Large turrets shouldn't be incapable of AP. Small turrets should just be better at it.

Large turrets shouldn't be incapable of AP. Small turrets should just be better at it.

YES And i would say the same for the ANTI vehicle roles! why should it take multiple AV players to counter 1 tank effectively? If you want to survive against a proto AV player of any type it should require good fittings on the tank AND smart driving. Right now it does not require either 1 AV player vs 1 tank = 1 laughing tanker.

Tanks are clearly too strong at the moment; this is evident from the need to arbitrarily limit them in Ambush. At some point CCP will nerf them and they'll become too weak. Then the cycle will begin again.

The HAV / AV balance will swing back and forth forever, as far as I can tell, because it is simply impossible for CCP to find a middle ground that both sides are happy with.

snip

Enjoy the merry-go-round

This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this.

inb4tankerrage.

It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you.

Tankers do not tank because of this but for the reason that is their love for vehicle usage and the support factor .

The tank is the shark of the land. In no way is it a support role. It is a massive hunter killer, which happens to have stealth properties in this game.

trust me I kill 10+ tanks a game every game. consistently without fail.

Ok, so poor choice in words on my part, but I do think it should be exceedingly easier to get AP kills with Small Turrets.

EDIT: True summed it up nicely.

Easier to get AP kills? You are already swatting us away like flies. Not everybody should have to skill into Swarm Launchers or Forge Guns to fight back against vehicles. Personally, I think LAVS should be able to attack HAVs, LAVs and Infantry. They should make it so a HAV can only attack HAV's and LAV's, NOT attack infantry. You want to attack the guy with the swarm launcher, jump out of your shell and take him 1 on 1 outside the safety of your tank.

I'm sick and tired of getting lit up by f***ing Magruders 3,4,5 times in a match because he is rolling around in a mobile fort I can't do anything to with my pea-shooter. At least with LAV's the driver is in the open so I can kill the driver. If someone is in a tank, I have absolutely no defense or recourse to him shooting me over and over and over, other than having to, as I said, skill into AV and waste it on something I have no desire to do.

You wish to be able to defeat the purpose of heavy armour on vehicles by being able to destroy vehicles with small arms......thus not only defeating the purpose of the vehicle.....but also of all AV everywhere.........

Why don't you invest in AV..... I'm a bloody tanker and I have AV options....if you don't have AV at this stage in the game, and you aren't new...... then you are doing something wrong.

Nope. I never suggested that in any way shape or form. Small arms should not be able to damage vehicles in any way, as they are now. There is no way a CR, RR, LR, etc. should do any damage to a tank. The idea is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that in any way. What I'm saying is I'm tired of someone rolling around in an inpenetrable fortress blowing the **** out of me and going 25-0 killing infantry people who don't have the ability to do anything to fight back.

Again, why should I be FORCED to skill into something I have no desire to do just to be a minimal threat? This is liking telling a baby gazelle to grow pointy hooves to defend itself against a lion. You are still absolutely and completely outmatched and outgunned and stand basically no shot. I don't want to be a vehicle hunter. I want to run my logi, support my team, and not have to worry about equipping a weapon that is effective only against vehicles (Swarm) and give me absolutely no way of defending against other infantry. The other option is throwing a ****-ton of SP into heavy weapons to get to whatever level I need in order to run a forge. In doing this, I'm not able to invest into my armor, shields, Combat Rifle etc. so I'm not increasing my ability to kill infantry while others are so actually I'm becoming less effective on that front and, after skilling into Sentinel, heavy weapons, and forge, I'm still getting a basic weapon that is still practically worthless against a triple rep magruder.

I know it's not going to happen. I'm just sick of tankers rolling around in Ambush racking up 25 kills in a 50 kill match while not dying once because nothing on the battlefield can do anything to it. Or, if there is someone who can, he gets hit a couple of times, retreats for 20 seconds, reps back up, and goes right back to the center of the action. I'm just not for the fastest, heaviest, most armored, most DPS weapon on the battlefield being able to completely control a match so it no longer becomes fun for either team (because his own team isn't able to really do anything because the tanker is stealing all his kills.)

Easier to get AP kills? You are already swatting us away like flies. Not everybody should have to skill into Swarm Launchers or Forge Guns to fight back against vehicles. Personally, I think LAVS should be able to attack HAVs, LAVs and Infantry. They should make it so a HAV can only attack HAV's and LAV's, NOT attack infantry. You want to attack the guy with the swarm launcher, jump out of your shell and take him 1 on 1 outside the safety of your tank.

I'm sick and tired of getting lit up by f***ing Magruders 3,4,5 times in a match because he is rolling around in a mobile fort I can't do anything to with my pea-shooter. At least with LAV's the driver is in the open so I can kill the driver. If someone is in a tank, I have absolutely no defense or recourse to him shooting me over and over and over, other than having to, as I said, skill into AV and waste it on something I have no desire to do.

