Wouldn't be any more or less stupid than a difference between Assault and Logi. My primary concern is that vehicles (particularly HAVs) are reserved for either Transportation or Slaying, of which they do Slaying better than most other roles. Unfortunately, we have more roles dedicated to Slaying than anything else; so how do you balance out the risk vs reward of HAVs when they're basically just like everything else but with a 6000 HP Layer of defense that is immune to all but handful of weapons.

Yeah, see, you get it =P Basically just elaborated more on what the overall concept and goal is here.

Although, I would say that Black Ops is more of a thing for MAVs. A cloaked, ground-based vehicle that can hold an entire squad would be great if it sacrificed a hefty amount of offense/defensive capability. I'm not too beat up about specific bonuses ('x' amount to 'y' bonus), just the overall role that they're supposed to play. The numbers and stuff comes later on.

The game needs a reason for vehicles to exist, a role not met by infantry.

If they compete with infantry , then they can be no better than infantry. That's the big problem with DUST.

The game mode in DUST doesn't need vehicles, CCP just put them in because they wanted vehicles.
That makes them impossible to balance and be anything other than a favor of dropsuit.

Legion will have the same fundamental flaw unless it gets far more serious about adding complexity to game play. Vehicles will never have a unique role as long as all you have to do to win is clone out the enemy.

1) The blaster

Not only does it have accuracy that makes a sniper look like a shotgun, it has DPS that would make a HMG cry and range that rivals a forge gun.

Simply make is so a large blaster will find it difficult to hit anything smaller than a tank at 30m, enough to keep people in cover but not enough to kill anyone unless they are in the open.

Maybe, but the current level of accuracy is equally uncalled for. If you camp an uplink with a blaster tank it is possible to line up headshots with 100% accuracy.

That little dot on the hud, is EXACTLY where the round hits, EVERYTIME!
It's this that makes tanks do the slayer role than any infantry unit possibly could.

Make it accurate enough to reliably hit vehicles at 'short' range (80-120m) but struggle with a single infantry man.

I read 'redesign' and all I could think of was visually. LAVs need to look less idiotic. The gallente HAV looks like an ugly teddy bear...

But yeah. Vehicles need a redesign. Hopefully a two-fold one.

I would... If I had one!


But those LAVs... *remembers old Carbon footage* Those "things" better get redesigned to include futuristic roofs.

My thoughts on Vehicles in Legion

First off, I'd like to say that I think all vehicles in Legion should be Crew Served. There should be no "I drive and shoot" vehicles at all (unless the driver is swapping seats). This is a team game and it should encourage teamplay.

Alright, now that that is out of the way....

LAVs: Fast, light troop transport intended for small groups looking for fast insertion (that is much less conspicuous than a DS tearing through the sky). They should be the most maneuverable ground vehicles in the game, fairly squishy with only minor offensive potential (single small turret best used to deter enemies from pursuing). Seats three, one driver, one (Small turret) gunner and one passenger (potential to swap turret for extra seat giving one driver and three passengers).

MAVs: Durable squad logistical support vehicles intended for use as a mobile command post. Not as fast as LAVs though able to muscle over nearly any terrain, moderately defensible (no need to flee at the first sign of hostiles, though by no means a main battle station). Possesses built in Biomass and Nanite bays, seats six passengers (plus one driver, one main (Medium turret) gunner and two secondary gunners) with enough cargo space to accommodate their gear.

HAVs: Beastly direct action support vehicles intended for use as point defense/mobile artillery. Decent ground speed (3/4 MAV speed at max), terrible turret tracking speed (at least outside of Siege), ridiculous EHP and massive DPH potential. Seats one driver, one main (large turret) gunner and two secondary gunners. Can fit a Siege module which consume fuel though increases turret tracking speed at the cost of mobility (activating a Siege mod renders the HAV immobile until the Siege cycle is over).

DSs: Fast (max speed 3x that of an LAV), fragile, maneuverable airborne troop transports capable of moving up to two squads of passengers faster than any other mode of transport. No turrets though equipped with chaff to assist in longevity as well as a tractor module for those times when the extraction point is too hot for a landing. Seats a single pilot in addition to twelve passengers.

ADSs: Gunships that are slightly slower than DSs (3/4 DS speed at max), less maneuverable, fairly durable (~150% DS EHP) and bristling with guns though with no passengers. Seats one pilot, one main (Medium turret) gunner and four secondary gunners.

Just a quick runthrough on how I believe vehicles should be (not exactly, though at least the idea is conveyed). All vehicles should have a defined role that isn't just "I invincibly pwn everything".

Care to elaborate?

Well, I still have yet to be convinced that it is a horrible idea.



