DUST Search - Tank Driver calling ALL Vehicle players and ALL AV players together

All Channels

General Discussions

Tank Driver calling ALL Vehicle players and ALL AV players together

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2013.06.18 20:12:00 - [1] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've spent plenty of times doing both AV and driving all 3 vehicle types. Right now, HAVs seem to be the main issue people are arguing about. Drivers say that it should take several AVers to down one, while AVers also argue that 1 person should able to be beaten by 1 person. I personally think that the driver's seat of the HAV needs to be separate from the main turret, and they should get a buff to eHP. That way, HAVs and AVers will both need teamwork. This is the way that makes most sense to me. I'm an AV guy but I want HAVs to be tough, to be a real presence on the field, it's just that having 1 person be the equivalent of 3 or 4 because he's in a tank presents problems. The most obvious solution as McBob says is to make a HAV require 3 operators to be at 100% effectiveness. Driver who controls movement and active modules, a primary gunner and a secondary gunner. Requires manpower and teamwork to take down, requires manpower and teamwork to operate.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 21:32:00 - [2] - Quote Eurydice Itzhak wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've spent plenty of times doing both AV and driving all 3 vehicle types. Right now, HAVs seem to be the main issue people are arguing about. Drivers say that it should take several AVers to down one, while AVers also argue that 1 person should able to be beaten by 1 person. I personally think that the driver's seat of the HAV needs to be separate from the main turret, and they should get a buff to eHP. That way, HAVs and AVers will both need teamwork. This is the way that makes most sense to me. I'm an AV guy but I want HAVs to be tough, to be a real presence on the field, it's just that having 1 person be the equivalent of 3 or 4 because he's in a tank presents problems. The most obvious solution as McBob says is to make a HAV require 3 operators to be at 100% effectiveness. Driver who controls movement and active modules, a primary gunner and a secondary gunner. Requires manpower and teamwork to take down, requires manpower and teamwork to operate. I disagree with the notion that 1 tank is equal to 3 blueberries. He has the killing potential of 3 blueberries, maybe. But he lacks the vision, hacking capabilities, spawning capabilities, etc of a dropsuit. There is a reason that tanks see little to no PC time. It's because they can't fulfill the roles that infantry can. The pressure that dropsuits can put on a point via dropuplinks and respawning is insane. A tank can't put that same pressure when they need to retreat or lose all the time of dropping another tank. Didn't so much mean that 1 tanker fills in for 3 people in the current Dust, just that 1 person potentially attaining the battlefield presence of 3 from going solo in a vehicle is anathema to balance. Was hypothetical. Boosting a tank into being a mighty force capable of altering the flow of battle is more reasonable and easier to balance when it requires 2 operators for basic functionality and 3 for optimal. It represents a concentrated font of manpower. The real problem is in all the current game modes, though. No real role for vehicles, they're not really integrated into the gameplay. If one side had to defend an objective and the other claim it, ending the match if it was taken, then we would see vehicles take a far larger part. A good HAV would go a long way in aiding a push, able to advance under some fire with modules up, punishing any infantry that emerge to try and engage your own. Also serves on the opposite side as a rock for pushes to break themselves against. Likewise dropships will have an objective of major importance to drop a strike team on, a more singular frontline to bypass. Good map design and a focused objective for it to be designed around could give so many more roles and playstyles a place, make them viable, meaningful. If I'm honest I reckon all the current game modes are dire. The game modes define how the game is played, when they're all so underdesigned it is severely limiting and a whole host of problems emerge as a result.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 22:10:00 - [3] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Void Echo wrote: quick question, are you AV or assault? I've done everything really? then which would you spec into? Driver seat OR Gunner seat. pic which one you would go for if what your talking about was implimented Not him, but driver. I love playing closely with other people and I would be far more satisfied with giving my brothers in the guns the best possible ride and lots of opportunities to put 'em to work than racking up a positive K/D myself. Being able to fully focus on reading the battlefield while they can fixate on aiming and observing would also raise the potential effectiveness of the vehicle. Mutual reliance relationships also foster some of the best moments in gaming, they really do. There are hiccups and randoms become a shaky bet to entrust yourself to but that's just a matter of finding yourself some people to buddy up with, acquire some regulars. Separation of duties also leads to a better tank all round when you really mesh with your crew. On top of all aspects of the vehicle seeing more focused attention there's also a morale side to it: as the driver you don't want to let your gunners down, as a gunner you're trying extra hard to not disappoint your driver.