The HAV should not be buffed in speed to chase down an LAV or dropship or adjusted so that it can be configured through modules to accomplish that- no...

Part of the problem with the LAV is that they're worthless beyond being a cheap transport so that's all it's ever used for.

Truth be told, I personally crusaded against the LAV's gradual relegation to being a coffin on wheels long ago, but I gave up after realizing that people were hellbent on believing that the only possible purpose an entire class of vehicles that players could spend millions of SP on in a game as deep as dust- was being used as a transport that could be killed with a few militia grenades.

Buffing a tank to chase down other vehicles that should have an inherent speed advantage is not the way to give tanks a role it in my opinion, if anything it kills the interplay between vehicles and tanks won't have anything to do but kill other tanks because everybody would only fitting and actually using tanks at that point.

That's like letting heavy be as versatile as an assault suit, it'd ruin the interplay between the suits.

Sure, people would run scouts to get to objectives, but after that, everybody would get in their heavy suits.

Honest question: Is this a topic about large turret stats?
(As in: Could much of your topic be solved by figuring out turrets properly?)

There was a time when all large turrets had a distinct position on the AV-AI scale. Railguns in the mostly AV role, missiles in the middle and blaster as the mostly AI turret.

I don't claim to be a knowledgeable tanker, but even I can see that the current turret design is pretty screwed up. This has severe consequences on the role of HAVs.

This is just going to be a general post, without getting into details and stats, to put my ideas on the forums. Please read through all of it if you're going to reply.

Vehicles currently suffer from a lack of having well defined roles. HAVs are currently best at blowing up other vehicles. That would be an okay role if there was a good reason to need vehicles on the field. LAVs are typically fielded for fast transport but otherwise pose no direct threat to anything other than objectives. Dropships are typically easily dealt with through swarms and MLT dropships are simply a disposable means of getting uplinks on rooftops.

One issue that I see is that LAVs and dropships most of the time are deployed for a single purpose at the beginning of the battle: to get to objectives and rooftops before the other team, after which they are usually recalled or just simply left behind to their own fate.

This is a problem if HAVs are to be anti-vehicle. They are too slow to do anything about intercepting LAVs and dropships at the beginning of the battle and usually become minor annoyances to infantry once the ground (infantry) battle has been established. There's no well defined reason to call out a HAV if there are no vehicles on the field. They can't hack anything and don't get as many kills as an infantryman most of the time.

What I suggest is that HAVs should be as flexible in their roles as infantry can. This means that through sacrifices, a HAV should be able to be anti-infantry. It seems to me that most people forget about having to make certain sacrifices in order to gain certain benefits when it comes to balance. I see nothing wrong with an AI HAV as long as it has very little AV capabilities. I am willing to accept the fact that if I call my AI HAV, I will be surely beaten by an AV HAV (something which I'm already accepting when I call my blaster HAV). Same should go with AV HAVs against infantry, which is also currently happening with railgun HAVs.

Imagine this: Team A wants to capture Team B's objective, but Team B's infantry have set up a good position and stop Team A's infantry. Team A calls in an AI HAV to provide the firepower needed to clear Team B's infantry. Team B calls in an AV HAV to destroy Team A's AI HAV. Team A calls in their own AV HAV to take the attention of Team B's AV HAV. At this point, depending on pilot skill, either Team A destroys Team B's AV HAV and win the offensive or Team B destroys Team A's HAVs and wins the defense.

Now, I don't know what numbers will make this possible and balanced, but that's my general idea. Just like infantry can focus into destroying vehicles while becoming weaker against other infantry, pilots should also be able to focus into killing infantry while becoming weaker against other pilots. It should be about gains and sacrifices for both infantry and pilots.

Extra info in post #4

1. You just described Chrome and Uprising

Vehicles currently suffer from a lack of having well defined roles. HAVs are currently best at blowing up other vehicles.

Skirmish 1.0

That would be an okay role if there was a good reason to need vehicles on the field.

Same thing as above. Can't hack a null cannon? Blow it up.

LAVs are typically fielded for fast transport but otherwise pose no direct threat to anything other than objectives.

This, yes; also would've been great in Skirmish 1.0, because again, you need to take out those first null cannons, as well as cutting off infantry so they can't hack it back.

Dropships are typically easily dealt with through swarms and MLT dropships are simply a disposable means of getting uplinks on rooftops.

I have a Minmando alt with all its weapons at 5, with varying degrees of proficiency. I destroyed a ship in 3 volleys yesterday. It's pathetically easy to destroy vehicles.

One issue that I see is that LAVs and dropships most of the time are deployed for a single purpose at the beginning of the battle: to get to objectives and rooftops before the other team, after which they are usually recalled or just simply left behind to their own fate.

It's because both are incredibly weak and have little staying power.

This is a problem if HAVs are to be anti-vehicle.

What infantry wants, infantry gets.

They are too slow to do anything about intercepting LAVs and dropships at the beginning of the battle

I used to try to race out on a road to intercept dropships at the beginning of a PC battle.

and usually become minor annoyances to infantry once the ground (infantry) battle has been established.

I sometimes get AV'd even though I'm taking out threats to my tank. I hadn't bothered with infantry at all, yet they have such a raging fear and hatred of vehicles that they want it dead immediately, even if it's not a threat to them. What's the best though, is staying out of swarm lock on range, then sniping the poor SOB.

There's no well defined reason to call out a HAV if there are no vehicles on the field.

I do it to make infantry rage.

They can't hack anything and don't get as many kills as an infantryman most of the time.

Still sometimes fun, but rarely rewarding as far as kills, SP and WP go.

What I suggest is that HAVs should be as flexible in their roles as infantry can.

Unfair to infantry.

This means that through sacrifices, a HAV should be able to be anti-infantry.

Again unfair to infantry.

It seems to me that most people forget about having to make certain sacrifices in order to gain certain benefits when it comes to balance.

Sentinel - slow moving, ~1000 HP. Assault - no drawbacks. Scout - low HP. Logi - no sidearm except the Amarr. Commando - no grenade slot.

I see nothing wrong with an AI HAV as long as it has very little AV capabilities.

Veteran pilots make the most out of everything.

I am willing to accept the fact that if I call my AI HAV, I will be surely beaten by an AV HAV (something which I'm already accepting when I call my blaster HAV).

Negated by experience (and obviously close range).

Same should go with AV HAVs against infantry, which is also currently happening with railgun HAVs.

Experience does a little to fix this.

Imagine this: Team A wants to capture Team B's objective, but Team B's infantry have set up a good position and stop Team A's infantry. Team A calls in an AI HAV to provide the firepower needed to clear Team B's infantry. Team B calls in an AV HAV to destroy Team A's AI HAV. Team A calls in their own AV HAV to take the attention of Team B's AV HAV. At this point, depending on pilot skill, either Team A destroys Team B's AV HAV and win the offensive or Team B destroys Team A's HAVs and wins the defense.

A good team wouldn't need the tank for very long. That blaster tank can go around the AV tank, and kill it.

Just like infantry can focus into destroying vehicles while becoming weaker against other infantry,

Commando suit

pilots should also be able to focus into killing infantry while becoming weaker against other pilots.

Fixed by experience.

It should be about gains and sacrifices for both infantry and pilots.

Little sacrifice for an experienced pilot.

I am actually not opposed to vehicles being good at anti-infantry. But they need to be able to die to infantry as well.

I am actually not opposed to vehicles being good at anti-infantry. But they need to be able to die to infantry as well.