I think the capacitor idea is excellent, but not being able to shoot whilst piloting would be very boring.

+1 to native Mobile CRUs too

Yeah, some vehicles should have those built in. Being able to fit them leads to stuff that doesn't make sense like LAVs that have unlimited spawns into the passenger seat, and fits being limited by having to use a slot for them.

Also keep in mind that some people are fine with driving without shooting, same as some are fine with shooting while someone else drives. For people who don't like either, they can use Light vehicles.

I don't see a way to balance something like an HAV if one person can get into it and be basically unstoppable by themselves. Similarly, it would suck to have to spend a lot of credits on an asset like that only to have it be very easy to destroy to compensate for it being able to do so much damage with only one player using it.

Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions.

Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons:

LAVs
What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself.

When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes?

ADS
What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform.

When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all.

HAVs
What is their purpose? Siege Platforms.

When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way.

So HAVs will either be slow or immobile why

I never mentioned they would be slow. At least outside of siege mode. The speed I left that out so you guy can debate it.

EDIT: Lore wise I would say that the HAV going into siege mode is devoting much of its power to the primary weapon as the onboard computer recalculates based on the new configuration. I would probably wager that during this phase the HAV has buffs against EWAR attacks during its cycle. Energy vamps and neuts might not work against it since the powerplant would likely dish out more cap boosting than what the vamps and neuts can take away. Of course that is assuming capacitors are ever implemented into the game.

PS: We're talking about siege mode here where if any vehicle gets in the way of the line of fire they are ONE-HIT KILLED. Remember when I mentioned about them putting a dent on a MCC?

ADS was a lazy, poor design.

Replace with This right here and make it a proper VSTOL vehicle.

ADS can burn in hell.

Keep the normal dropship for transport, but give combat pilots something that doesn't look and maneuver like a brick-shaped metal turd that achieves the "assault" nickname by adding a gun.

That's why I think that for single person vehicles they should be able to kill lower size tier suits easily but equal or higher size tier suits would be a challenge

I should point out that the reason capacitor control, with turning modules on and off to regulate power usage, works well in EVE is because the computer is aiming the turrets for you.

If the driver and gunner positions in a tank are separated, then the driver can concentrate more on micro managing power systems, which would make the capacitor mechanic work very well. It would be fun and require skill from the driver, while the turret orator gets to shoot stuff and watch for heat buildup and ammo usage.

The crewed vehicles could get a lot more module slots than the solo vehicles. Solo vehicles would rely on speed and maneuverability to avoid damage, while crewed vehicles would be slower and tougher and rely on use of active modules to survive.

I think that if that is the case than blasters, missiles, rails, and lasers should hit significantly harder than other turrets

Yeah, some vehicles should have those built in. Being able to fit them leads to stuff that doesn't make sense like LAVs that have unlimited spawns into the passenger seat, and fits being limited by having to use a slot for them.

Also keep in mind that some people are fine with driving without shooting, same as some are fine with shooting while someone else drives. For people who don't like either, they can use Light vehicles.

I don't see a way to balance something like an HAV if one person can get into it and be basically unstoppable by themselves. Similarly, it would suck to have to spend a lot of credits on an asset like that only to have it be very easy to destroy to compensate for it being able to do so much damage with only one player using it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, for solo tanking fans I suggest a MAV that is tougher than a LAV, but still can be taken out by concentrated fire from 3 or 4 infantry weapons if given time, particularly if it gets stuck. I am thinking less module slots, and a lot less armor than a HAV, but more acceleration and maneuverability. The operator would rely on their driving rather than module management, to survive.

Also, I am thinking a medium turret. Large turrets should only be in crewed vehicles. But the medium turret should be able to do enough damage that Assault MAV's can gang up to kill a HAV the same way infantry can team up to kill an Assault MAV.

Let's not forget one very important thing here. For us to even get a chance to see vehicles in Project Nova in the future (and by future I mean distant) we have to ask ourselves some very important questions.

Do these vehicle types (LAVs, HAV & ADS) have any purpose being in Project Nova? If so, what is their purpose and when should it be needed? As I have proposed a while ago on DiscordApp, I suggested the following roles be assigned for the following reasons:

LAVs
What is its purpose? Long distance travel at very high speeds. In other words, strictly as a transport. Sure there can be a turret but the turret should only serve as a defensive tool to ward off attackers, not be the attack platform itself.

When is it needed? Very large open maps where the terrain is so vast that even the fastest scout will find it a hindrance to just rely on running on foot. That scout will likely just call in an LAV anyways because what kind of scout would want to waste half an hour running from point A to point B when an LAV can do the same in 5 minutes?

