Broken mechanics, I can hardly agree with that one.

You honestly can't call it broken hit detection when where your shot is no longer where the other tank is. I've come against this and used it, and it requires you to slow down when it comes to dealing with it. And the nitro works against the user just as much as it can work for them.

You think it's hard hitting a nitro gunnlogi, try hitting something while using that nitro. It's not exactly "easy". Then there's the fact that by using one, you are sacrificing tank so you honestly can't eat too many shots.

As for your last part, honestly man, it just doesn't apply. You are ALWAYS predicting movement when using the rail. You don't shoot at distant targets (dropships are good examples) by simply aiming exactly where they are at. You always lead. It's not hit detection, it's simply you missing your shot.

I mean I'm not trying to be a **** here, I've just come across a few tankers that were able to compensate for the change in acceleration and over come it. As I myself have done before against them. You recognize what you are fighting and compensate in whatever way needed. I've never seen any indication that the hit detection itself was "broken" as you indicate.

It's simply that I was aiming forward and firing as they either stop in their tracks or move backward or forward. And it's honestly not hard to compensate or even predict their movements. Sure you are going to miss but that's their D, and if you are stacked more than them, you can take those few shots they are putting out more than they can take them.

Nothing "broken" there, just a mechanic that requires a different approach to handling. And it's not like that nitro last forever. If things stay as planned, you are going to really hate the Dhav. Speed is key, and when we say speed is key that means AVOID being hit, rather then taking hits.

I dunno man. Put a nitro on an Amarrian HAV and you might actually see what a flying brick looks like.

Broken as in having to shoot 10 m behind target to hit, I'm not talking about anticipation of where target will be, but the constant back and forth breaks something... easiest thing to do is not move turret and let nitro tank drive into shot, but for me at least I end up having to guess which vector in time the other tank exists. Much easier to hit other tanks while using nitro personally.

Oh Lord confirmation of the strafe strafe wiggledance for tanks.

Someone fix the hit detection.

That's the plan if they ever get put in the game. Oh how I fantasise over that beautiful tank.

- Rolled Homogeneous Tungsten Carbide Armour
- 180mm Graphene Layered Armour Plates
- Reduced Antimatter Reactor Systems
- Modified Tesserect Capacitor Resevoirs
- Dual Focused Pulse Lasers
- LADAR ECM Modules

((According to CCP Falcon Amarr use this stuff on ships.... I'd assume they used similar tech on their ridiculously supped up vehicles)

*Dribbles a bit....

Carbide armor?

I basically took my current 3 slot layout on my high slot modules I use currently and built out from there. Keep in mind none of these use the new "HAV" tanks as these are not going to be used in the competitive PC environment that. In fact, something to note, gunners tanks (those using smalls) in any iteration will more than likely NEVER be used in PC. That's what I call a Pub Scrub tank:)

In regards to the above post I noted you said something that is very insightful.



This I feel is a fundamental design flaw that Rattati is pursuing in the SHAV. An HAV should NEVER be a tool that rewards the selfish solo player mind set.

It should always require the fitting of small turrets.

Rather than looking for a quick fix solution it would be better to pursue squad and pilot seat locks.

no passive resists unless by module.

Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module.

And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there.

Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still.

Nothing "selfish" about it. Fact of the matter is that a 3 seater tank will NEVER be a viable tank for PC. Those 3 people in a tank can generally slay just as well out of the tank as in it (if not better out of it). And in PC a tank is extremely limited when it comes to point control.

Tanks general main role in PC is ADS control. With tank control following behind it as you can't blow up the ADS if you can't keep your tank out long enough to do so. Every now and again you get a point that can be held by a blaster, but it's not often and in my experience not nearly as effective as a man on foot.

Sure, in a pub running a 3 seater tank is fun ( and something I do a LOT) and viable. But when it comes to PC, no good team is going to actually sacrifice people on the ground to get into a tank. Every one has a role, and teams aren't simply going to sacrifice 3 people to ONE tank. Maps just don't makes this viable in the least.


