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.

Try approaching a well defended gate by infantry or small vehicles, possibly even HAV's, and blowing it up.

And buffing and nerfing stuff like that won't fix anything, just start another buff nerf cycle. That's CCP's problem; they never learn from the past...........

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.

Making sure there's no forced teamwork where it's not necessary =/= removing teamwork. Insults and and downplaying doesn't make you look good in a argument, just sayin.

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.

Wait, you think you know how vehicles work, yet you don't even use them much, and you think this is a good idea.........

I'm done here

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.

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

Wonderful suggestions

My own personal view is that HAV should represent a platform for heavy fire power, by this I mean that I feel HAV should have a feeling of power about them but in the sense that when you fire your main cannon you feel like you are firing a weapon of titanic destructive potential, when you are struck by AV you should feel stunned by the forces that just hit you, and when you move you should feel like a rumbling engine of war.

This however is just from an immersive point of view which leads on to how I feel HAV should be. They should be vehicle and fortification busters IMO (but of course I am open to other suggestions).

I would prefer to see them presented in Legion as (with slot layouts to suggest progression)

Militia - Features 0SP requirements and features a general purpose lay out for introduction into the role

Soma- 2/2
Sica- 2/2
Mattock- 2/2
Disciple- 2/2

T1- Features Low SP investments and attunes the players to the racial groups primary combat style furthering the role of HAV

Madraugar 2/3
Gunlogi 3/2
(Nordic Sounding Name) - 4/1
Redeemer- 1/4

T2- High SP requirements and furthers specialises the HAV's main role in a unique racial combat style (bear in mind only 1 hull at T2 is really required for this per racial group...I just like listing options)

Surya/Vayu/Kubera 2/4
Sagaris/Falchion/Chakram 4/2
(More Impressive Sounding Nordic Name) 5/1
Seraph 1/5

Fitting slots are always an interesting topic but ultimately I don't think that they suggest any sort of role on the battlefield. Vehicle destruction, to me, sounds like an added bonus more than an actual role because inevitable it comes down to "countering the counter" style play - with HAVs being designed to kill other HAVs. Albeit, recently I've been reconsidering my thoughts on the whole "vehicles having a role" in favor of "vehicles having a specialization". Caldari could be really good at Siege Warfare (railguns/missiles), Gallente could be really good at Infantry Suppression/Force Multiplication, Minmatar perhaps being well-rounded with a lean toward Hit-and-Run style play, and Amarr being more privy toward Point Defense.

At which point the slots can be molded around the intended playstyle with opportunities for emergent gameplay. Just my thinking on it anyhow.

Yes that is true.

Slots do not designate the role. Its was merely to suggest progression. I am a proponent of tiering no matter what anyone says.

Tiericide destroyed Tanking as it is today.

I understand you wish to nail down an over arcing role of HAV...... but you really can't do that unless you consider T2 as specialised variations of that over arcing role.

Personally while I like the idea of giving racial variances I do not like the suggestion that one race cannot fulfil the role of another. I do not like the idea of casting more racial sterotypes. All races should has a suit and a vehicle to fulfil its role, however that should be achieved in a different way.

Summarising what I said.

I am all for keeping Caldari as Heavy Shield Tankers, and Gallente as high fire power, Repping tankers.

But I am against instituting a Caldari are the besieging race, Gallente are the generalists, Amarr do point defence.The issue I see is that this community gets the wrong idea about the races in their heads. Then they attempt to make balance arguments off of those ideals. most players don't know

-Gallente also use Railguns
- Amarrian Khanid ships fire missiles
-The Amarr are a drone race
- Minmatar are Alpha damage kings
- ETC

I see

Marauders specialise in besieging.

Enforces specialise in aggressive manoeuvres.

Black Ops are more well rounded, or Point defenders.

Then have each variant of tanks have their racial flavours.