... Doesn't this thread already exist?

I rarely see guys who consider themselves maining in AV saying that vehicles need nerfed. It's mostly infantrymen complaining about vehicles that have only spec'd into grenades. I believe proximity explosives are really the only under performing antivehicle weapon at the moment.

I'd say most of us AV guys are happy with our tech currently. Well, most of the ones I see anyway.

Honestly I can't wait for the day for vehicle users to get something that will be extremely menacing but not overpowered. I'd love to run with a whole squad of fellow AVers fighting our own little battle against a machine.

I rarely see guys who consider themselves maining in AV that vehicles need nerfed. It's mostly infantrymen complaining about vehicles that have only spec'd into grenades. I believe proximity explosives are really the only under performing antivehicle weapon at the moment.

I'd say most of us AV guys are happy with our tech currently. Well, most of the ones I see anyway.

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.

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.

You do need three people to work all the turrets. Also, tanks don't have the ease of situational awareness as infantry. You don't get sigs popping up as easily. A scanner can help at close range but you have to turn that turret to scan for any big threats and sometimes I've had no sigs and another tank roll right up in front of me from the direction I was looking the whole way across the field to where I met up with him.

You can one shot an infantry with a rail and take down a guy quick with a blaster but you can't get several that fast. Infantry can gang on you. A lot of infantry survive my being close to them even with small turret gunners.

Nobody bringing a counter attack fits in with how a battle would go if one side has a tank and the other has nothing to fight it with.

You might as well complain about the lack of people dropping uplinks. A disorganized group of blueberries in a pub match most likely won't bring a counter attack.

When they do then I have to book it. A lot of times you can't tell what exactly is hitting you and from what direction.

Tanks are largely blind. You don't have time to turn that turret and scan. If so you might not get a sig.

Many matches are won by the enemy when in my tank because I can't go around capping AND keep my tank. There are still plenty of strawberries on the field to win even after I shoot some.

if you were to separate the driver seat from the main cannon, there wouldn't be any reason to spec into driving the thing at all, you don't get any rewards from the driver seat if you don't get to use the cannon to kill thus making the driver part of the tank pretty much hated. and on the subject of why, why should a single dropsuit match a 20-40 ton vehicle?

these are serious questions of mine

if you were to separate the driver seat from the main cannon, there wouldn't be any reason to spec into driving the thing at all, you don't get any rewards from the driver seat if you don't get to use the cannon to kill thus making the driver part of the tank pretty much hated. and on the subject of why, why should a single dropsuit match a 20-40 ton vehicle?

these are serious questions of mine

Because you can only have so many players on the battlefield at once. When you start seperating the anti-infantry in order to do anti-vehicle, infantry warfare can get easily get lopsided in favor of the team with the tank.

In essence, tankers want their tank to do as much damage and take as much damage as a full squadron of protos. All manned by only 1 guy with a fat wallet. With this logic, why be infantry at all? It'll be Tank 514.

We have to deal with the same thing in all the other vehicles. While dropship pilots are waiting for fighters, we can wait for mtacs or whatever they're called

What I like to do in a group with dropships or LAVs, is more or less rotate who calls it in, and who does what.

Well I am all for AV, people pull out tanks and I have fun destroying them.

I do believe the AV weapons are right where they should be however, there should be more tanks available.

Gunlogis & Madrugars belong in an advanced class. CCP needs to come up with some sort of a proto tank with 2 or 3 additional high and low slots, and maybe 2000-3000 more HP.

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.

As a anti social lone wolf, that would mean my speccing into tanks would be worthless, as i would either have to let some random drive my tank and no doubt loose it, or drive him around while he racks up the kills, which doesnt sound like much fun

Given that the game already rewards tankers to work as team with 3 men in it (look outs, gunners), im already at a disadvantage by not squading with capable people, which is my choice, as it should be, the game does and should reward teamplay, but not force it down our throats

"just for the record, although i play on my own, i do drive around with the team and protect (try) while they cap objectives etc"

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.

As to the argument of the driver not getting kills, I think there's a simple solution:
If you're the driver, vehicle kill assists should be +50 instead of +35

And as to HAV drivers having no way to get kills with the "seperate turret" system, I think the solution should be similar to assault dropships.
The front small turret on all HAVs should be controlled by the driver

The front small turret on all HAVs should be controlled by the driver

that would make everything worse, the front turret is basically a blind piece of metal

Why whats the difference in me being able to control the main turrent or the frount? and bare in mind now if i can only have the frount turret, to see behind me, i would need to turn the whole tank around lolol

Plasma cannons

Although I've discovered by watching a video that they have 110% efficiency against vehicles

To see behind you, switch to third person.