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 22:31:00 - [4] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: Void Echo wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Void Echo wrote: quick question, are you AV or assault? I've done everything really? then which would you spec into? Driver seat OR Gunner seat. pic which one you would go for if what your talking about was implimented Not him, but driver. I love playing closely with other people and I would be far more satisfied with giving my brothers in the guns the best possible ride and lots of opportunities to put 'em to work than racking up a positive K/D myself. Being able to fully focus on reading the battlefield while they can fixate on aiming and observing would also raise the potential effectiveness of the vehicle. Mutual reliance relationships also foster some of the best moments in gaming, they really do. There are hiccups and randoms become a shaky bet to entrust yourself to but that's just a matter of finding yourself some people to buddy up with, acquire some regulars. Separation of duties also leads to a better tank all round when you really mesh with your crew. On top of all aspects of the vehicle seeing more focused attention there's also a morale side to it: as the driver you don't want to let your gunners down, as a gunner you're trying extra hard to not disappoint your driver. if you like giving rides then go for LAVs, that what there for, and I disagree when im driving my tank, I don't care about the gunners, I wish I could eject them or replace the 2 turrets with an anti-swarm turret. I am a jerk when it comes to people getting in my ride but that's only because of every random blue dot trying to get into my tank hoping for a free joy ride to god mode, but that's not going to happen. 'Best possible ride' was more about driving well than zipping around. Not exposing yourself stupidly, communicating well, giving the gunners clear targets, that sort of thing. Being an effective presence on the field and a tank that's fun to gun for. The LAV comment is of zero relevance. Regardless, the premise was about buffing tanks significantly if the role of driver and gunner were separated. A different tack is the addition of beefed up tanks with that separation, more potent but necessitating more hands to operate. The solo driver-gunner tank remains as it's lighter cousin.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:27:00 - [5] - Quote Void Echo wrote: and that lighter cousin will be the majority of tanks being used and this separated one will be like the enforcers, not used because its worthless. Right. It doesn't exist or have any indicator of it's stats other than 'buffed significantly' and it's categorically 'worthless'. This clearly isn't about looking at it from a gameplay perspective but one of personal preference, the outright dismissal isn't for a valid enough reason. Well, unless it's some notion about the simultaneous existence of team tanks and solo tanks phasing out your preferred role, the latter. Ideally it shouldn't. Solo will be more popular for pubs while team tanks will be of greater value in PC, that it's not balanced around 1 person using it means it can be buffed up into the mighty engine of destruction that a tank is meant to be. Frankly it's initial popularity doesn't matter. That it has the capacity to play the role of a heavier tank is what matters, a HAV to be reckoned with at the cost of more people behind it. Won't be popular at first, no, necessitated teamwork never is when there's an alternative. There is some calling for it though, both in playstyle preference and the solution it provides to one of the problems of heavily empowering a vehicle. Consider it as it's own thing, in a holistic light please. Ya ain't gonna be strapped down and forced to drive it if you don't want to. For the purpose of that consideration just pretend we have a game mode that's actually good, where HAVs have sway in aiding the push against a focused defence or in holding it, stopping any such advances. I say this because what we currently have is pretty bad all 'round and what vehicles can potentially do doesn't matter much in them. It's a very poor template for gauging vehicular capabilities since it doesn't call for most of them.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:47:00 - [6] - Quote Void Echo wrote: if it were to get implemented, tanks would completely disappear, but if it were an option, I guarantee you that nobody would use that option. why do you think that nobody uses the enforcers, because they are worthless expensive militia tanks. Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think they'd have a very viable place in the scheme of things. So long as they do their popularity isn't of prime importance. Why do you keep bringing up Enforcers, anyway? The problems with that tank have absolutely zero relevance to what we're talking about.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:54:00 - [7] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: Void Echo wrote: if it were to get implemented, tanks would completely disappear, but if it were an option, I guarantee you that nobody would use that option. why do you think that nobody uses the enforcers, because they are worthless expensive militia tanks. Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think they'd have a very viable place in the scheme of things. So long as they do their popularity isn't of prime importance. Why do you keep bringing up Enforcers, anyway? The problems with that tank have no relevance to what we're discussing that I can see. its actually relevant because its an example of what happens to something that's forced onto tank drivers that we don't want, it never gets used and other people wonder why. Funny. I thought the problem was simply that it's an overpriced turd that can't even do it's primary function right.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:59:00 - [8] - Quote Void Echo wrote: and that's WHY it infuriated tank drivers, because its worthless and ccp forced them onto us and now we don't use them. no self respecting tank driver I know has either of them. And one half-arsed implementation of something completely different to what's being proposed invalidates it right off the bat?
