If you can't understand that, either you simply don't care, your head is so far up your ass that you simply can't get it, or you simply refuse to get it.

Moving allows the ADS to shoot at you, and escaping is borderline impossible

By large in-part yes, defending against an ADS is fine with the primary HAV turret I use, the Railgun, however, defending one's HAV against an ADS with a Blaster is considerably more difficult. Now this is both as a result of the much shorter range of the blaster turret, along with the lack of associated physics with the projectiles on-impact...and the Blasters AV utility as a whole being lower than that of the other main turrets, and isn't helped by the marginal angle increase relative to the rail. (I'm ignoring the Missile Turret because it is in a very bad place for balance right now) The scaling of the angle needs to be better is what I'm saying...and in that I agree with Godin...Short-Ranged turrets need help.

I'm not asking for Large Blasters to be able to point straight up, but giving them the ability to aim higher up in the air would do much to help mitigate the issue.

Railguns have their low angle as an associated penalty for their unerring accuracy over a long distance (albeit, not as long as it used to be, and still not as long as I'd like it to be), and rails as a whole are functioning well in their intended role (but as True Adamance will tell you, they have too high of a RoF, but the DPS on the whole is OK)

1: Science is irrelevant in that example, as only I can detect it. It is simply real, but you simply can't detect it. Answer the question: Am I wrong?

2: Actually, that is false.There wasn't anything provided other than "You are wrong! YOU ARE WRONG!" to prove me wrong. I've tried to keep civil, and if someone explained themselves, and asked for alternatives, as well as things to help with the quality of life for ADS's and DS's in general, I provided it.

Again, tell me why/and or how a turret elevation increase and a ADS ceiling height slight reduction would break any balance, or not create more balance. None of you so far has.

So because I can't run a squad all the time or at all, it's clearly my fault.
Okay, if that's the case, then why does the ADS STILL not require teamwork?
And actually, I have took their experiences into account. They are however, quite ******* invalid, as I said so many ******* times already, which you seem to not understand, REQUIRING TEAMWORK AGAINST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IS BROKEN YOU IDIOT. If you can't understand that, either you simply don't care, your head is so far up your ass that you simply can't get it, or you simply refuse to get it.

however, defending one's HAV against an ADS with a Blaster is considerably more difficult. Now this is both as a result of the much shorter range of the blaster turret, along with the lack of associated physics with the projectiles on-impact...and the Blasters AV utility as a whole being lower than that of the other main turrets, and isn't helped by the marginal angle increase relative to the rail. (I'm ignoring the Missile Turret because it is in a very bad place for balance right now) The scaling of the angle needs to be better is what I'm saying...and in that I agree with Godin...Short-Ranged turrets need help.

I'm not asking for Large Blasters to be able to point straight up, but giving them the ability to aim higher up in the air would do much to help mitigate the issue.

Kind of what we all think to you dismissing everything that has been said by, what must clearly be better vehicle users than yourself, as we can deal with these things on our own without crying about it.


Just one more example.

You run up close to a HMG and you fight it in it's optimal with an assault suit. What happens?

- You outplay the HMG or the HMG is really bad at their role and you kill them.

- You get your arse handed to you.

- You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win.


Point being at range a tank has the upper hand, up close a tank has to do one of these:

- You outplay the ads and find a way to force it lower so you can blow the crap out of it.

- You get your arse handed to you, albeit very slowly.

- You realise it's a bad idea to fight them there and you make a break for it and engage from range, giving you the easy win.


Tank counters ads at range, at range ads can do nothing to anyone. Up close ads counters tank, you mission as a tanker is to avoid letting the ads get into your blindspot... It's not hard... But you have to at least try before you go naysaying it.

That example is really bad for two reasons:

1: Where exactly is the place where HAV's are able to excel in? cities and outposts are obviously not it (and ADS'scan attack there). In the open is as you're describing it definitely not it, and there's really no other environment to be in other than the redline, which leaves rail fitted HAV's to be valid, but rocket and Blaster fitted HAV's not.

Right, in a city/outpost where a squishy ads has to fly low and risk hitting obstacles, where it can get shot down by any large turret (even blasters) without a reload required... Is some how not good enough for you.

Out in the open where the ads has nothing to hide behind and can be shot from anywhere within range... Is not good enough for you.


You clearly want a tank to be able to drop an ads from anywhere with no contest. In which case I disagree.

You have stated you don't like broken easy mechanics... Well then leave my ******* large missile turret well alone, as I don't want it being so easy that a nonce like you, who can't think of a reasonable way to deal with something that everyone has already explained to him, is able to use it.