MAV has always struck me as being an APC, only game I've ever played with APCs in it had them having a Main Gun and two secondaries. TBH though, I can agree that one medium and one small would suffice. As for the biomass/nanite bays, I figured that they would be self-explanatory (built in CRU/Supply Depot). If we get LLAVs again will they not have the built in repper?



I should have clarified, the (* turrets) were more of a slot size recommendation rather than a hard and fast "it must be this size". Also, the idea I had stole about Siege mods said nothing of damage and everything of turret tracking speed (which I mentioned would be terrible out of Siege). I think that having a significantly increased turret tracking speed with an already high DPH potential would increase survival.


If a DS is a dedicated fast transport unit why does it need turrets again? I mean, if all it is intended to do is ferry troops to the front so they can ID down from the sky what is the point in turrets?

Please explain to me the difference between a gunship and an assault dropship. They sound like they'd be identical to me, what makes an Assault Dropship not a Gunship? While we are at it, who is to say that a Gunship isn't an upgraded (aka higher tier) dropship?

I know full well what T2 is though I will admit that my knowledge of vehicles is largely secondhand due to the fact that Dust doesn't have any vehicles I want to skill into (**cough**Minmatar Vehicles**cough**).

Guys, please don't derail the thread. This isn't about making up new vehicles (MAVs/Fighters/what have you) or new weapons (medium turrets? for reals?)

The thread is about redesigning the vehicles -we already have-. Just saying, if we can't figure out a dedicated role for the vehicles we already have and are removing assets (Marauders/Enforcers/Black Ops/Logistics/Scout) then we have absolutely -NO- room to start conjuring up new stuff.

In Eve, perhaps - not in Dust 514. Back on topic, please.

I still think we need a mobile CRU, you have to depoly it ofc but the abitly to have a mobile uplink could make the maps a lot more fluid, on salave maps it could even end up a primary job role.


...(guess who the ams and loadstar guy was in planetside :-P)

I wouldnt mind seeing HAVs split into a two user operated machine.

It doesn't make a lot of sense in a 16v16 scenario on Dust but in 24v24 - 32v32 I think multiple people makes more sense.

Also, if they redesign the skill tree for vehicles, a two user operated HAV can make more sense than it does currently in Dust. It would certainly help given their overwhelming power.

The biggest reason why having a split gunner HAV doesn't make sense in Dust is because there are no other alternatives for a ground based vehicular warfare for a solo player.

Otherwise you will have two conflicting views about HAVs. The first being, 'they are tanks! they should be amazing!" vs. "no single player should wield so much power at the cost of only isk" That sums up about 90% of HAV forum posts.

However that's not to say a variation of tanks that do require 2 people wouldn't ever happen.
You just shouldn't be forced too.

Cruiser HAV
Driver: Fixed Medium Turret
Gunner: Gyroscopic Large Turret (large elevation angle)
No light gunner slots.

1. Could and should be redone in Legion (skill to operate and not skill to build should have been how it was from the beginning).

2. See 1

3. Lore should never overwrite balancing game mechanics.

4. Opinion... also, like I said.. there are no other options for solo ground vehicle operation which is why HAVs exist in their current state. Add in other types of solo ground vehicles and a lack of solo HAV operation wouldn't be such a problem.

You fix the Medium Turret so it can only fire directly infront of the tank, it would make the Cruiser HAV a better Anti-Vehicle brawler but the lack of rotation makes it almost Impossible to track infantry, especially in complexs.

But you get my point you should be able to operate HAVs solo, but if you are prepared tomwork with someone and sacrifice your turret to the, then the HAV will recieve other benifits.

1-2: There shouldn't be a skill path to build vehicles at all, just to operate them. This opens up the option to deploy from corp assets in the future, something that wouldn't really work in our current system on Dust all that well.

4: You are missing my point I think.

What is the difference between an LAV and an HAV? Mechanically, think about what really defines both of those vehicles. At its core a vehicle is just a art asset backed up by a table of predetermined values. Ideally, you would like to have a spectrum of vehicles available which fulfill different functions that improve the game play experience. "Balancing" refers to tweaking that table of values to a point where the game play experience is fun for all parties involved in an engagement involving said vehicle.

You need to think much larger scale for vehicles in legion other than just LAV and HAV. In a lot of ways those vehicles are trying to fulfill too many roles at once because so many parts of that spectrum are missing in Dust. Imagine Legion has Speeders, LAVs, APCs, MTACs, MAVs, HAVs, HTACs, HAPCs, etc etc to fill different niches of that spectrum.

I'm not necessarily saying HAVs MUST have separated driver/gunner layout but more that HAVs may not necessarily have to have a single-player operated mechanic either. atm it fills many roles and imo it has too many strengths and not enough weaknesses, but it has to or it becomes irrelevant as it is literally half of the available land vehicles in Dust.