And you want to know the difference between the driver controlling a large turret and a small turret?

Same deal with assault dropships, only the chance to crash is multiplied greatly because you're flying.
Also somewhat the same with LAVs- you can only kill people you're driving straight at.

To see behind you, switch to third person.

And you want to know the difference between the driver controlling a large turret and a small turret?

the difference there is that HAVs are NOT flying, they are ground.

Most of the tank drivers need to realize they aren't special just because their stuff is expensive, so they aren't entitled for their vehicles to work much more differently than everything else.

Which is a good thing- they won't crash if you go into first person

and you need to realize that tanks aren't dropsuits or dropships. I know we aren't special, that how we allow our teams to win if we try to help.

Which is a good thing- they won't crash if you go into first person

yes they will, while in the front you have no idea where the tank is pointing, and you cant see **** behind you, and why give the main cannon over to some random idiot and give the driver the weak gun? THAT makes no sense, please stop trying to nerf the tanks even more

use 3rd person, dumbass

Why do you think none of the other vehicles use it in most situations?

why you do you think nobody seriously skills into them dumbass, theres no reward for being the driver of an lav or dropship unless you run someone over with it and now you guys are QQing about that. the HAV is the ONLY vehicle that give a reward for driving it.

I've done everything

Teamwork

use it

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

teamwork IS an important aspect of this game BUT the best thing about it is IM NOT FORCED TO, that would ruin the entire game. plus I do use teamwork, sometimes I use blues in my turrets to clear out enemy objectives in order to for my team to hack it, and I also use them to take out AV players I can reach with my cannon.

HAVs ARE vehicles, so they should be subject to the same rules as the rest of them.

Don't care; considering that I suggested for HAVs to be buffed if that happened, and for the driver WP system to be redone (2 points you obviously ignored), I would probably go with driving

I think both of us would appreciate outside input

We have assult dropships, they have a gun turrent, no doubt there will be other vehicals with driver weapons etc, it shouldnt be a problem, i dont see why it is, i think the only point i have on this is.. theres no benifit to driving a tank solo it doesnt need that kind of nerf, which is what it would be

i could image the tears and tanks nerfs that would follow if all tanks had 3 people shooting proto cannons at them lol although it does sound quite fun and im pretty sure mine might last a bit longer

I don't see a problem with the driver controlling a turret- just not one that powerful

then why have a main cannon at all, if you cant have someone who knows how to control their own vehicle use its main weapon, then why use the vehicle at all?

Because it's much more effective if we use teamwork.

I admit, this argument would be much easier if devs would release the "one-man only" vehicles already.

That being said, you're right that HAVs are the only solo option for vehicles atm, and the argument is also right that HAVs are weak right now.
So until we get "one-man only" vehicles, HAVs should stay the way they are, and small turrets should be buffed so using teamwork is more effective.

Now I'm off to play dust because I'm tired of this argument

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

I rarely see guys who consider themselves maining in AV saying that vehicles need nerfed. It's mostly infantrymen complaining about vehicles that have only spec'd into grenades. I believe proximity explosives are really the only under performing antivehicle weapon at the moment.

I'd say most of us AV guys are happy with our tech currently. Well, most of the ones I see anyway.

Honestly I can't wait for the day for vehicle users to get something that will be extremely menacing but not overpowered. I'd love to run with a whole squad of fellow AVers fighting our own little battle against a machine.

Plasma cannons

Although I've discovered by watching a video that they have 110% efficiency against vehicles

I'm unsure as to where the imbalance from remote explosives comes from.

I run caldari and my LLAV will run over 6 proximity mines, no problem.

However, when I was in my rail tank with 5k shields 15, 15, 10% resists I believe it was either two or three remote explosives dropped by some tricky chuckefudge nearly instagibbed my tank.

Is there a vast difference between proximity mines and remote explosives?

EDIT: To clarify, I believe my LLAV is too strong when it comes to proximity mines but the other extreme feels a bit much aswell.

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.

and because of that, do you know what people are doing? dropship pilots HATE that they cant kill with their own pilot gun and LAV drivers are running people over TO GET KILLS AND KILL POINTS, the HAV is the only vehicle that has the design right imo.





(this is getting very interesting, keep it coming)

.

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.

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.

the drive of this game isn't to use teamwork, its to develop your own merc and your own skills and fill up your own wallet, something many of you have forgotten

Can someone fill me in to why people thing armor HAVs are way better than shield HAVs?