I understand where you are coming from, and yeah sure it would make sense if we weren't limited by things like map design or the 16 man limit. But with things as they are, multi man tanks are novelties at best and have no place in the competitive PC environment. Still fine for a PUB match, but it must be kept in mind that this will be their ONLY place.

Unless of course a UHAV can have a module that decreases dispersion on the large blaster but even still, you would still be running the thing solo in a PC. You would simply be forced to run guns on it, guns that would never get used outside of a PUB match.

I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs.

I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side.

I've already done the calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon.

Before you ask, no, I don't think AV should be balanced to fight UHAVs solo. MBTs yes. UHAVs, no.

I am well aware that AV will need tweaking. I've been keeping silent on the AV until the HAVs are finalized per my understanding of Rattati's priorities. Other people have said that AV will need to be toned down or not be touched. I'm fully aware of what AV will need to burn down the new HAVs.

I'm keeping silent because I don't really feel like starting a screaming riot until everyone is done gloating about how AV will be useless tank side.

I've already done the calculations for what it'll take for AV to stand a chance. Especially with AV-resistant UHAVs on the horizon.

Before you ask, no, I don't think AV should be balanced to fight UHAVs solo. MBTs yes. UHAVs, no.

Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely?

Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely?

If the winds are blowing the way the aught, they'll be getting a direct resistance to Infantry AV. Which will not apply to heavy turrets.

that's really the only way for the DHAV to be a viable counter while still maintaining hardcore resistance to my particular brand of *******.

I wasn't going to ask, but I will ask if you think DHAV need to be soloed by AV? Tanks that aren't even built around killing infantry.

Another note, AV may need some minor tweaks upwards, but the biggest change needs to come from the tank module side. With the added slots, modules need to be toned down to reflect this.

Then again, of course we can put it all on the AV side, but you have to keep in mind DS and light vehicles. Don't want to be insta popping things for the sake of tank balance.

And your statement that the Uhav can't be soloed, yet the MBTs can seems incredibly wrong to me. Something just doesn't jive with that statement. Something that can easily kill the AV infantry yet remain way stronger just doesn't sit well with me. I have a UHAV now, called a double extender hardener gunnlogi. With gunners, honestly, that's all the defense I would need to be on par and above a solo AV.

And by solo, I don't imagine you mean fire one clip and call it done. I imagine it would take some work. Especially if you are taking on something that is limited in engagement against them.

And as I said with true, UHAV's or any multi seater tank is useless in PC. Multi man tanks only have a place, and always will, in Pubs. Which by their very nature are unbalanced to start. What do you think of that statement.

And I know, lots of ands.

Hmmmm okay that does sound odd. I was simply thinking things like cooldown and duration bonuses.....not actually making the hulls more resistant to damage.

I'm assuming the hulls will have better based HP values anyway right?

and NO av dont need to be buffed, maybe plasma cannon but swarms are overkill on min comando allerady..

FG...well it need some love,breach especialy.

cal UHAV- 3 resistance to hybrid railgun and hybrid blaster damage per lvl

Gal UHAV-3 resistance to projectile damage per lvl

So much fail right here.

So much fail right here.

I believe the simplest thing would be to flag all infantry AV with some kind of tag and put a resistance bonus against that tag on the UHAVs.

I tend to view Tank turrets as the EFFICIENT method of killing vehicles.

I tend to view infantry AV as the sloppy, overkill, Do-this-because-it-might-work kind of thing. It's why I want HAVs to have the higher efficiency and lower TTK versus other HAVs overall. But basically I see infantry AV as a means of trying to brute force a solution, and because it's a brute-force thing it can be countered via different materiels and methods than you would use to deflect a rail cannon shot.

I get ya.

In my mind all I'm saying is that every capacity an infantry mounted AV weapon has a tank mounted one theoretically should have more of in spades.

honestly I'm of the opinion that small turrets and heavy weapons should have similar functionality.

Interesting theory. Btw what is your scrambler lance like?

I've been thinking of suggestions for the Large and Small Laser Turrets if they ever are to appear and how they might function.

Normally I hate the idea of another hold trigger down laser but after I started thinking about one with twin barrels....... it started to fall into place.