To echo what Aeon Amadi is saying, vehicles in Dust atm are somewhat lacking in purpose. They are just overpowered death machines mostly and always have been. Even in their darkest hours around 1.3-1.5 with AV being particularly powerful, you still would struggle to win in PC against tank spam. This, imo, is because of two reasons. Tanks fulfill too many roles at once (lack of other options being the reason why) and player count is too low to support a truly meaningful use of tanks other than rolling death machines.

fwiw I've never been a hardcore tanker nor have i ever seriously tanked in PC but I've driven tanks in chromosome, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8.

1-2: read it again, I said skill to operate and not skill to build is how it always should have been.

HAVs should be a force multiplier, agreed but should the game revolve around who has more HAVs? Cause that pretty much sums up Dust atm...

By your solution then, how fast/slow should large turrets move relative to how fast they move now?

What does 'a small bit of inaccuracies' truly mean? You want to add dispersion to the large blaster turret I assume? How much dispersion would be balanced? How hard should it be to kill a dropsuit with a large blaster?

armoured cars have infantry slaying armaments, like a large blaster

also, what you consider fun, i.e. solo play isn't what I consider fun either. What could be more fun than two great tankers like bob and char char working together and on comms?

the suggestion of an armoured car allows solo players to outrival infantry slaying, but with counterable defenses via infantry AV

it then allows HAVs to focus on bunker busting, AA and AT with infantry slaying as a second (small blasters). However, this idea would require a rebalance of the large blaster as a medium turret (possibly?) and a replacement large gallente turret (plasma mortar?).

Clearly godin can't ever be wrong. Im outta here.

Okay so then it comes back to the main point. Should large turrets be effective against infantry at all?

If you nerf the blaster so that its relatively ineffective against infantry (similar to the railgun or the 'rocket' turret) then what is the point of the HAV? It literally becomes a vehicle designed to counter itself... not necessarily bad in its own right but, imo, it loses its purpose in the current Dust meta. If the large blaster was reduced in efficacy (like we both believe it should be) what, do you think, people should call in HAVs for?

In that case, given limited vehicle bandwidth and 32v32 sized matches (just theoretically, assuming legion moves up in match size once on the PC) would a team prefer an HAV that has ~2-2.2x the stats with a two man operation scheme vs an HAV with a combined operation scheme?

I can see a strong case for the more powerful, 2 man, variant if you have two people that could work well together.

I could also see, with more vehicle options, a reason to prefer a more agile anti-infantry based MAV... like an APC or an MTAC or even a solo operated 'assault' LAV. With a smaller, more agile, yet lower damage variant of the current HAV meant to hunt down assault LAVs and MTACs with the larger HAV variant designed to protect infantry and lighter vehicles against solo operated HAVs and APCs.

Giving us a rough idea of:

Light Ground Vehicles:
Light Assault Vehicle - small troop transport and rapid anti-infantry vehicle
MTAC - fast moving anti-infantry mech

Medium Ground Vehicles:
APCs - Armored transport for squads with a more bunker-like setup. Small turrets that protect infantry near a point and provides a spawn point for squads to assault objectives. Essentially a mobile bunker, similar to APCs in Mag.
Medium Assault Vehicle - Reworked version of the current HAV. A smaller, more agile tank with a single medium turret. Meant for some anti-infantry capability while also being quite strong against MTACs and LAVs (small turrets). Has some resistance against infantry AV but meant more as a 'hit and run' style where they rely on their relative speed to get out of sticky situations.

Heavy Ground Vehicles:
Heavy Assault Vehicle - A reworked version of the current HAV with far more armor and resistance. Fairly resistant against AV and medium turrets while being essentially immune to small turrets and infantry AI. Separated gunner and vehicle seat, allows two small turrets and one large anti-vehicle based turret. Meant for 'bunker-busting' and taking down medium vehicles. Slow moving but can withstand a great deal of punishment.

while none of this is perfect... I just wish to highlight the idea that 'one-size fits all' with the current HAV isn't the only way to go. Giving each vehicle a specific niche can create a dynamic battlefields where infantry and vehicles coexist to support each other. But this doesn't work in 16v16... just not enough players to really support it imo. I would prefer the dust meta over the one i'm proposing in a 16v16 match lobby probably.

Also, very slow turret rotation is very very painful with a mouse (have you tried tanking with a mouse? I gave up on the Madrugar, its almost impossible to turn a large turret without turn the whole vehicle). Having a separated gunner on a large turret would be a boon as they can focus on moving the turret with A-D while the driver focuses on moving the vehicle with WASD.

