direct counter. And this direct counter isn't even efficient at countering the entire purpose of their play style.

Currently there are two roles in the game. Vehicle suppression and infantry suppression. Acting like hacking objectives isn't the role of a tanker is obscenely ridiculous. An infantry that decides to hack a point has just as much possiblity to fail as someone who leaves their HAV to hack the same objective. It's your own choice whether or not to decide which is more important, ISK through kills, or capping objectives for the win.

Now you may claim "but that infantry guy has skillpoints put into being adept at killing infantry, so he is better able to hack objectives.".... Wrong.

You decided to skill into vehicles who's sole purpose is to kill other infantry and vehicles. You already know there is no other role in the game beyond that. You know this. It's impossible to not know this, because the only thing you can do in this game is kill others, and hack objectives. You are choosing to play as a killer. Just like infantry choose to skill into either killing infantry, or killing vehicles (and we all know how ******* balanced AV currently is, which again, leads to the disparity of roles). You can choose to be adept at killing infantry, just as infantry can choose to become adept at running an HAV.

An HAV is able to kill everything the game. That is a fact. They are literally able to kill every possible thing in the game, with every single type of turret with relative efficiency compared to the other weapons in the game (i must admit that the missile turrets are in a decent place with infantry concerns. A 0.3 - 0.5 reduction in splash range would, IMO, completely balance missile turrets with the rest of the game however), also with more ease then any other weapon in the game. Stating otherwise is a lie. You know exactly how easy it is to dominate with a vehicle. Because you dominate, and complain that dying lost you 500k isk. For shame that you actually die in a game designed around everyone dying for eternity.

Infantry simply don't have this luxury. In order to excel in one area, they gimp themselves in another. HAV's aren't given this ultimatum. Anything they choose can kill infantry as easily as vehicles. They aren't only the jack of all trades, they are jack that has mastered all trades, and only for 200k-300k more then their direct counterpart. If i remember correctly, the community frowned upon a specific playstyle that could not only counter all other playstyles, but excel at them all (Cal Logi). They frowned upon a weapon that was able to destroy infantry pretty easily, as well as vehicles (Forge gun).

Why should HAV's get special treatment?

You sound like you've never used a tank in this game other than maybe a redline rail. Maybe make a second account with tanks and see just how hard it is, most of us vehicle specialists are also invested in one infantry role too just so were not completely useless when we can't bring out a tank or dropship.

If you've ever tried to solo tank with no squad to support you, you'd know that it's insanwly difficult and almost impossible to do and be profitable.

I'm sorry I have to disagree with everything you've said. The tankers job is to support infantry not kill infantry the problem is that avast majority of players are not interested in using AV or cooperating together. Everyone wants a high KDR and lots of Isk. Tankers that try to play a supportive role get annihilated by Av and other tanks. Fitting a 3 man tank compromises the integrity of the hull of your tank. Not only are you more vulnerable to the enemy but the cost of running tanks of this nature are far more expensive than running a tank with one main weapon.

When going into a pub with a 3 man tank setup prepare to have no blueberries get into your tank this frustration has caused tankers to just remain as a 1 man unit. Prior to 1.6 it was pretty common to see tanks with blue berries inside because turrets were not removable unfortunately once inside the crew would sit in the tanks doing nothing and collecting WPs. Well that had to be addressed and CCP allowed turrets to be removed. This removal gave tankers a very significant advantage it has truly became a thorn in everyone's side.

Tankers who want to be apart of the team get destroyed by Av and solo tankers (assuming team friendly tankers have no crew). Tanks with full turrets are superior to solo tanks the problem is its just too expensive other players could care less about riding along in your tank. Infantry are the sole reason for all of the AV/Tank balance the only players who are getting special treatment are infantry because they are the ones coming on the forums complaining and suggesting how to make tanks easier for them to solo.

The only solution to the Av/Tank balance is for infantry to take in interest in tanking. For instance go ahead and level up your small turret skills make yourself useful if you see a tanker on your team struggling to take out other tanks send him a message. Hey I have such and such skills do you want to try going into this together. Take your Av weapons with you and when the opportunity strikes make you move hop out of the turret seat and assist your fellow tanker. Making Av weapons solo friendly is a bad idea things were that way in the past and it did not work.

Look you believe HAV are wholly unbalanced units piloted only by the selfish and mean spirited out to destroy this community and personally "get you"..... I believe that that is not the case, that while vehicle vs AV is unbalanced it is not the same game breaking degree that you seem to think it is.

As I have said before HAV are very useful on certain maps and in certain circumstances, in some games they become the focal point and having such units on your side to counter and make use of is a must. But equally so on others they become relatively pointless, especially inside compounds or across uneven terrain.

Believe what you will Duran about vehicles, about my opinions, etc. I just want to reach a place where HAV have a proper place on the field, where using one requires the skills it used to without being wholly unbalanced by AV as it used to be.

I don't have the time to be straw manned by you into an argument that will not help either side achieve a balance.

I'm not even going to bother here Duran, you're an argumentative biggot with an axe to grind just looking for a fight because you apparently hate vehicles and want them removed from the game. There is no intelligent discussion or exchange of information going to happen here, you apparently just want to butch and have some people stroke you to your self-righteous ranting and ridiculing of people who want to have fun in a different way than you.

It's okay to not like things, but you don't need to be a jerk about the things you don't like. We play vehicles because we like the playstyle, not because we've got a grudge against infantry.

HAV's are a SUPPORT role?

Hahahahaha. I'll go to sleep on that one.

Sorry that you are unwilling to listen but yes tanks are far better at supporting than killing. Tanks clear large areas for infantry to move in the also destroy installations transport and supply chains of the enemy team. Tanks are designed to breach strongholds they also have an effect on the mentality of the enemy infantry which can be used as a tactical advantage for the allied team.

Sorry that you are unwilling to listen but yes tanks are far better at supporting than killing. Tanks clear large areas for infantry to move in the also destroy installations transport and supply chains of the enemy team. Tanks are designed to breach strongholds they also have an effect on the mentality of the enemy infantry which can be used as a tactical advantage for the allied team.

And how do those tanks clear the areas?

By asking nicely?