We are in a spot where vehicles can go either way.

Hardest part is balancing AV vs pro HAV without shutting down all other vehicles even more.
Not to mention current maddy meta is far too hardened.

There are few things I can suggest that would not completely ruin either sides fun.

A very slight hardener reduction would be first step.

Returning some of the less OP modules of yore could inspire some diversity in HAV fitting. (Chassis, rotation, etc.) And make hardener reduction less painful.

Someone suggested giving AV a negative infantry modifier and increasing base damage. I could be on board with that.

Large blaster could use a slight touch more AV %, as a gunni cannot win against maddy blaster to blaster. (Although maddy would still be king... Sigh... Idk) A slight AI % reduction could help ground AV as well.

Large missiles are garbage ATM. Furthering the maddy meta. They need reload love badly.

The assault swarm and mass driver getting an av rework could be amazing.



I don't seek invulnerability, just some fun tankvtank like the old days.

Suggest, discuss.

You know, I was watching that previous thread you were in as a lark. TBH, I didn't want to help push for any sort of V/AV balance because I can guarantee some side is going to whine and complain. But seeing as you've got this thing going, I may as well put in my two cents.

I'm going to speak on behalf of the ADS pilots, seeing as no one will.

Back when I was active, it was impossible to kill a hardened maddy with a rail incubus. Hell, it was like pulling teeth to kill a non hardened maddy, like the dude would have to be a straight tard to die by my barrage.

The main reason that is because of two things, which could easily be rectified (maybe).

1) Reps plus hardeners make it an impenetrable fortress.

2) The scrubbing bubbles technique. This is where the tank moves back and forth constantly, making it a nightmare to hit him, and when I do, it's usually all back by the time he gets out of my LOS, because reps are too fast and cannot be interrupted by damage.

Solution:

You could reduce the acceleration on tanks, but I would be wary of how much, seeing as you could easily kill the whole maddy trade this way.

Another thing that could work is increasing the rep delay. By that I mean making it take longer to get a repair from the module. This is also a main problem in ADS duels. If you slap a three/two rep fit on anything, you're pretty much God mode in the sky. Well, unless you're stupid.

Edit: Another good way to balance tanks and armor is to make the reps breakable. By that I mean if it's under fire, the tank cannot rep until it's not taken damage for x amount of time.

This thread is OOC, so I am actually interested in hearing suggestions.

So Godin, if you please, tell me what you would do to improve HAV/AV.

In a sense, you're correct that ADS aren't gunships. In truth, the word assault in Assault DropShip... is actually misused. ADS actually mirror scouts. If you're a pilot, you'd know that the usual routine we do is:

Wait for opportune moments
Activate mods
Go in and kill
leave as soon as it gets real
Recharge mods
Repeat

The basic creed of pilots, whether they realize it or not, is to be a damn coward.

This is pretty much, modified a little, the way a good scout will operate in combat.

And on this thought that it's bigger, so it shouldn't die to you... I'm going to bite my tongue and not say what I truly want to say, because in all honesty, your thought process on this is flawed.

Take the size of a PLC, or a forge, they're about the size of a rail turret, give or take. They're more effective at killing tanks than my turret is. I had all my skills maxed on Incubus and rail mostly. Saying that it shouldn't kill a tank because it's bigger is a load of crap, as I've probably put more SP in my craft than most tankers put in their tanks.

I may be reading what you're saying wrongly, but it's stupid that I don't even pose a threat to a vehicle using an AV weapon.

Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules.
They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick).

Repairs are part of the issue now that they are passive and constant. It is that in conjunction with the Hardener changes that have ruined HAV combat. The issue is not total raw HP or EHP it is the great disparity between the two and one that gives rise to periods of night invulnerability or utter vulnerability as opposed to a happy middle ground in which HAV have a respectable RAW HP value and are supplemented short term by active repairs and low yield hardeners.

1) Make armor repairers active. The reason Maddy's are so hard to kill is their reps cannot be stopped by any means. Making them active will severely limit how long they can be as strong as they are for. I'm thinking 30 sec uptime with a 2 minute cooldown, modifiable by skills.

2) Severely adjust tank acceleration. Beyond the argument of how is 82 tonnes of mass stopping on a dime and reversing in the opposite direction without ripping itself apart, it makes tanks want to actually worry about infantry getting too close. If I blindside a tank with a PLC and Lai Dai AV nades, he should not be able to immediately zip off to safety. Alternatively, put a delay on the activation of fuel injectors.

