My issue is how do you differentiate between the alpha potential of current Large missiles vs an arty turret?

Well I don't think an arty turret should oneshot other tanks. The big difference is the range and mechanics. I picture the arty pointing between 45 degrees and something like 80 degrees creating a "donut" of attackable area around the tank.

I also like to see our current missiles renamed to rockets, and eventually add missiles that locked onto targets like swarms. This is more of a Legion thing though, but I think it would be cool to move towards this direction. These missiles would have long lock times though (shorter if the target was painted with a target painter) and could be interrupted with ECM. I picture these playing an important role in anti-air once we get fighters, heavy aircraft, etc.

Fair enough, though for the purpose of this exercise we should probably focus on existing mechanics and assets.

So...going under the assumption that we wont be doing a drastic overhaul to turrets or how active modules work, let's move forward.

So Assume we add racial variants in, do you guys think we should have them share the same skills with the Caldari and Gallente since they have the same art assets? Or should they be completely different skills? My concerns with unique skills is that since we have limited turrets (and making turrent variants that actually work like the racial variants should is pretty hacky), I worry that the bonuses for the unique skills wouldn't be quite right, you know?

Fair enough, though for the purpose of this exercise we should probably focus on existing mechanics and assets.

So...going under the assumption that we wont be doing a drastic overhaul to turrets or how active modules work, let's move forward.

So Assume we add racial variants in, do you guys think we should have them share the same skills with the Caldari and Gallente since they have the same art assets? Or should they be completely different skills? My concerns with unique skills is that since we have limited turrets (and making turrent variants that actually work like the racial variants should is pretty hacky), I worry that the bonuses for the unique skills wouldn't be quite right, you know?

Some may disagree, but I don't think they should add new racial turrets if they don't have the art. It's just so hacky, and leads to confusion in a fight. You should be able to look at something and know what you're fighting, and not have to guess it could be one of two race's vehicles/turrets.

Secondly check out Artillery Turrets. I seek a significant over haul of large turrets with the intent to push them away from anti infantry capacity (aka Large Blaster dies in a fire) and into high direct damage fire AV.

Whilst I agree that HAVs shouldn't be a primary anti-infantry role, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have tools to be anti-infantry...

HAV are primarily support vehicles that are currently filling multiple combat roles (that adding an MAV would help split up), these are Anti-Vehicle Supreme, HAVs represent the End-All-Be-All for directly merc-controlled AV through Anti-Material turrets (Luckily for the tankers, Mercs happen to be made out of material), while providing infantry suppression, and close-fire support (fire base HAV FTW).

If I where to design an Artillery Turret for the Mattari to use, I would focus on the SUPREMELY OMGWTFBBQ Alpha strike it has space-side, while combining it with more interesting mechanics. I would see it as a lobbed weapons...something with a large blast radius, but only a single round in the chamber, and a relatively long re-load timer...vehicles hit by the shell itself would take both Direct Damage and Splash Damage, with the Splash Damage being more effective against vehicles than infantry, but still effective enough to sent the scurrying for a solid roof over their heads...A direct hit would spell the doom of almost any but the most resilient armor tanked tanks, while shield tanks would still take damage, it obviously wouldn't be nearly as bad for them...

Blasters, autocannons, and pulse lasers would still be focused on anti-vehicle, but also still have utility in the IFV role (Tau ion cannons on hammerheads would be a good abstraction of what I'm talking about)

The Railgun should remain as the industrial strength sniper rifle...and should gain some of its range back

Missile Turret needs to actually shoot...I dunno...MISSILES? Or at least rename them to Rocket Launchers or Rocket Shotguns as I've taken to calling them.

Beam Turrets (Tachyon Beam Cannons?) Would be like giant Laser Rifles...Long-Ranged sweaping beam that focuses on DPS instead of Alpha Strike

Sidebar: Increase Laser Rifle Efficacy vs Vehicles as a band-aid for Shield AV and lack of Amarr AV?

Of course you are right.

I simply mean that turret sizes need to be designed for the role than they are indended to logically fulfil.

I challenge the notion that HAV are merely there to "support infantry" and instead suggest that they themselves have their own tactical role kept in mind while they undergo redevelopment.

This role being

- The delivery of Massive Ordinance against heavily entrenched positions and ground based vehicles.

Which means Blasters as they are now (.50 Calibre Machine Guns) need to die a horrific death in fire and much screaming.

I also personally over Tachyon's (cause I can't fit them in EVE" prefer Focused Anode Particle Streams for that extra hint of class.

I would clarify to say that *Large Turrets* are not Anti-Infantry, HAVs are not necessarily "Not Anti Personnel" it comes down to the turret, not the vehicle itself.


As for a full rework, absolutely. Is that right for the short to medium term for Dust? iffy. I think before we even start looking at that we need to get full racial parity for the vehicle frames *at the least* and reintroduce the specialty frames for all vehicles (ideally 2 per frame). Those sorts of changes are the most easily accessible right now and probably the biggest bang for the buck right now.