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2013.06.19 00:08:00 - [9] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: And one half-arsed implementation of something completely different to what's being proposed invalidates it right off the bat? you answered that yourself That's not the most useful of answers. Unless you're really going with the whole angle that if trying something different failed once, don't try anything different again? If that's right, eh... If it ain't, elaborate please.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2013.06.19 16:04:00 - [10] - Quote gbh08 wrote: To the dudes that blatently want to solo a tank coz theres only one driver in it, yes Mcboso (i pray for the other dudes in that corp your not leader) and popwhatever im looking at you guys, forge gun, high tower where i cant see you, watch me drive around like a confused idiot while you single handedly murk my machine What I want is a fierce combined arms fight and relevant dropships. What I know is that in a game where there are fixed numbers on both sides it is problematic from a design standpoint to balance around there being 1 player who requires 2 or more to feasibly take down. This is the fundamental problem. One solution is having the vehicle be fragile but act as a platform for weaponry which outclasses anything handheld. Needs to engage carefully and to it's strengths. The other is to make it require multiple operators to function. As it represents a larger chunk of one side's forces it can be beefed up proportionally. This is what was being explored. There's no reason not to do both and split them into different vehicles.

Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 45	Posted - 2013.06.20 00:16:00 - [11] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: New topic of discussion: Should it take 2 average skill proto AV to kill 1 average skill proto tank? More? Less? My vote is for 2 because if we say 'average skill', that's still 95% of the tanker population. The true diehard tankers will still take 3 or even 4 if they have good infantry. That seems very fair. I suppose I wouldn't be popular if I resurfaced the prior discussion on solo tanks versus team tanks. Not popular with current tankers, never did have the core reason behind the idea properly addressed though. At all. I'll let it settle for this thread when it is, regardless of if I like the answer. For a 2-man tank, separated driver and gunner, 2 AV users to suppress, 4 to burst damage hard enough for a chance of destruction in the act of suppression. 3 on the hunt to have a decent chance of seek and destroy, 4+ for good chance. Seek and destroy rendered impractical if it's among infantry support. If it's a solo tank 1 to suppress, 2 to burst damage hard enough for a decent chance of destruction if it doesn't rapidly break their fire. 2 on the hunt to have a very good chance at seek and destroy. Infantry support makes seek and destroy at least a 3 man job but still suffering reduced chances even with additional numbers.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 45	Posted - 2013.06.20 00:32:00 - [12] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: New topic of discussion: Should it take 2 average skill proto AV to kill 1 average skill proto tank? More? Less? My vote is for 2 because if we say 'average skill', that's still 95% of the tanker population. The true diehard tankers will still take 3 or even 4 if they have good infantry. That seems very fair. I suppose I wouldn't be popular if I resurfaced the prior discussion on solo tanks versus team tanks. Not popular with current tankers, never did have the core reason behind the idea properly addressed though. At all. I'll let it settle for this thread when it is, regardless of if I like the answer. For a 2-man tank, separated driver and gunner, 2 AV users to suppress, 4 to burst damage hard enough for a chance of destruction in the act of suppression. 