Its just a thought at least... its not perfect but if we nerf large blasters I think you'll see HAVs will feel like the counter to themselves with no other real purpose.

I can literally distill HAVs down to two things atm.
1: Kill infantry? Large Blaster
2: Kill HAVs? Large Rail

That... is pretty much it. Nerf the large blaster and it becomes

1: Kill infantry? Don't use a tank
2: Kill HAVs? Pick an appropriate large turret.

It doesn't make sense because you've got your head so far up your own ass.

The point of this thread is to suggest ideas for a redesign. I gave mine, explained them well enough and now that I have you hounding me down and dismissing all my ideas because YOU don't feel they work well with your close minded view of vehicles, I have decided it isn't worth my time to go in depth with someone as deluded as yourself.

How about you learn how to contribute positively like an educated young man instead of shooting down everyone else's ideas like a brat? Clearly, the current system is flawed as explained by Zdub. There's a reason he has stopped replying to you.

There is room for vehicles that require teamwork/multiple operators as long as their are alternatives for people who would rather play solo with their vehicle.

It would kind of sad if the only reason for HAVs to exist is for blowing up installations, each other, and a gate here or there. All of which can also be accomplished, in some cases more effectively, by remote explosives.

I guess if you want to keep it the way it is lower blaster turret RoF and rotation speed by about 20%, add significant dispersion and buff AV by about 25% and swarms by about 60% and we can call it day.

No I can see your reasoning. Make sure elements are removed that require teamwork. Make sure the TTK from infantry AV is approximately that of a large rail turret. We don't want to force teamwork so we should make sure HAVs are readily soloable. That certainly is one way to go, I can understand the appeal to that approach.

lol nah it doesn't matter. You and I disagree on this.. we're not convince each other either way.

I truly don't believe there is any way to balance solo HAVs until you've removed the large blaster turret or nerfed it to a point where its no more effective against infantry than the large rail or rocket turrets. Or unless the TTK from infantry is so low that we essentially return to 1.4-1.5.

So I guess I would make heavy armor reps an active module, change vehicle damage mods to 10% passive and nerf the large blaster significantly against infantry.

Then, introduce a tech II type of HAV that has separated setup with about 2.2x the EHP and damage of the current HAV. Its optional, you still get your solo HAV and people who do wish to have a separated setup can have that as well.

Essential a better HAV? But it requires two players to operate, meaning an equivalent force would be two basic HAVs.

I could definitely see it work. Possibly repurpose the Marauder into a separated setup (or give it a new name, doesnt really matter). You give it exactly twice the HP of a basic HAV and make the specialist tank operation skill give +% base resistance per level.

In terms of damage, twice the dps would make it so basic HAVs couldnt compete.. thats probably right tbh. But these are just numbers I threw out... it would change in an any sort of iterative balancing.

I could see something along the line of increase RoF instead of raw +damage.

So.. for example.

Maurader HAV Operation
+% Resistance per level
+% to racial turret RoF per level.

That gives it more punch without having it essentially one shot anything that comes near it. You could tweak max velocity and acceleration as well. It becomes a heavier HAV essentially. It has more power but it requires more users to operate. There is a drawback to offset its positives.

There is a spot for a two-person tank. I think there is a great number of players who would like to use something like that, despite your assertions that there is not.

Godin: It doesn't really matter what you think about the cruiser (its on paper stats are good but it just wouldn't stack up irl), the point is currently HAVs don't reward teamwork, there is no benefit of any decent magnitude to having to gunners on your tank.

It requires no less effort to take down a tank with 1 person than it does to take down a tank with 3 people and that is wrong. If someone knows they have corpmembers and are prepared to teamwork they should be rewarded, with a tank that is more powerful than a 1 man tank.

Vehicles shouldn't be infantry killers. HAVs should have a very difficult, if not impossible, time killing infantry, at least with the main gun. They should kill other vehicles and they should kill installations. Installations need to have a bigger part in Legion.

Also, CCP should consider making HAVs either require or heavily favor multi-person use. Smaller vehicles should be used for solo play. Large vehicles should encourage team play.

Vehicles need a dedicated gameplay role. Destroying certain installations should be a heavy part of future game modes, so that tanks have their own job, as opposed to slaying.

[quote=Soraya Xel]
It is very important not to get those two confused. LAVs were always used for fast transport (their role) but their meta started being used in an unintended way when they were nigh unkillable and could kill infantry just by touching them (last year's murder taxi epidemic). As a result, changes were made and now they fulfill the role as they should. Albeit, I would prefer them to be used for Infantry Suppression but the only way that is going to happen is if they offer more in line for the gunner to be defensible as it's just way too damn easy to shoot them out of the gunner seat (something I keep repeating that a turret shield would easily fix).

I