3) Make swarms specifically for killing tanks (hard-hitting but slow/nonmaneuverable missiles) and swarms specifically for hitting ADS (fast, maneuverable missiles but less damage) so we can bance the two independently of each other. The reason we always argue over V/AV is making AV balanced against a certain vehicle means throwing off the balance of AV vs a different vehicle. If we can tune AV against each type of vehicle independently, we can ensure that balance passes here don't upset the equilibrium elseware.

4) buff railgun damage. Honestly, if the railgun is supposed to be a pure AV turret (the reasoning behind removing its splash radius) then it should be the best at AV. There is nothing wrong with a railgun turret being the best turret at AV while being the worst turret at AP.

In this case a more realistic simulation of HAV would only serve to make tanks more enjoyable, more balanced, and better suited to a specific battlefield role.

What we have currently is a bad joke that cannot be defended.

2) I think that's mostly due to fuel injectors turning tanks (especially maddys) into drag racers. Imo the overdrive mod should be brought back (it increased torque), and fuel injectors should only affect top speed, not acceleration. In addition, it might be a good idea to make torque mods high slots and injectors low slots.

3) I could get behind that. Or the addition of flares for dropships.

4) Yes. They're pretty underwhelming at the moment (I have proto rails, killing hardened targets is practically impossible unless the driver is a moron and doesn't move).

Altough imo, HAVs should be given a purpose. That used to be locking down areas and infantry/vehicle suppression, but with the change to blaster accuracy it's hardly the case anymore. Basically, there isn't much I CAN do besides killing instalations and trying to spine people (which is hard considering my ****** aim). Something like destructible control points or things that can only be captured with vehicles would give tanks a purpose, and would make them contribute for the win (and less focused on killing infantry).

kill the fuel injector module on tanks.

then see how maddys perform without their crutch

proto gear is mostly a crutch for actual experience. i regularly use apex suits and cant tell the difference between gear other than their color.


if balancing AV tiers vs vehicle tiers is too much to ask for, then what about removing the tiers? just have one vehicle of each type and then balance the AV against that.

Provided that the Repairers don't provide the same direct survivability as buffer, and both are destructible by infantry portable AV weaponry (The advantage the repairers should have is in breaking off and repeatedly engaging the same target, not the sustained brawl-fest sluggers we have right now)

Which is why I used the term "Direct Survivability" instead of just "Survivability"...but it is probably most important that both are able to be killed with infantry portable AV...also, an actual role to have other than shoot other HAVs and/or kill footsloggers from inside of the giant battle-box would be nice (Footsloggers don't like it when you shoot at 'em, worked that one out myself)

(something something something siege roles....something something something defense relays)

In eve, the offset of armor hardening and armor repairing/shield reping is capacitor or energy reserve. I notice that tanks currently don't have an sort of energy, they just have durations and cooldowns. Tanks need to have capacitor and then all active modules need to drain capacitor. A tank could drive around with armor hardeners active or speed boosts active and it will last. If they use all three, then they burn up the cap and their "invulnerability" lasts for a very short time and it leaves them with nothing. Gives more skill to using an HAV other than activating all the condoms and pulling out before the swarm orgy hits. Not sure how it would work with dropships, though I believe that all vehicles should be balanced by this mechanic.

It also paves the way for electronic warfare =p

Also, since this is about balancing AV and HAV, I thought I would Quote from another thread regarding swarm launcher "buffs".
This is the conclusion after several heated discussions about what is broken and what is not.
"
Swarm launcher users must MAINTAIN the lock during missile flight or the missiles fly off in random directions and don't hit ****. This eliminates the set and forget system. This also eliminates the issue for us swarm users to have to constantly re-lock onto an enemy vehicle. We launch our missiles and keep launching them until we run out of ammo. However. We have to maintain the vehicle in our hit box or else we lose all the missiles that were launched. This makes our potential damage to vehicles much higher, on the grounds of killing them. However, it's a risk vs reward system. If you get killed, or you are forced to move because of enemy fire. Tough ****. The tank got away. This also rewards DS pilots. If the pilot out maneuvers the lock or simply gets out of range of the lock, then the threat effectively disappears for a time
Vehicles get notification when they have been locked on. This will give the drivers a heads up to find cover or start moving. "

Derrith Erador added with
"The problem with that is the fact that maintaining the lock is rather easy seeing as the PRO swarm has a lock box that is 24x the inner crosshair of a forge gun. So the solution to this, and to the rather underwhelming range is:

There will be three lock range settings:

short: range is 75 meters, with a 20x lock box
medium: range is 150 meters, with 12x lock box
long: range is 250 meters, with a 4x lock box

I'd use this for the standard, needless to say that the assault swarm should be the anti-ADS variant and will have greater lock range, lock box size, but less damage. That's my two cents on it, no point in maintaining a lock if I can just leave your zone with ease."