3 on the hunt to have a moderate chance of seek and destroy, 4+ for good chance. Seek and destroy rendered impractical if it's among infantry support. If it's a solo tank 1 to suppress, 2 to burst damage hard enough for a decent chance of destruction if it doesn't rapidly break their fire. 2 on the hunt to have a very good chance at seek and destroy. Infantry support makes seek and destroy at least a 3 man job but still suffering reduced chances even with additional numbers. It's not one or the other, either. No reason they can't both exist. Here's the funny thing about tanks with infantry: infantry make tanks OP; not the other way around. If all my infantry are engaging the enemy AV, then i can go ham. That being said, even if i have no infantry support, one std av should never be able to solo me. ever., but 2 or 3 firing in unison, then yeah, i'd say so. Infantry and vehicles have a symbiotic relationship- infantry swat AVers, and vehicles send the enemy infantry running for cover Aye, this is absolutely how it should be. If the infantry game and the vehicle game aren't integrated this is a problem. Frankly this is true right now on quite a few levels. The problem is not necessarily infantry or vehicles right now, it's mainly the game modes we currently have to work with.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2013.06.21 15:00:00 - [13] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: A player with many proto AV weapons should be able to kill a standard tank (1 player in tank) with proto modules. Maybe 1 full proto player should not be able to kill a full proto tank though if the tank decides to retreat insantly (the tank itself being proto level). Just seems like certain tanks and vehicles are way too strong when certain mods are applied, because they can survive an ambush of a full proto squad (because they are able to retreat easily and not die if they choose to run instantly). That kind of power should be with proto level tanks. I specced into proto AV grenades and have adv swarm launchers. What I have found is its impossible to solo a well built tank or dropship because they can get away from you way too fast and regenerate armor way too fast (high HP armor tanks and dropships). Even a squad of 6 with proto AV weapons cant kill a armor tank or armor dropship (with heavy armor repair mods) because the armor regeneration gives them enough HP to retreat out of range. To solve this a decreased armor regen rate for heavy armor repair modules would solve the problem. I found remote explosives to be under performing against tanks with proto mods and LLAVs because they can both survive 3 RE's (even if detonated while REs are underneath the stationary tank or LLAV) if they have good defense modules and are set up well enough. Never tried proxy mines though. Shield tanks seem to regenerate shields slower and but still seem to regenerate shields a bit too fast to allow 1 player with many proto AV weapons to kill them before they can retreat. Although a squad of 6 players with proto AV weapons can kill them. You're telling me that 27000 DPS isn't enough to kill a tank? A proto forge or swarm with damage mods or adv AV grenades inflict around 4500 damage; and you say six guys can't kill a tank with 5-6.7k HP? Even with 50% resistance to explosives on shield tanks (with hardeners of course), that'd kill anything. You're awful at what you should do. Let the good AV players talk to the good tankers. 27000 DPS, heh. Think there's a zero too many there. Killing 3 tanks a second... AV is good, just not quite that good. Wiyrkomi Swarm with stacked up dam mods on a high-slot suit might be at around 4500 damage a salvo versus armour. Don't have numbers to hand but sounds about right. Pretty crazy stuff. Ishukone Assault Forge Gun has a maximum possible damage bonus of 35% and I think 1660 base damage. So modified it'd be 2246 if my ment arithmetic is in order, 1.875 seconds between shots. It hits like a truck to the Swarm's bullet train but with the massive advantage of brilliant range and excellent delivery. I'd figure DPS comes close to 600 with reload factored in. DPS doesn't give a clear picture in this instance though. Best to think of it as being able to burst almost 9000 damage across 10 seconds within a 300m range. Performs more than adequately. Also remember that it limits you to a fatsuit. I'd say that's a drawback but one that can easily be worked with.