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".

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.

1: medium turrets are a real thing..........

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.

numbers is not the reason why it is a bad idea. Also, that doesn't solve any of the problems that has been repeatedly been mentioned about it.

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.

Let's see:

1: Pilot skills for and pays for (most of the time) for the HAV.

2: Pilot calls in the HAV.

3: lore explains why the pilot controls both the turret and the driving

4: It'd be boring just to drive the HAV, and not get to shoot.

Since you couldn't use the search function, I gave them to you.

Let's see:

1: Pilot skills for and pays for (most of the time) for the HAV.

2: Pilot calls in the HAV.

3: lore explains why the pilot controls both the turret and the driving

4: It'd be boring just to drive the HAV, and not get to shoot.

Since you couldn't use the search function, I gave them to you.

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.

1 medium AND 1 large would be OP.

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: I want you to think about why having two seperate skill paths for building and actually using it doesn't work

2: read 1

3: No, it doesn't; however, CCP shapes the lore around the mechanics, and the lore has been already placed (it also works out, just isn't balanced right. If blam would had stop changing **** constantly, and Wolfman didn't break the entire system, it would had been balanced a long time ago).

4: LAV's don't need a turret control for the pilot, as it's unneeded, and no other land vehicle is out (other than MAV's will probably have the pilot control the medium turret). And yes it would.

Question, how much have you used vehicles, what have you used for them, and for how long have you used them?

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: You said that it should yourself, you're making no sense at this point

4: MAV's and APC's are the same thing, and there's no such thing as a Heavy MTAC (nor should there, that's too much.). Anyways, why do you think there's no current roles for vehicles? There's nothing for them to do other than go pew pew at everything they see. Add things for them to do, and that would change.

HAV's need to be what they do naturally: be a force multiplier. Have a large force in front of you? callin a HAV and you become much larger force. Wall in your way, or a hard to destroy installation stalling process? HAV. Vehicles blocking your process, you guessed it, HAV. Now, how to make it from just becoming the ultimate killer? make large turrets turn kinda slow, as well as add a small bit of inaccuracies to the turret so it's hard to hit fast moving and small targets.

Want me to do the rest of them, as I can. I got all day.

armored cars have terrible armament most of the time............

Also, there's ways of encouraging teamwork without breaking the fun system and forcing teamwork upon people.

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.

Well, if you gave me a actual reason why it makes sense (hint: there is none), then I would agree with you. You haven't yet.

(NOTE: Leaving a debate shows defeat, which means that you agree with the person.)

4: That's a given that will always happen, no matter what. Anyways, lots of critical things that needs to be done should be inside of vehicle unfriendly plexs, so if you have little infantry, you wouldn't get anything done, rather you might lose, as well as lose gear (try to drive in a plex with infantry that has tons of AV ). Basically discourage being a severely vehicle heavy team vs. a balanced team.

For the tracking speed, the only one that needs lowering is the blaster, which should be slightly slower (say 10-20%), which could be bring back by a (this time working) tracking speed skill.

As Far as the blaster dispersion, I'd say making between the difficulty of using the rail and the current blaster for hitting infantry. An alternative would also be to lower the ROF, and boosting the damage (or both tbh). The rail also should get a different sight, as the dot it gets now makes it too good at sniping infantry. The rocket (those aren't missiles, and I refuse to call them missiles ) launcher is fine tbh.

It'd make it to where only the skilled would need to be able to killed infantry, and only if they try, or get lucky (the idiot is standing still, or is way too close).

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.

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.