Why wont a CPM make a post about the poison that is in the community and stop trying to push their agenda's ???

I don't speak for those tankers, but the fact of the matter is if you can't solo a tank, that's you being ****** at AV.

That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably).

The tank driver and main gunner should be two distinct functions and therefore two separate positions inside of a tank. So a single operator would either drive or use the main gun, but not both simultaneously. Thus to drive and fire the main gun simultaneously would require two crew members.

Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not?

Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable?

if a tank driver get solod in a tank the he is simply a scrub, lost all credibiltiy and have no business in talkinga bout anything tank related

I havent lost a single MLT tank to AV since the tank "overhaul" and I have zero SP in tanks. the only thing that gets me are other tanks.

This is one of the most constructive HAV-AV conversations I've ever seen on these forums. There's some fundamental disagreement, but a willingness on both sides to keep the debate rational. Keep going guys.

Personally I think the game needs both solo and crew-only assault vehicles. I'd go with crew-only HAVs and solo MAVs, but there are other viable options. I'd suggest that the skills required to operate the MAV (for solo play) form the basis for HAV work so tankers don't need to make a fundamental choice between the two. I assume it would be important to have the choice, in each battle, of whether to call in a solo or crewed vehicle.

No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ******* Christ.

edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea.

What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing.

"But tank spam!"

But shut the **** up. Tank spam is so overblown it's ******* ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match.

Not to mention lone wolf tankers are ******.
People without a mic are ******.

Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role.

Well this would even the playing field a bit in the numerical balance between av vs Hav. That's all, to be honest Havs have are unique in that regard as LAV's have the driver separated from the gunner as well as most dropships so this would bring havs more in line with the other vehicles in theory.

The problem I see with this is the lack of roles Havs have..the LAV is more a fast transport than an attack vehicle (even if i can be used as such) and the same is true for a dropship.

But a Hav...

And that's the main problem Hav's have no real role besides slaughtering infantry and maybe Av if there is another Hav. With the Railgun nerf they are not even that effective vs dropships.

So basically Havs are there to fight other Havs or to fight infantry and this is not good at all at least for the second part. They need a role that is important but does not rely on slaughtering infantry and currently I don't see such a role. So I am afraid the current problems will stay. With favoring one side and then the other side depending on who cries the loudest.

But I doubt CCP is able to solve this issue in the near future...

No a bad suggestion at all.... however I am still inclined to champion single pilot HAV until such a time as a better reasoned or phrased argument....however as always I will try as best I can to remain open to suggestions, and try to respond in an unbiased manner....which admittedly is not always easy.

Do you have any specific objections to the solo-MAV, crewed-HAV model, or does it just need more elaboration?

Here's a brief outline anyway:-

I'd go with two MAVs initially, the Amarr mobile gun platform and the Minmatar squad transport. The squad transport has driver, top (small) turret and 4 extra seats; its almost as fast as a LAV, and has high EHP. The Amarr Mobile Gun Platform is single-seat, is as fast as HAVs are now, mounts a single large turret (only) but doesn't have much EHP.

For HAVs, the driver would get the front (small) turret, along with its field of view. The large turret would get a small field of view. The third-person field-of-view would go to the top (small) turret - this would be for the tank commander, who would run the tank, issuing orders to the driver and main gunner. HAVs would get a slight speed nerf, the guns would remain roughly unchanged, and they could probably get an EHP buff to compensate for the requirement for 3 players.

As for AV, the ISK cost of swarms and forges should be increased significantly, so that a decent fully-fitted AV suit costs about a third of what a decent fully-fitted HAV costs. AV vs HAV should be balanced around 3 competent players each side, both spending as much as they can, and then scaling down from there.

AV vs MAV (gun platform) should be balanced around 1v1, with the MAV being tougher but the AV being able to hide and use cover more effectively. Balance around the AV player winning if he can get into a decent firing position, but getting slaughtered if he can't.

When MAVs are introduced, all players should get the basic MAV skill and as many levels as they have in their best HAV skill.

Oh, and introduce an Amarr laser cannon large turret to go with that MAV :-)

It is that I am against it, I simply feel that if seats need to be broken down then any vehicle than can both pilot and provide a strong anti vehicle presence should be broken up.

But I stand by my suggest that HAV don't need to necessarily provide pilots with a strong durable frame and AI capacity. A strong frame an powerful AV capacity would suffice, reducing the detrimental effect that HAV can have on infantry gameplay, while still allowing the main pilot to enjoy a specific and active role, at the same time encouraging multiple crew members, and reinforcing the role of the MAV as a troop transport and support vehicle.