Please remove the Caldari DHAV damage bonus to rail guns.

First, it's unfair to the Galente DHAVs having only a short range damage bonus application.

Second, it promotes redline rail sniping

DHAVs look like they're the agile hit-and-run types, close combat should be their specialty.

Dear players,

after reading through the 71 pages, and going back to study the dropsuit progression, plus factor in the massive tank OP situation that has arisen in the past, I propose that we introduce a tiericided approach to vehicles that has been proposed with dropsuits before. Dropsuits are different in that their relative powerlevel is much much lower, so that approach may not work there. That's for later.

Read the whole list through, before raging, this is a holistic approach.

Phase 1
1) Introduce ADV and PRO HAVs that only progress in PG/CPU, therefore being able to fit higher tiered gear, making fitting optimizations necessary as well. Adding slots to the progression is not an option.

2) This will be contentious, all HAVs will have prefitted turrets as that is their intent as a Main Battle Tank. They can be replace but not removed (yellow)

3) All PG/CPU calculations will be based on the math of determined PG/CPU per slot, much like was done with Sentinels and Assaults a few months ago. Therefore, the turret PG/CPU will be factored "in" to the HAV capacity.

3a) STD HAV will be ADV/ADV/ADV/STD, ADV HAV will be ADV/ADV/PRO/STD, PRO HAV will be PRO/PRO/PRO/ADV, High/Low/Large Turret/Small Turret.

3b) This fits Dropsuits as they should be very near fitting all proto, if and only if they have full optimizations, but some fittings will nevertheless not be able to reach full Proto

4) New Skill - Dedicated SHAVs (solo HAVs)- unlocking HAVs with no small turrets, exactly the same as HAVs, except their fitting capacity has also been reduced by the amount that the turrets granted in the above calculations.

Skill Unlocks all Dedicated Tank Skills

5) New skills - Faction UHAV (Ultra Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Highly armored, slow, fewer slots, with damage and bonuses to small turrets

6) New skills - Faction DHAV (Destroyer Heavy Assault Vehicle) - Very fast, lightly armored with bonuses to Missiles and Blasters, turret specialization is essential here, no small turrets.

7) Introduce key active modules, for each race - after studying carefully I believe active heatsinks, active spool ups and active tracking modules would be most tactical and able to provide play counterplay moments

8) Add Anti Infantry Missile Launchers (fragmented)

Phase 2)
Rebalance as needed and introduce "repurposed hulls", same progression but using Gallente Hulls and highly recognizable color schemes to represent Amarr, Caldari for Minmatar.

Phase 3)
More Modules and weapons

I hope to see real discussions about this proposa, please keep lore out of it for now, but feel free to start your own naming threads, I will sticky the best one, we need 2 new names for Caldari and Gallente ADV and PRO HAvs plus all the Amarr/Minmatar names.

See updated on the fly document here: HAV Master Spreadsheet

AI Large missile turrets, oh you make me swoon.

The forums will light up within an hour calling it OP, and wanting it nerfed into oblivion or outright taken out of the game.

Skillbooks: What i find contentious is having Two skill books/ SP sinks for solo tanks, and tanks with small turrets, basically double the SP for the same tank. I do believe that fitting small turrets should be up to the player who is paying for the hull and investing the SP, its like asking infantry to speccing into a proto heavy suit twice, once for an HMG and once for a forge gun.

Doesn't matter to me, I'm space rich and want a good reason to buy a second respec to go full pilot. Like you said below, I absolutely hated having a Neebs in my tank, and during Chrome and Uprising I've redlined more than 10 tanks to show them why I don't want them in my tank.

I mean what happens if I put into the field a lot of those super tanks covering their backs each other, I know those are specific situations but, sometimes those are the most op

I know the risks, and all the history. I believe there is a way to make this work. Vehicle players will have to realize that the progression will not be nearly as steep as before, and that there will be a learning period while we balance the content, erring on the safe side.

Without some form of AI threat, there is no reason to use HAVs except to fight other HAVs. There needs to be that first escalation to get the game going. HAVs may end up being even easier to kill at lower levels, I don't have the stats yet. Again, we want everyone to have a way to progress, and feel that they are unlocking and earning something of value.

If 5 tanks are too much, we may restrict them to 3, whatever is necessary.

Then they are potentially helping by allowing new players to jump in, which is a bonus for teamplay

You need to be careful when deciding how much damage UHAVs can withstand versus how much damage DHAVs can deal. The DHAV's damage bonuses should outweigh the UHAV's defense bonuses. Otherwise UHAVs will simply be better all around because they will 1) have better AI capabilities and 2) their strong defence against infantry AV also allows them to withstand the damage from a DHAV, buying them time to get through the weaker defense of the DHAV.

He said in his first tank thread that he wants the destroyers to have a fighting chance, not destroy an ultra heavy ultra armored tank in a few seconds. Shouldn't take just one volley of missiles or 8 seconds of sustained fire from a blaster. They're essentially laughing off MLT and ADV AV to be able to take on a destroyer and try to escape.

In my honest opinion, the UHAV should have the weaker defense and the DHAV the stronger defense.

That's just silly. What would then be the point of going into the ultra heavy ultra armored tank if it's going to have weaker defense than a tank with maybe 1/6th the HP?

If the UHAV is to be primarily AI, then its defense against infantry AV should be its infantry offence.

It's defense against AV is going to be its extremely high HP.

Otherwise, as has been posted, giving UHAVs a strong infantry AV defense will require that DHAVs have an insane amount of offense to get through a UHAV's defence before the UHAV can use its weaker AV capability to get through the DHAV's weaker defense.

See above

Another problem with this setup is that DHAVs will be nearly insta-killing one another and their low defense against infantry AV will probably make DHAVs extremely costly to operate.

His own words, the Falchion will insta-pop the Vayu.

DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like.

I do know that commanders don't want players in their tanks, and that is the olive branch of solo HAvs, unlockable through specialization.

About slot progression, i still think that only 5 module slots are not enough, i would rather have more and less powerful modules, but have the possibility to personalize MY HAV.

It would not be interesting to skill in powerful suits if they have the same slot layout of STD suit, but more PG/CPU, same applies to HAV.
I almost completely agree with Breakin Stuff model, as it was reintroducing chrome variety, but at this point i think that almost all my hopes in having fun again with tanks, are just wasted.

DHAVs should not want to be near AV infantry, I am talking instapop with a plc, almost LAV like.

Slot progression shouldn't be a thing not even for dropsuits.

however asking for more slots in general is something I like to see; vehicles have to few and cookie cutter the fits because of the lack of slots overall.

+1 or +2 every hull.

Also, I hope that it's a typo that the Caldari DHAV will be slower and less agile than than the Caldari UHAV. Because that simply makes way too many negatives for the Caldari DHAV.

Do we need mid slots for vehicles?

Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables)

A glass cannon's only real defense is speed and agility.

DHAVs are intended to be expendable hammers thrown at enemy armor to disrupt armor superiority.

UHAVs are the ones intended to sit and slog through the meatgrinder.

Main Battle Tanks would be middle ground.

Would rather see equipment slots make a debut on vehicles. (deployables)