Original Dead-thread link: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3061313#post3061313

NO..... NEVER........ PLEASE PUT YOUR HANDS UP AND EXIT THE VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!! *throws re's on the back and ready's a forge squad holding their charges aimed at your ride* now, don't ever think about nerfing people things cause your legs are too small for your body, your tank is not a necessity you know, you can always leave it and help take points..... (no reason for tank lav ect exclusive points btw to the long quote) i will not allow you to nerf my fun, ever now get out of the tank please sir

I don't think Godin is seriously advocating the removal of myos...merely providing a parallel module type to the fuel injector (which the other person in the quote suggested removing from havs).

To many of us, armored vehicles are a necessity to have the full experience we're looking for. I don't play ambush anymore because of the lack of vehicles over all (no way of getting cover on most maps other than a vehicle). I only rarely call out my HAVs, But when I call them out it
Is always for a specific purpose. Sometimes that is a Tank Destroyer/Interdiction, other times a mobile wall/intel box, my favorite is being a "distraction Carnifex" where my job is to just get people to tunnel vision into killing me xD. Most of the time though I'll be running swarms and a RR myself, looking for HAVs or Derp ships to push away from points or pushes. Or running up and hoping melee hit detection works xD (it wasn't working well for me earlier today)

I was by no means suggesting a vehicle exclusive objective type, just one that needed ordnance to destory, regardless of I'd it was mounted to an hav or carried by a merc. Another possibility for HAVs is to make NULL cannons take damage...going neutral after their hp pool is depleted. Just something for HAVs to do once more other than suppressing mercs and AV

Also, I'm thinking of using the clone unit asset for a vehicle objective.

Have neutral ones that drop on outskirts of map and can't be hacked. Destruction gives 50-100 wp, and gives an extra 10-30 clones to destroyers team.

Possibly get some epic fights out there.
(Just make sure turrets can't see the drop spots...)

Been mashing my face into the keyboard on this so far...

There is NO WAY to balance what we currently have. Adv/pro HAV hulls kill it. Adding adv/pro LAV/ads only complicates matters more.

If we buffed LAV/DS and dropped std/adv HAV. Halved all module efficacy, then added the missing half to skills. (Weekend operators would be helpful, but not OP. Maxed operators skills would show on the field)

Increase resource needs on certain modules to create a meta where one can focus, or spread, but not have all the best aspects on one fit. (Giving LAV/DS fitting bonus to skill for modules that make sense)

Throw that in then adjust AV accordingly. Add new swarm variants. Breach MD AV tuned. AV laser variant. (Needs to be a new color, seriously)

Then, MAYBE, then, we would be closer to balanced than ever.

But wait... That all sounds so familiar....


There is no text description for the forehead implodingly intense /facepalm I'm feeling right now.

Removing tiers from AV would require skill bonus' for all related skills to compensate, yes?

Edit: the ahmg can/has/will muddle things. Not an op amount or anything. But still.

what about nova knives and punching

removing tiers of weapons is a completelty terrible idea imo, the DS could pull it off but having all of one type of weapon only having pg/cpu changes isn't a good idea, it makes the game seem so much more dull :/ whats the point in getting proto if i can fit a militia with the same stats, everything will be stupid cause this
"okay starter fit ez kill ez game ez life. THIS IS FOR THE WAIFU!!!" *pow pow pow pow pow*
"How the heck did he kill me im full officer/proto, wtf he had stacked armor and damage mods with a militia weapon.... RQ"
no point of making things boring, yes in a way it will reduce idiots complaining about proto spam etc and make some scrubs happy but its not worth killing tiers for honestly, and don't forget we have AV nades, Proxy/RE, and also cant just do it for one set of guns eg. av as it would be stupid and i would cry, but also mainly the amount of componsation skills required would either be too strong, too weak or keep the weapons the same/make them all proto damage values or if you dumped it all onto suits for some stupid reason that would also be ********. by the way why are you guys wanting to nerf AV? i feel its fine as it is and same for tanks at the moment, and just letting you know you should ask for logi dropships back before requesting anything else done, as logi and assault dropships are the proto tier for them. and for LAVs either request logi LAV back or request the tree build into a troop transport thing which is like a land whale i guess, although thats a bit too much work at them moment i think personally just asking for logi lav back and a scout one which has like 10% increased top speed for one race and 10% acceleration for the other or maybe 10% top speed and 15% acceleration and for the other other race the same 15% top speed 10% acceleration (at level 5 for the respective skill tree or maybe just by default as they are meant to be faster and make the skill bonus something like reduced spawn timer on the cru in lav but that seems better suited for the logi one, maybe handling or damage reduction slightly? as they would be weak of course, even more speed would work. as for logi stuff i got no clue what they are planning. also the scout lav could be substituted for a 'assault' LAV which specializes in the back gun and could even have one on the passenger seat, and the skill bonuses could be like fire rate, reload or damage even also no doubt you would want tracking speed. thats all i got... but yeah you really should get those logi LAVs and DSs back.