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2013.06.21 18:59:00 - [14] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Void Echo wrote: Meeko Fent wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've spent plenty of times doing both AV and driving all 3 vehicle types. Right now, HAVs seem to be the main issue people are arguing about. Drivers say that it should take several AVers to down one, while AVers also argue that 1 person should able to be beaten by 1 person. *I personally think that the driver's seat of the HAV needs to be separate from the main turret, and they should get a buff to eHP. That way, HAVs and AVers will both need teamwork*. This. This. This. This. This. This, Would Solve ALL our Arguments. Except the Windari Logi Suit Problem. Change Them Bonuses! that wont solve anything except the infantry's problem, it would cause tanks to go extinct for a lack of usefulness. look back somewhere in the thread and youl see my post explaining why this should never be implemented. So, you think that a Single Man can Cough up the Costs of Continued HAV Usage, Besides the Militia Model? What are You Smoking? Everything Else in this game is wired toward Teamplay. You want to attack that Objective? Get a Bud. You Want to Kill that Heavy? Get a Bud. You want to Defend that Objective? Get a Bud. You Want to Be a Heavy? Get a Logi-Bro Bud You want to Hack that Objective Back, So it Doesn't go Red? Might as well Get 2 Buds, cause those Sumbitches Take FOREVER to Hack The Only Thing in this Game that you Don't have to Play as a Team to Get Good Results is a HAV, and I Know this, Cause I've Played HAV a bit, and you don't Need ANYONE else to Wreck the enemy Team Once you Get the Hang of Driving a HAV. Both The AVs and the HAV Drivers Need to Be Teamplay. HAVs need Some Buds to It can Move and shoot and Do the Things it was Meant to Do. You Don't See LAVs Driving Around and Shooting With No Gunner! Why Should the Only Other Ground Vehicle Be able to Shut down an Objective Solo? Someone Suggested This a While Back, and everyone Agreed it was a Good Idea, but it was never instituted. This Way It Makes a Variety if Roles available to the Game. Right Know there is Only... Assault Logi Heavy Tanker Murder Taxi Driver Sniper AV Derpship Pilot This Idea Might Make it So you Can Drive a Tank With your Bud without Having The AV Guys Whine for Nerfs Since they Need Teams Of Guys to Kill a Single Person in a HAV It Might Expand the Roles to... Assault Logi Heavy Murder Taxi Driver Sniper AV Tank Driver Tank Main Gunner Coaxial MG Gunner Derpship Pilot Just a Note. Seems a pretty ideal way to solve the fundamental problem. Light tanks remain as a solo vehicle akin to what we have now, are threatened by continued fire from a single equivalent AV spec, have to keep wary. Likely take over artillery roles when the tech's there. Heavier tanks have dedicated driver and dedicated gunners, as it requires more manpower to operate it gets beefed up accordingly, requiring several AV specs to keep at bay or destroy. Excellent at rolling into the thick of it with allied troops, it keeps the enemy's head down for 'em to move in, they help in smacking down AV. Infantry and tanks should really strive for that kind of symbiotic relationship. If the vehicle game and the infantry game aren't intertwined that is a serious problem. We'll start seeing it more when a match type features proper attacker versus defender play, when there's a focused defence to either make a push on or to hold. Expect heavy resistance to the proposal though. In spite of a solo light tank keeping the current playstyle alive there is apparently something abhorrent about the very idea of such a teamwork-oriented vehicle existing. The driver not getting kills and positive K/D is apparently a big deal, who knew?
