Let's summarize the factors involved in using a heavy real fast.

1. Larger hitbox. Larger critical hit box
2. Slower
3. Anti Infantry heavy weapons are close range
4. More HP
5. Fewer Highs and lows for less customization
6. Heavy weapons
7. No equipment
8. Weak passive scanning

So, the question is where are heavies weakest? We all know the answer is out in the field. Away from CQC and cover. But let's use some history as opposed to theorycrafting. Heavies with light weapons.

Plenty of heavies used RRs for a long while. Why? Because of range. Why use a heavy suit? Because more HP means a heavy could take another assault in a head to head fight across open ground. Due to heavies having more HP this will not change. This marginalized assault suit's role. They could move from objective to objective more easily, but once heavies got there the assault suit was at a significant disadvantage in all areas. Heavies had HMGs for close, and rifles for range.

But dedicated heavies WANT to use heavy weapons. When did all the casual heavies switch to the HMG? When the HMG got a dispersion change. It made the HMG lower DPS, but much easier to use in CQC.

And that right there is the rub. We can use light weapons too. Range is an underappreciated factor in this game. We all know it is important, but how likely you are to win a gun fight is more about range and your gun than most people realize. I would even go so far to say that it was more than half of the fight right there.

Considering that range is probably the single largest factor in any engagement in Dust, heavies can be said to have the single largest disadvantage. We have the most trouble controlling range. We are slower than everyone else. If other suits don't like the range they can change it at will (relative to us.)

Also, relatively speaking, the HMG is strait up bad now. It won't function even marginally better in the hands of a skilled player than of a mediocre player. The skill ceiling is gone.

But it still functions well no matter who is using it. And since we have to stay in CQC when using heavy weapons (Forge doesn't count as it's an AV gun -- despite the fact that I find it more effective than the HMG at killing infantry now) we will stay where we know enemies will be coming and will be in CQC. Around the point.

So that begs the question: how do we get more options. And the answer is that we have them. Light weapons. So how can we get more options with heavy weapons? And the answer is that we can't if we get Heavy weapons that function like current HWs. If we get new long ranged effective HWs that directly apply damage like our current ones -- then assault and commando roles will be marginalized. Pointless even.

Conclusion: If we want to give heavies roles in every area of the map (which translates to every range) we need to develop different weapon mechanics. Make the heavy weapons significantly better than light at those niches, and significantly worse outside of those niches.

I have ideas on what we need for that. But before going into any differing heavy weapon types -- we should discuss the state of the suit itself.

And I will kick it off with this statement and question:

I think heavies are too mobile. Not movement speed wise...transport options. I don't think we should be able to spawn in in 3 seconds on uplinks. We shouldn't be able to drive or gun in vehicles. What do you guys think about that?

HMG proposal would replace the current HMG, right? If so, it certainly looks fun.

Tactical Forge is a Heavy Rail Rifle while Tactical Scrambler Lance is a Heavy Scrambler Rifle? Or did I read wrong?

edit: could you post your AV one too?

doesn't look outright terrible breakin. I think I've said to you before in squad that I'd be entirely fine with losing vehicles left and right if they were less expensive (as I tend to act stupid with vehicles anyways).

I'd be a bit worried about how gunnlogi's perform in the face of madrugars with their insane retardoblasters that let them dps down almost anything.

I think you are absolutely wrong about the mobility and a little about the rest of your post, but for now I will talk about mobility.

I run solo most the time and in most matches I either wait for an uplink or spawn in and call me an LAV to get close to the objective faster. I've actually even gone as far as skilling into LAVs because I like using them.

If you remove our ability to drive vechiles, it will eliminate two things: Drive By HMG tactics AND solo Sentinels getting to the objective fast enough to defend/assault.

As for your not being a gunner idea, what are you smoking? If I'm doing LAV runs with a gunner, I rather have my gunner be a Brick Tanked Sentinel than an assault or logi or scout. Reason being is that the gunner is exposed and easy to pick off, so I would want someone that can sustain a lot of damage. Also when I'm doing my LAV runs, I want to be in my sentinel suit because (surprise surprise) I'm exposed and open to being shot at by any weapon.

On drop ships you can take out the gunners without damaging the dropship itself. So again Sentinels are good for being a gunner as they can survive being shot by a crack shot sniper.

The document treats the shield nerf on fittings as reverted.

In order to be able to balance the tanks off the av the shield nerfs actually have to go away in order to make shield TTK similar ro armor vs. Appropriate weapons.

This is why I keep saying the shield nerfs need to revert.

The cannon issues have been better addressed by other people thaN I can.

Most of the vehicle community is tired of the polarity between HAVs and AV. BLUNTLY I don't blame them. Tanks pendulum back and forth between god-monster and warpoint pinata.

Regardless the answer needs to be somewhere in the middle. And bluntly the price tag on HAVs is the killer for use regardless of whether they are balanced or not. A million isk a fit is a bit much IMHO.

Even several hundred k a fit is a bit daft. A single vehicle loss puts someone in the red by quite a bit usually.

Spent the morning looking over Breakin's AV proposal and I like what I saw.

Definitely agree that the base Forge Gun needs a damage buff to bring it in line with the general convention of Breach > Base > Assault in terms of alpha damage. Overheat would stop Forge snipers camping rooftops and waiting with a charge shot. Heat build would kick in once charge is full, not during charge, correct? Would this apply to the Breach too?

Reticule charge meter would make it a little easier, IMO, to monitor the charge level while exchanging fire. Any chance of the Breach FG getting that too? And on the subject of the BFG, I wholeheartedly agree with removing the immobilization.

HMG change would be interesting and would remove Sentinels from objective camping, tho I'm not sure the Scouts/Assaults et al would approve of a Sentinel that could fire back at 70m.

Proposed Heavy Weapons look like they would be fun and interesting. I like the idea of an Anti-Material Rifle.

Doesn't mean we should be immobilized, as in cannot move, to shoot when no other weapon/class has to suffer that.

Snipers...

Yes let's encourage the stupidest tactical behavior possible Fox.

Crouching in combat when you're likely to be in a firefight sh*tshow is right up there with the breach forge immobilize for stupid mechanics.

While moving is bad for their aim, they're not actually rooted to the spot. A charge sniper, for example, can move while holding the charge, allowing them to make small adjustments without sacrificing the shot.

Snipers are also the biggest 'bully' of the BFG user as it's an easy headshot. 6 second charge, even wirh skills maxed it's 4.5 seconds, without the target moving is just begging for a round through the braincase

Random thought: What if the Forge had a 2 tier charge, like the Charge Snipe? Half charge for half damage, which be good for close range defensive fire (ie. An Assault comes on your flank) or getting that last shot on a HAV before it ducks behind cover and full charge for full damage.

Hey Breakin, you got any tips for using the Bolt Pistol or MagSec?

If this falls off page 1 you all fail at life and fatness.