RIP in peace bumblebee whale :c

I <3 nova knifing tanks, even if i suicide. if you just drive away when i am jumping on you, you woulda been fine. also when proxys are being dropped on you best to leave even sooner :P RIP that one guy the other day

I have yet to be popped by a knifer...

The nk vehicle damage thing, was always a bad idea imo. The only reason it got deployed was a very vocal group at the time.

I understand, they are space future knives...
Guess what.. I'm in a space future tank.


@Godin. You remember a very different lds than I do. I had my prometheus stacked and skilled. I could bumble in all wood bee style, float right over an objective, and let the team pour out. I honestly used my lds more than any other vehicle back then, due to its nigh-invulnerability. It could take so much punishment.

The reps were gimpy, agreed. Getting low enough to use them was garbage. I did enjoy the free mobile cru though.
Idk, different strokes I guess.

I'm actually OK with jlav, it is New Eden. XD

I'm not. I'd rather the LAV have enough fire power to threaten HAV and ADS.

the only successful nova knifings of tanks in-game that I have ever seen were staged by the people involved to "prove" that nova knifing tanks was unfair. pretty much every single nova knifing vid could have been countered by a hard drive into the redline.

Because when it comes to True HAV Balance, Nova Knives make for a far bigger problem and higher priority than perma-hardened blaster maddies and ineffective Swarms.

Why not ask Rattati if you can trade out that unbearably offensive NK damage for a reasonable and fair limitation of 1 hardener per loadout? Bam! Instantly better HAV balance. No more NK QQ. Progress on two fronts. Happiness and high fives all around. But most importantly, instantly better HAV balance.

Better HAV balance is the goal, right?

KNIVES ARE ONLY GOOD AV AGAINST RETARDS, IF YOU DIE IN A TANK TO KNIVES ITS CAUSE YOU STAYED STILL. the knives shoulld never be nerfed just cause a few good scouts managed to kill your dam tank, like honestly its a cqc weapon, if your being knifed you probably have RE's on you already and are gonna die anyway.... and also wouldn't you want to have the hardener cap and then bring back logi vehicles first so you can have those balanced as well rather than just get things 'balanced' and then new logi ds comes and then that turns out to be op with the mods or something like that. but also what exactly needs to be balanced? can i have a little list of what needs to be balanced so we can all see whatss 'wrong' at the moment?

1. Priorities, TA. Here we are in yet another HAV balance thread, and once again we find pilots scratching heads, dragging heels, and tiptoeing around serious and longstanding balance issues. Yet somehow, the same find the strength of mind to reach consensus on something that "the other side" has that they don't like ... something with little-to-no effect whatsoever on True HAV Balance. I'm glad you guys have made up your minds about Nova Knives, but just how many of these HAV "balance" threads will there be before real solutions for real problems are put forward?

2. Consider the cloak. It is truly bad, and yet dropsuits are limited to one per loadout. If CCP can find reason to limit something that's largely ineffective to one per loadout, why should they not do the same with something that's overly effective? Perhaps more importantly, if doing so would improve HAV balance -- which it would -- why would you and other pilots oppose it? Is it not the goal of this thread to find ways to improve HAV balance?

3. Let's assume that CCP oops'd one day and gave the best Assault suit in the game two light weapon slots. Would you expect that suit to account for some of the most popular fittings? Would you expect that suit to outsell and outperform available alternatives by wide margin? Sure, fixing the oversight would upset many an Assault user and put to pasture many a "most popular" overpowered fitting. But it'd still be the right thing to do. Right?