ADS
What is its purpose? Long distance travel at moderate speeds. Mainly as a transport like the LAV but has slightly better guns since it can be used as an assault platform.

When is it needed? Very large maps where mountains are plenty and can render LAVs vulnerable to an ambush. ADS can also serve as scouting platforms to get a set of eyes over that one ridge you are not sure of. This can be a perfect platform for delivering scouts as well. Notice how I only mentioned ADS because I feel that all dropships should be the same in terms of role. No more regular dropships that are completely redundant to assault types. Either make all dropships be ADS with MCRU built in (as the OP recommended) or don't include them at all.

HAVs
What is their purpose? Siege Platforms.

When is it needed? When your opponent is bunkered in and you really want to break through their defenses where your ADS fails. Another situation where one is needed is when your opponent has set up some kind of structure that hinders your progress and your ADS, AV infantry and even the most powerful forge gun can't break through its defenses except for a HAV that is in siege mode. When in siege mode, it dishes out enough fire power to make a dent on an MCC but it is completely immobile for a set amount of time until the cycle completes. This is similar to dreadnoughts in Eve that are forced to stay stationary in the same way.

I think we need to draw a line of ALL suits based on vehicle class, and have it be based on turrets specifically.

A small turret on an HAV should be just as effective against infantry as a small turret on an LAV. However, a Large Turret should be virtually incapable of being a major threat to infantry.

Consider today where most tank shells are either solid penetrators or shaped-charges with very little splash radius because they're designed for piercing the armor of other tanks. This is one area where emulating reality actually assists with game balance rather than detracting from it.

I agree, although if that solid shell actually hits an infantry directly it should be an instant kill. But with no splash, and slow turret tracking, so it is hard to get a direct hit on such a small moving target.

ADS shouldn't even be in Nova. It was a halfassed attempt at replacing fighters.

Right again. Designing Larger turrets in that way rewards practice and precision with kills, rather than essential trolling infantry by shooting the ground near them repeatedly to kill them while they can't do anything to stop you.

That's also part of why I prefer the idea of Turrets being empty sets of hardpoints on a vehicle and Vehicle Weapons being their own distinct entity. Ideally an HAV turret would have a Large and Small weapon hardpoint, so the gunner can engage infantry with the Small turret which would provide higher rate of fire or higher splash damage to make it better for engaging infantry at the cost of damage per shot.

The Small Weapon would still be in the HAV turret though, and thus restricted to that turret's rotation speed.

Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future.

Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova.

Well of course we just want them implemented right

Well why exactly is that I mean what about blaster turrets I think that they should be capable of massacring infantry but are weaker against vehicles

Bear in mind a vehicle alowed by siege mode would become more vulnerable to weakpoint assault, which was why I am always against EVE "Dreadnaught" style immobile siege modes.

I would honestly like to see tanks used more like titanfall titans, with allowances for the difference in vehicle stylings of course.

But powerful offense, and well-hardened against casual attack, but vulnerable to actual weapons intended to kill them, the suits tasked for that, as well as each other.

But I also would like to see them differ from the DUST model of vehicles. DUST handled vehicles terribly overall, and bluntly there wasn't anything rattatis team could have done to make them "good" and I feel they were limited to making them as not-rage-inducing as possible. Same for AV. Both felt like they were stapled on.

Now, I am going to say I would rather if we get vehicles in the future, we get them because the devs can devote their full attention and time to balancing them for the game, making sure the controls work, the weapons and defenses are appropriate, the costs appropriate and that they will interact with the infantry as a primary support platform as much as a good scout or sentinel.

I would rather not have them than to have them "like in DUST," which was terrible to begin with.

I am willing to deal with no vehicles on release if it means when they release, they are done right, not a giant bag of ass, not fun to drive, not fun to fight, and the cause of incessant, b*tching and arguing.

I do not want vehicles as they were in DUST. Period. I do not want AV as it was in DUST. Period. Both were bad. They could be fun. But they were bad.

So very simply, we're getting a new game. The infantry play is familiar, but it will be new. If and when vehicles are introduced I do not want DUST vehicles even if they look familiar, and I do not want EVE vehicles. I want Nova vehicles.

And I want them to be as simplistic or complex as they need to be in order for them to be balanced, fun and part of NOVA.

NOPE.

I've talked to True Adamance about this many times, and I am firmly of the opinion that Large Blaster turrets were a stupid idea and had no business in the game. A proper Blaster turret should have a low rate of fire, slow-flying projectiles like a Plasma Cannon, and as little splash damage as possible.

No Large Weapon for a vehicle should be able to be primarily used for killing infantry.