As an open beta tanker I agree 110%.

Last time I pointed this out people yelled at me :(


I want to have a purpose beyond 'kill the reds and stop enemy tanks from killing the reds', especially when that makes more sense as an infantry role...

A general role that all vehicles follow would be insanely stupid. But I agree, each vehicle would need a general role to do, and its T II versions do it in another way.

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.

It's not the same thing, as they are different sizes. As far as how should they do combat if they are combat oriented, they should have niches for each. For example, the HAV's. The Enforcer should be a ranged-style HAV that gets a bonus to its optimal range. a Marauder is a defensive-style HAV that gets to use a siege module, a module that boosts the power of repairers and boosters, nut either dramatically lowers it's top speed and acceleration (I'm talking 75% or more), or immobilizes it. The Black Ops could be a rapid reinforcement HAV being able to move a very small number of mercs (say half to a squad max) across a good distance, by using a sort of reverse uplink type thing. the T I HAV will be able to do all of those things, but worse than all of them.

Enforcers would be great at sniping at vehicles, keeping them at a distance away from a target, Marauders would exel at holding the line, BO HAV's would be great at quick insertions and general stealth movement, and the T I HAV's could support these HAV's in doing those roles, as well as do the general work. However, they wouldn't be good at fighting infantry, as their main armament is a large turret, which is slow to turn and less accurate vs. a fast moving infantry target.

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.

HAV's are a force multiplier. That is what the role should be.
A tanker by himself should in effect be worse than an infantry slayer.

But give him an infantry escort and those infantry are suddenly worth 2-3x times their normal force strength.
An example from 1.7, Spkr and his jolly band of tryhards were wolfpacking against me and a few mlt blueberries, so I pulled out my first ever blaster tank, they hid like you would expect, 20 seconds later they all died to the blueberries, despite having superior gear.

Tanks should always be doing this.
Suppresion/Area Denial/Large Munitions Support/Portable Cover/Battering Ram

These all things a tank could and should do on a regular basis, but they don't because.
1) A blaster is just as effective as concentrated squad fire
2) They have more health than a squad
3) Are immune to most weapons
4) Faster than infantry

A HAV has all the benifits of an entire squad without any negatives.

Which ones of those can you logically take away that would give tanks an actual role?

There would need to be mechanics changes to allow HAVs to unleash suppressive fire without slaying.

I'm honestly of the opinion that complexes should be owned by infantry and be designed as vehicle death traps (sharp blind corners, multiple angles of attack, lots of cover etc and outer points should be the plaything of vehicles; open, little cover during traversal between complex and outer points etc.

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.

That kind of inaccuracy is uncalled for lol

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.

No, I love the design. It's sexy. Get in your tin can

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".

There is so much wrong with this...............

Care to elaborate?

1: The whole "pilot shouldn't ever get the main turret" Has already been explained why it's a horrible idea, in several different ways.

2: The MAV doesn't need a medium turret and two smalls, that's too much. medium turret and a small will do. Also, the MAV shouldn't get built in things (referring to your biomass and nanite bays, which you had no explaination for), nor should any vehicle should.

3: There's more than just the Marauder for HAV's, and you can't force a turret on a hull (how you sounded it should). Anyways, siege module working like EVE's (fuel based and damage based) wouldn't work. It'd get killed too easy.

4: You just said a DS gets no turrets. No need for explanation for how stupid that is.

5: ADS is not a Gunship; it's an Assault DS, a TII DS.

It seems like you don't know what T II is.........

Or even use vehicles much....................

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**).

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.

Goodness me no, so the entire use of your investment relies on some mltm0 blueberry you don't know and hope he is competent enough to fire on the target you are trying to present him? Vehicles do not have to be crew served as the compulsory, but it shouldn't give 1 person more than 1 forcestrength either.

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).

Like the idea of being able to swap out the turet for a seat

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.

Nope, a MAV is literally an APC it jist won't have the size or the tank to be a command post. 6 passenger, 1 driver operated light/medium turret will be more than sufficient.

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).

Fuel? So now we have fuel? Seige modules typically reduce your speed to 5% of its maximum, reduce tracking speeds, but increasd damage and resistance, however seige modes typically time to deactivate meaning a seiged vehicle is often doomed in a poor engagement

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.

LZ's will always be hot becausd you have no weapons from which ypur team can defend yourself, dropships are typically tactical troop transports, taking no more than 6, but allowing you to drop them off in presice locations, which is better than HALO jumping from a hercules class transport. 6 passengers, 2 light turrets

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.

if anything an ADS should have less EHP and more maneuverability, it's an assault model. Once again there is no need to change it, it's too Assault Forwarded

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".