You are bad at tanking and would be best off doing something else... My proof being you describe your own failure repeatedly while everyone else who can use a tank properly has succeeded.


Good ******* day.

Bah, I'm done with this thread and Godin's obstinance.

I sincerely hope this does not happen, because it will mean that HAVs dominate the skies like railguns of old used to. Even with a modest elevation increase it will be nigh impossible for a dropship of any kind to engage and defeat an HAV, especially considering the rebalance of HAVs is almost unilaterally a good thing for them.

Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting?

1: Science is irrelevant in that example, as only I can detect it. It is simply real, but you simply can't detect it. Answer the question: Am I wrong?

2: Actually, that is false.There wasn't anything provided other than "You are wrong! YOU ARE WRONG!" to prove me wrong. I've tried to keep civil, and if someone explained themselves, and asked for alternatives, as well as things to help with the quality of life for ADS's and DS's in general, I provided it.

Again, tell me why/and or how a turret elevation increase and a ADS ceiling height slight reduction would break any balance, or not create more balance. None of you so far has.

So because I can't run a squad all the time or at all, it's clearly my fault.

Okay, if that's the case, then why does the ADS STILL not require teamwork?

And actually, I have took their experiences into account. They are however, quite ******* invalid, as I said so many ******* times already, which you seem to not understand, REQUIRING TEAMWORK AGAINST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IS BROKEN YOU IDIOT. If you can't understand that, either you simply don't care, your head is so far up your ass that you simply can't get it, or you simply refuse to get it.

Godin, if you can see a unicorn that noone else can see, and you say it's real, then you're most likely tripping balls

The ADS does require teamwork, but the team isn't operating the ADS, only 1 person is. The 'team' is killing the AV and pointing out the next objective for the ADS. Vehicles are more of a support role and force multiplier than something that can be used by a solo player.

Because 1: it has a gun on the front of it and 2: NOONE WANTS TO BE TRANSPORTED

The operations the vehicles does are support functions. The vehicles themselves shouldn't require teamwork to defend. ALso, that's a double standard.

It's a small turret, and that's false. If people could get to a location in a 1/10 the time that it would take to walk and gets bonuses when they get there, I bet many people would be calling on T II DS's to pick them up.

Nope, it's real. You can't change the hypothetical situation.

Hiding under a bridge doesn't save you, they can drop altitude. The other two implies hat you have to use teamwork to deal with them. What don't you understand about that? Are you a broken record?

That's the gist of it, sorta. It's not super easy, it's unreasonably easy (looking at how many kills I've had so far), or more so, unreasonably hard for the HAV to fight back. All the things people's said to do I've been able to counter in my ADS by simply orbiting them in a really small circle (that's some hard **** to do though), or slow down (depends on how they're doing it).

Also, as I've pointed out already, carrying AV as the pilot simply won't work. enter/exit delays will probably come soon, and that greatly exposes you. On top of that, you can easily kill someone who does that (whenever it happens in both my HAV or ADS it's a easy kill), and make them lose even more ISK on top of their hull. That's not only seriously dangerous, that's downright foolish.

Also, you've only pointed out anecdotal evidence for why they're fine, a lot of which proving my point in the first place (having to force teamwork just to deal with them, or otherwise not really being able to, because whatever you do, they can counter).

That's the thing, you don't. Despite what you keep claiming, it is entirely possible for an HAV, regardless of turret, to manoeuvre such that the ADS can be killed.

Railguns have slow tracking, making them probably the most vulnerable to a close in ADS, since an Afterburner gives the ADS the ability to rapidly shift.
Blasters have a hard time killing vehicles in general, not specifically ADSs, but are still plenty capable of putting a lot of hurt on them - especially a Python, which you seem to be saying is setting the world on fire (even though I've shown you that it takes a good long time already to kill a HAV operator that's only half awake.)
Missiles are brilliant against ADSs and I have absolutely no idea why you constantly claim otherwise. They do a ton of damage extremely quickly (taking the most advantage of a small window of opportunity, and giving very little reaction time in return) and have the second best tracking (again, despite your claims of slow tracking, they're quite comparable to Blasters)/the best elevation. Missiles are very dangerous to an ADS.

You keep saying that HAVs are defenceless and they are, if the ADS is directly above you and you're sitting perfectly still. As others have said, it's most definitely possible to manoeuvre such that the ADS must maintain your speed, then you can use the HAV's superior breaking distance (and again, you seem to think the ADS can slow and stop incredibly quickly, which is a flat out lie) to gain shooting opportunities.

Essentially, you're completely disregarding any possible tactics that you can actually use.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean here Bradric.