Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso.......

Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality.

Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV.

Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV.

You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well?

Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed?

You're supposed to play as a team. Those small turrets are not there just to look pretty, put people behind them.

What is the point of the Driver?

You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well?

Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed?

What is the point of the Driver?

Driving and Shooting stuff.

Would it be possible to have independent turret rotation speeds and use that as a balancing factor?

Blasters can spin 360 in 6 seconds, Missiles take 9, Rails take 12?

Something like that might help.

shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank.

-Main Pilot's Jobs-
Use Large Turret to defend against enemy installations and vehicles
Use Large Turret to suppress/assist Small Turret Gunners when fighting infantry
Driving and Putting the HAV in advantageous positions
Positioning HAV so that Small Gunners can have a good LoS
Managing modules to regulate and maintain overall vehicle defenses

-Small Gunner's Jobs-
Primary means to eliminate small targets such as infantry AV
Use Small Turrets to assist Large Turret when fighting vehicles/installations
Spotting and feeding situation information to the pilot so s/he can make tactical choices on where to move/position the vehicle.



The role of the main pilot is not all that different from a Standard Dropship pilot. They maintain the vehicle, keep it safe, and take it where it needs to go. The existence of the large turret does indeed add a level of direct combat to the Main Pilot's role, but that does not innately mean that combat is specifically to fight infantry.

I'm worried that with the current proposal of UHAVs and DHAVs, DHAVs will be obsolete to UHAVs and UHAVs will get nerfed to become the obsolete ones.

UHAV: stronger defense, better anti-infantry capabilities
DHAV: weaker defense, better anti-vehicle capabilities

But here's the real problem: how much of a stronger defense should the UHAV have over the DHAV? And how much better at AV should the DHAV be? Say that the UHAV has twice as strong of a defense, then the DHAV needs at least a 100% damage boost to its large turret to successfully deal with the UHAV.

I just fear that DHAVs will be unnecessarily weak and will be popping all over the place while UHAVs will be stomping around, slaughtering infantry and using their better defense to even the playing field against DHAVs.

I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court.

I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions.

1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close.

2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage.

Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target.

shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank.

Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea.

Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea.

The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire?

#BurstFireDIENOW

But I suppose its fundamentally the same design since lore wise the rounds of the Tri-Barrel Fire within Microseconds of one another to compound the destructive force of the Hybrid Charges.

Plasma Caster
Gallente Plasma Caster: Area Denial Anti Infantry - Full Auto, Fires PLC-like projectiles forward in a cone with bullet drop mechanics. Direct and Splash Damage are low but affects a large area. Ideally shots will leave a lingering 'burn' effect on the ground which causes Damage over Time for enemies that pass over it. Can be used to discourage entry through choke points, and push enemies out of entrenched positions.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

I've already done that CCP Rattati. No dev response or input.

I do appreciate that you want to bring balance to vehicles which is wonderful but I think that I'm personally beginning to see that you wish to take vehicles in a specific direction that's not particularly interesting to me. As such I wish you luck in your development and balancing efforts. Hopefully you can make vehicles balanced and enjoyable for the other players who favour the existing assets.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.