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.06.22 00:34:00 - [15] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Poplo Furuya wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: A player with many proto AV weapons should be able to kill a standard tank (1 player in tank) with proto modules. Maybe 1 full proto player should not be able to kill a full proto tank though if the tank decides to retreat insantly (the tank itself being proto level). Just seems like certain tanks and vehicles are way too strong when certain mods are applied, because they can survive an ambush of a full proto squad (because they are able to retreat easily and not die if they choose to run instantly). That kind of power should be with proto level tanks. I specced into proto AV grenades and have adv swarm launchers. What I have found is its impossible to solo a well built tank or dropship because they can get away from you way too fast and regenerate armor way too fast (high HP armor tanks and dropships). Even a squad of 6 with proto AV weapons cant kill a armor tank or armor dropship (with heavy armor repair mods) because the armor regeneration gives them enough HP to retreat out of range. To solve this a decreased armor regen rate for heavy armor repair modules would solve the problem. I found remote explosives to be under performing against tanks with proto mods and LLAVs because they can both survive 3 RE's (even if detonated while REs are underneath the stationary tank or LLAV) if they have good defense modules and are set up well enough. Never tried proxy mines though. Shield tanks seem to regenerate shields slower and but still seem to regenerate shields a bit too fast to allow 1 player with many proto AV weapons to kill them before they can retreat. Although a squad of 6 players with proto AV weapons can kill them. You're telling me that 27000 DPS isn't enough to kill a tank? A proto forge or swarm with damage mods or adv AV grenades inflict around 4500 damage; and you say six guys can't kill a tank with 5-6.7k HP? Even with 50% resistance to explosives on shield tanks (with hardeners of course), that'd kill anything. You're awful at what you should do. Let the good AV players talk to the good tankers. 27000 DPS, heh. Think there's a zero too many there. Killing 3 tanks a second... AV is good, just not quite that good. Wiyrkomi Swarm with stacked up dam mods on a high-slot suit might be at around 4500 damage a salvo versus armour. Don't have numbers to hand but sounds about right. Pretty crazy stuff. Ishukone Assault Forge Gun has a maximum possible damage bonus of 35% and I think 1660 base damage. So modified it'd be 2246 if my ment arithmetic is in order, 1.875 seconds between shots. It hits like a truck to the Swarm's bullet train but with the massive advantage of brilliant range and excellent delivery. I'd figure DPS comes close to 600 with reload factored in. DPS doesn't give a clear picture in this instance though. Best to think of it as being able to burst almost 9000 damage across 10 seconds within a 300m range. Performs more than adequately. Also remember that it limits you to a fatsuit. I'd say that's a drawback but one that can easily be worked with. You clearly didn't read the whole post, because that is for 6 proto AV attacking one tank My mistake. Still, a concerted burst from 6 high-end AV weapons ought to destroy anything run by a single player or at the very least make it a close thing when hardeners ain't up. They usually do, be it from railguns, FGs, PCs or Swarms. Or is this in contention? As for the post below that, I doubt anyone thinks HAVs don't require teamwork. They're very much reliant on it. The tanker who doesn't read the field and take stock of his team is more commonly known as a slag pile. The heavy tank thing is about requiring a manpower cost to balance things out, to justify the endurance it must have to operate reliably in a close team support role. It should be brilliant at what it does with 3 people in it because it has 3 people in it. It absolutely should be a juggernaut. The notion that HAVs would not otherwise require teamwork is not part of the premise at all.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2013.06.22 00:50:00 - [16] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: I'll agree to having seperate roles within a "heavy tank" if CCP agrees to call what we have right now "light tanks", then gives us ADV and PRO versions, and makes the "heavy tanks" have a stacking bonus to every person in the tank, so It can be fit with a 75% PG upgrade accounted for, and double the base HP. Here is my idea of a heavy tank when fully crewed by 3 people in full proto mode: ~6000 dps 20,000 EHP 30% passive resistance without modules on 30% repper/booster bonus without modules 50 pts/sec shield regen moves 20mph Cost: 10 million/chassis That is the only way any tanker will ever agree to having separate duties within a tank, otherwise, no. And to anyone who thinks tanks don't require teamwork: you're obviously not a tanker and have never encountered proto AV While I think the Numbers for EHP and the DPS are quite high, this is what I'm thinking of. A Tank where everything about the Vehicle Improves as More Guys are Crammed in there. Only there would to Practically Mandatory Roles for it function Properly. 1-A Pilot/Driver-Well, he Drivers the Tank. Not Much Explanation there 2-Tank Gunner-Mans the Main Gun Besides that, feel Free to add on the various Seats there could be in the HAV Aside from just secondary gun? Falling short on inspiration apart from perhaps granting them their own directional scanning module built-in. Would require some work and isn't directly related but making Swarm missiles destructable could perhaps be a thing. Hard for a gunner to shoot them all down but could mitigate some incoming damage if he's prepared for them.