Free Perspective:

Very Vocal Scouts
* OP from Uprising 1.8 to Uprising 1.10 (254 days)
* UP for nearly a year prior and UP for over a year after

Blaster Madrugars
* OP from Uprising 1.7 to Present (761 days)
* "Don't touch my permahardened Blaster Maddie. It's popular!"

---

If you don't like the nk vehicle damage thing, then by all means propose that CCP remove it. Scouts are accustomed to getting their toys taken away, and there aren't enough left to raise much of a fuss about it. Go for it. Seriously. See how very little resistance is put up by that "very vocal group" you guys love to hate. But while you're at it, why not also propose some specific fixes for those things on your side of the table which are truly broken and have been for years now? Things like permahardened blaster maddies.

That's the new type of plate that confers short-term invulnerability, right? Exciting!

I agree with you. Probably a good idea to limit it to one per loadout. Wouldn't take infantry long to figure out that running more than one of those bad boys wholly negates the intended "windows of opportunity" design.

Over two years of broken tanks, hundreds and hundreds of "Let's fix HAV" threads, and guys have yet to make up your mind on what the actual problem is. But one thing's for sure ...

"Hardener stacking isn't the problem!"

Given the spirit of what Devadander's trying to do here, why take cards off the table? Perhaps hardener stacking isn't at the root of the problem, but you can't deny its relative popularity and effectiveness. If hardener stacking doesn't work, why do so many do it and why would anyone oppose its limitation? If hardener stacking is popular because it works, perhaps it is working too well. How can you safely rule it out as a non-issue?

C'mon man......

There's no ONE thing that makes Maddy's so strong. That has been laid out several times in this thread. We are beyond "limiting hardeners"

It's the whole package.
2x hardeners
120 plate (or two reps if you are ballsy)
Complex heavy rep (having these passive is a problem in my eyes as well)

My goal here (one I'm already beyond the "what's the problem?" phase) is to break the ability to fit the full package. Making operators have to choose.

Do I want to dual harden? I'll have weak reps and no buffer.
Do I want great reps? I'll only have one hardener.
Do I want a tanky buffer? No hardener and mediocre reps.

This is taking my thread backwards....
You've got me dangerously close to back in character..




There will be no hardener limit.

That's a shame. Scenario #2 represents a serious and frequently observed balance problem. So long as Scenario #2 is happening, HAV/AV interplay will remain broken. Limiting hardeners might furrow brows but it fixes this problem without creating new problems. The only other conceivable fix involves weakening dual-hardened HAVs by such degree that the AVer in Scenario #2 solos the tank before it can activate its second hardener. Good luck getting that one past your peers.

Can't think of any other solutions to this serious interplay problem. But I wish you luck!

However, I can agree that hardeners being blanket better modules than other choices in the same slot, leading to the desire to fill half your slots with them 100% of the time is a problem.



As for your other reasoning...
1: You need not kill a player or vehicle to win an engagement - Weakening them to the point the must fall back has always been viewed as sufficient in my book (Regardless on if I'm fighting dropsuits or vechicles). If they don't fall back, or if there is nothing else to do immediately, by all means, kill or pursue to kill.

2: An AVer should be able to solo-neutralize or kill an HAV...period...regardless of if Hardeners are Up or down, regardless of current HP Status, if an HAV engages, it should have a good chance of being destroyed. Likewise an AVer should be able to be killed by a Solo HAV...this isn't really an issue outside of the Railguns...but it is still something to consider. Remember for both Cases, see point 1...killing/destruction isn't necessary 100% of the time, especially if there are more pressing concerns. If the purpose of hardeners is to provide temporary invulnerability to a damage source or sources...then make them do that, but I refuse to believe that is their purpose...

Months ago, huh? Glad to hear you guys figured it out, Godin. Though if so simple and obvious, I have to ask ... why did it take two years to nail down, and why didn't it make it into FoxFour?

@Devadander

I don't think anyone will disagree that in a 1 player equals 1 player cenario, HAVs are very much overpriced...but they shouldn't be more powerful because they are priced so high, instead they should be priced for what they provide and should provide on the battlefield

You have a link to my AV stuff?


And I assume that was directed at someone else, because I'm rather open that I consider there to be multiple potential solutions. I merely favor the one that will eat the least developer man-hours. I figure the low-hanging fruit will be looked at the most seriously if and when it comes time to address these issues.