Indeed especially regarding the rebalancing of Large Turrets and the propositions to covert them into actually Heavy Variations of existing AV options.

IMHO heavy turrets should be more cannon, less big autogun.

I feel, in the vein of vehicles needing special objectives, that perhaps there should be more installations that vehicles find useful.

Things like Rep stations just for vehicles, w/ Supply depots being just for infantry resupply, or Shield Generators that are too hard for infantry to kill, but vehicles could handle, that block OBs from hitting. Etc, etc, etc.

Currently vehicles are very much designed around infantry roles, which is kinda a broken idea.

Sadly, vehicles are designed (or were) around the huge maps of old (IDK if there still there, but zoom all the way out on the map screen), where their their speed would be useful for getting to various obbys, and would be useful for engaging other vehicles at range.

Hey CCP Rattati,

First, thanks again for the hard work. It is obviously well appreciated, regardless of how the community takes the changes that are being made.

Second, I understand that we are currently in an "Dropsuit Rebuilding" period as evidenced by the volume of dropsuit-centric tweaks planned for the near and not-so-near future. However, while I truly appreciate these changes and look forward to seeing them in game, I think that vehicles have been largely excluded from the same level of balancing effort for quite some time. I firmly believe that vehicles should be the next set of assets to improve on.

To this end, I have a few questions about your vision on the roles that vehicles should play on the battlefield. Furthermore, I'd love to hear any ideas you have on how to make vehicle combat more engaging in the future. My questions are the following:

---

Currently, the roles of vehicles heavily overlap with the roles of infantry. Besides for taking objectives, vehicles can do most things that infantry can do with increased efficiency. Although recent changes to the dispersion mechanics of the large blaster turret has assuaged that problem slightly, it seems to be more of a "band-aid" fix to the larger problem - vehicles do not have their own objectives.

When I say objectives, I mean some type of battle-critical role that are best done with vehicles. One suggestion that I have - a sentiment that seems to be shared with some others - is to turn tanks into heavy ordinance machines with high damage, low RoF rounds. Personally, I believe that HAVs should have their large turret and hulls heavily balanced around killing other vehicles - so much so in the former that they could not be used effectively to fight infantry. In exchange, small turrets should be heavily balanced around killing infantry - so much so that they are almost non-effective against other large vehicles. In this way I think that vehicles would be have their own objective that could not be done without them (take out enemy vehicles), but could be fitted to help out infantry in their primary goal. This would mirror the roles of infantry itself - primarily used to capture points, but able to be fitted to aid in the destruction of vehicles. What are your thoughts on the matter?







It was very helpful when you listed the things that the community could and could not expect from changes to the EWAR system, and allowed us to give better feedback. More importantly, it allowed us to manage expectations. I think that something similar for vehicles would be much appreciated.

I have seen your posts on including a lock-on warning for dropships - a change that I predict to be much appreciated - but I would like to know if you have any other thoughts on how to improve the experience. In addition, I would like to know what rank they have on the "Things to do" list for vehicles. Some common suggestions are an improvement to the small turret interface, particularly for dropships and LAVs, as well as some counter-measures or some form of AV deterrence.






I understand that this is a tough question that many would try to hold you to, so you can answer this at your discretion. I would just like to know if changes will be for how vehicles react to current forms of AV, if we should expect to see some return of the old vehicle modules and tanks, or if we can hope for some placeholders for racial parity


As always, your response is appreciated. Thanks in advance, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Currently one of the things gimping HAV (maybe other vehicles ) and the insanely high EHP turrets. Fighting one of those is like going up against an enemy tank....... what genius decided that effectually double the EHP of an installation that infantry don't even bother to defend was a good idea?

Redline railgun Turrets destroying ADS.

Indeed. Trouble is ADS cannot destroy them and tanks take too long to do so leaving you with AV units doing that job as the turrets wont target them back.

Would like independent movement of ADS front turret (slight)

Turret less HAV's, or MAV's, high speed high durability troop transport

Any possibility that quick exiting and then reentry will be addressed? Even if slower the LLAV could make certain aspects of current gameplay even worse.

Any hope that the repair tools for vehicles could be moved to a turret? The repair functions and the ability to lock on were downright annoying to work with and solo spider tanking really doesn't need to be a thing again.

Would love to see a tank that has no large turret but instead 6 seats.

I have asked the team to see if we can add a "hold to exit", much like a hacking bar.