I think getting pilot suits properly sorted would be the next step.

After that comes the full rework of how vehicles work on a fundamental level.

Do you like my base HAV EHP suggestions? Think they are fair in their allocations given the concerns we voiced earlier in the thread?

Are they worth working off for a parity's sake?

Amarr - 4800 EHP
Gallente - 4400 EHP
Caldari - 4200-4300 EHP
Minmatar 4000-4100 EHP

What about an artillery large turret for the Minmatar HAV? It would work like a mini-orbial. There would be a significant minimum radius where it couldn't fire (maybe 50-100m), with a long max range, and very slow rate of fire. This would be perfect for clearing rooftop campers, but be incredibly vulnerable to someone getting in close.

@Adamance

I feel that tanks still need an Anti-Infantry role. I don't like removing them from the equation. They do need to be balanced in that regard though. They need to be dangerous to infantry, but not overly lethal, if you get my drift. There is a subtle distinction. More along the lines of "Leave cover and die" rather than "Accept your death, there is nothing you can do"

Please take everything with a grain of salt. I'm not a tanker, I'm a ground pounder.

I'm a huge battlefield vet, and the one thing I took away from that game was to treat vehicles with RESPECT when you were infantry. You didn't cower under the bed and hide, but you gave them the respect they deserved or you got killed. That doesn't exist in Dust. It's always been either "Lol a tank" or "OH SH*T A TANK" when it comes to anti-infantry tanks. This needs to be fixed.

Ok nerds, focus on basic hull stats before you talk bonusing.

One of the problems with,say current LAVs is their HP is concentrated on the hull so much that the actual fitting doesn't really matter. You can tank two PRO AV shots. Period. With fits or without.

Making the LAVs less bricky but able to achieve the exact same effect straight out of the gate with militia/std mods should absolutely be a thing. There currently is too much hull focus in DUST and as a result the CPU/PG only allows one viable fitting doctrine for each vehicle.

Address THAT before you address whether or not a hull should get +3%/level armor rep efficacy.

How do I know this? My alt, Blapathon Tanker is a madrugar driver that I use to test HAVs periodically. Yes I founded Grief University. Yes I use vehicles. No I don't do in-depth number crunching unless I have to. I focus on practical application reality over white-room theorycraft.

Don't ask me for advice on dropship stats. Im utterly incompetent flying them.

Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts?

Enforcers were advertised as glass cannons and failed. Make them glass cannons. Also they should be smaller. Harder to hit. Let them lose tank slots.

Marauders are the heavy wade in and smash. Heavily armored and slower.

Standard HAVs should be middle road.

No goddamn immobilizing siege modules. That idea works in EVE but it will result in useless HAVs because WEAKSPOTS.

Another thing I wanted to bring up is the difference in fitting between a Basic Dropship and an Assault Dropship. In the case of the Assault, it loses 2 of its 6 slots, paired with a decrease in HP. This is in contrast to the idea that Enforcers, which are basically Assault HAVs, *gain* a slot compared to the Basic HAV. I actually agree with the ADS concept of a tradeoff, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that the Enforcer is almost a direct upgrade from the standard HAV. In general I want the Basic HAV to remain viable, and not just be on the upgrade path to Enforcer and Marauder. Thoughts?

I'd like basic HAV's to be the AFFORDABLE version (roughly current prices). Enforcers and Marauders would the expensive option linear improvment for large cost increase (think Omen vs. Zealot in pricing and power differential).

Siege modules are interesting but I question the practicality of them. I mean, what lives long enough to merit the need of a siege module? Triage on the other hand might be interesting, but we're getting off topic.

My point with the Enforcer glass cannon is that you typically need 3 slots at a minimum under current mechanics to put up a viable defense, particularly for HAVs since you can't just afterburn straight into the air. That being said dropping a slot off of a 3/2 setup is.....quite a nerf, and I worry it's too much. An increase to total slots may be necessary if we are to properly balance tradeoffs between generalist vehicles and specialty ones.

Gonna have to disagree.

I understand that's how it works in EVE, but honestly I think we need to make a push for more sidegrades rather than upgrades. I move under the assumption that the work done here will be reflected in Legion as well, and I think a general push to make a unit's effectiveness be dictated by the modules and not the hull itself, is a good goal to move towards.

Risk/Reward is great, but I'd rather see the real cost be in the modules, with the hulls being of similar price.

And I can't agree with that especially if under our suggestions those hulls have extra slot options and hull bonuses. I think it would be simply serving to put one foot ahead of a player market if that ever happens to come to pass.

Regardless of what players want under that system those hulls will be perceived as more valuable and ....ARE more valuable.I'm not saying there should not be more value in the modules themselves but that does not mean the hulls have to be cheap as chips.

If modules themselves are the cost of the fit then once a player hit a threshold of SP and enters into marauders why would they ever go back to standard fits?