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.

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"

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.

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.

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?

HAV's are a SUPPORT role?

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

And how do those tanks clear the areas?

By asking nicely?

You believe killing infantry and vehicles = support.

I believe killing infantry and vehicles means killing infantry and vehicles.

You can think what you want, but in the end you are only killing infantry and vehicles, and that's your only role.

I can't fix stupid. But sure, I'll give my money to the mentally challenged. They deserve "support".

1. Limit the number of tanks on the battlefield. If you wanted to be an ******* about it you can require pilots and a partner. Pilots drive tanks aren't the ones actually shootings he main turret, i know its a video game and this would cause outrage but there has to be some sort of comparison. If you required 2 people in a tank, it would encourage more teamwork. This would **** **** up.

2. Driver of tank or DS should require a pilot suit of equivalent level of vehicle. Have the suit equal type of tank used, tankers spend more SP (get small tank to stats). Add more SP to a tank build, delays inevitable but that's okay.

3. Vehicles cost should not be equal to a high end suit, the cost should be equivalent to the #'s it takes to destroy it. So if tanks want to be 250-350k then it takes 2 players to take it out. If it is 500-600k then it would require 4. So have equal cost to man power. A tank = infantry cost. Tanks are what 3-8 million and take 3-5 billion to develop. Infantry take about 1m for an elite troop. And it's not like a well placed 25k RPG can't take a vehicle down. So price adjustment need to match cost of taking it down.

4. As for infantry, providing incentives for Commandos to take out Tanks/DS by providing extra WP for damage and kills would be a start. Providing assault class with +1 extra nade could mean ability to equip AV nades; this could also be the case if they are given cost reduction to nades, which means carrying Proto AV nades more likely. It's up to the team, or your squad, to take care of the biggest threats, so don't blame others.

4 b) Some do not have the option, or luxury to take on vehicles and not gimp themselves... Except commandos!!! I guess you figured it out. 2 light weapons, increased damage, ability to equip aV without handicapping themselves.. Win win win.

5. Tanks who take on high damage should be penalized (ie burning should handicap movement + turret rotation). If you want to add a critical point where passive reps won't work, sure. Require pilots to have to take safety, jump out and use a rep tool wouldn't be horrible and would end the constant pressure they can dish out.

To additional comments:
- Tankers are suppose to support infantry, but don't. They should but it's simply not required, call in 6 tanks and rush enemy is how you win the majority of the matches. Sorry, its true and shouldn't be a viable tactic.

- AV cannot do enough damage, and often get spawn trapped or just overwhelmed by the high volume of tanks.
Players get very good bonuses in a tank, and tanks should have to cater an extra slot. You can go watch the passive reps videos if you don't believe me.


I'm not gonna pretend i am right, I'm not a tanker. I do have difficulty taking them down, however. Take it with a grain of salt is all I'm saying. Tanks should be the dominant force on a battlefield but should not be so difficult to take out, nor should them be able to use the tactics they are using now. Mass tank, race to enemy without support, own all.

Your teachers should have informed you of apostrophes.

Perhaps hypocrisy is the newest "cool" for children.

I'm not gonna lie, i only read the second paragraph.

If you weren't designed to be able to kill both infantry and vehicles with ultimate ease, why is it you can kill both vehicles and infantry with ultimate ease? You can counter everytthing int he ******* game, and you do.

Pray ******* tell me a circumstance that an HAV would fail against an infantry in terms of killing others (you already claim you have zero ability to hack an objective, so thats moot point). Tell me a situation where an infantry person can earn more kills than an HAV.

Again, hypocrisy must be the newest "cool".

Loving the show guys keep it up.

*munches popcorn and hands True and Collins a can well deserved beer.

And its hilarious that I've expressed my own opinions, yet you continue to claim your opinion is the only correct one.

What adds to the humor is you acting like you haven't insulted anyone, and believe your opinion is actually fact.

Now I'm positive that hypocrisy must be the newest "cool".

While you are poking around this thread True.

What's more bad ass to you EVE wise :

A glorious Amarr laser gunboat, or a laser ship using drones?

I came back to EVE and noticed all the awesome drones and relevant skills they added.

Yet i can't decide on what battleship to use....they all seem so....bad ass.