The way I see it, when used correctly (armor tanks with blasters at short range, shield tanks at long range) shield tanks are more effective. Armor tanks get hit by lots of explosive AV in close quarters, while shield tanks can just see the AV coming, duck behind corners and have their shields regen (much more quickly than shields on armor tanks)

I've had more luck with a shield HAV (everything militia except for a STD missile turret) than an armor HAV (mostly STD mods mixed with militia, and a standard blaster)

But teamwork should be well rewarded- that's why I think small turrets need an all-around buff

AV is already much better when using teamwork, because they can cut off a vehicle's escape

void i drive llavs and i heal tanks, i carry a forge gun with me.

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.

that would make everything worse, the front turret is basically a blind piece of metal

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.

not getting the feed back you hoped for? tankers should have a chaff module. keep off swarms for 10 seconds. also it would be sweet for AV to damage tracks and weapons on a tank.

teamwork is fine and all but its not the point of this game, if you listen to it says your a merc fighting for yourself and your own views or for your wallet, your not fighting for your team unless you decide to. don't try to force teamwork onto the true mercs here.

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.

Did you read my post? Buffing small turrets doesn't force teamwork in vehicles- it rewards it.

And I already clarified that tanks should only be changed once there are more solo options for drivers

Funny. I thought the problem was simply that it's an overpriced turd that can't even do it's primary function right.

My friend uses a Falchion and kicks ass.

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.

Can someone fill me in to why people thing armor HAVs are way better than shield HAVs?

The way I see it, when used correctly (armor tanks with blasters at short range, shield tanks at long range) shield tanks are more effective. Armor tanks get hit by lots of explosive AV in close quarters, while shield tanks can just see the AV coming, duck behind corners and have their shields regen (much more quickly than shields on armor tanks)

I've had more luck with a shield HAV (everything militia except for a STD missile turret) than an armor HAV (mostly STD mods mixed with militia, and a standard blaster)

I can't believe they are bringing in fighter jets, the one thing I didn't want. How can we kill them? They're too fast for swarm launchers. If you put something that has a 100% auto gun, that is unfair for the jet, making it an OP gun.

And one half-arsed implementation of something completely different to what's being proposed invalidates it right off the bat?

Btw, tanks are good at tanking- the MMORPG term
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tank
Second definition

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.

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.

you do realize new eden is on the other side of the universe 20000 years from now right?

Btw, why do plasma cannons do 110% against shields, 90% against armor? A dev even confirmed they're hybrid, which would mean 100% against both.

I'm talking about the basic concept- hold the enemy's attention, while your allies can move in for the real damage

Btw, why do plasma cannons do 110% against shields, 90% against armor? A dev even confirmed they're hybrid, which would mean 100% against both.

I see a lot of arguments stemming from infantry using CQC AV nades against tanks. I wonder if answering these questions might help.

1. Is it that tankers job to stay with a squad?


2. Should infantry have the ability to take out straggling HAV's solo?


3. Will they be bringing in Proto HAV's? Is the balance issue Pro AV vs. STD HAV's?

Just my .02.

frankly as an ex av guy I want vehicles to be more powerful so I have a role on the battle field and I think you will find most dedicated AV guys actually agree, its all the infantry that get but hurt because they can't lone wolf your tank with a few grenades

that would kill off the real tanks from the game also.

HAVs need to be powerful enough that they are frequently on the field that way dedicated AV has a reason to be.

anemic vehicles lead to dedicated AV being pointless so then you have to further nerf vehicle because there is no one to fight them and then vehicles are completely pointless because they become what they are now, where any idiot can take out the best tank you can get with max skills with one level in any AV weapon, or where half a team just shoots what they have and the tank has to run scared from infantry fire.

t

LAV stuff

and because of that, do you know what people are doing? dropship pilots HATE that they cant kill with their own pilot gun and LAV drivers are running people over TO GET KILLS AND KILL POINTS, the HAV is the only vehicle that has the design right imo.

I see a lot of arguments stemming from infantry using CQC AV nades against tanks. I wonder if answering these questions might help.

1. Is it that tankers job to stay with a squad?


2. Should infantry have the ability to take out straggling HAV's solo?


3. Will they be bringing in Proto HAV's? Is the balance issue Pro AV vs. STD HAV's?

Just my .02.

Because you can only have so many players on the battlefield at once. When you start seperating the anti-infantry in order to do anti-vehicle, infantry warfare can get easily get lopsided in favor of the team with the tank.

In essence, tankers want their tank to do as much damage and take as much damage as a full squadron of protos. All manned by only 1 guy with a fat wallet. With this logic, why be infantry at all? It'll be Tank 514.

We have assult dropships, they have a gun turrent, no doubt there will be other vehicals with driver weapons etc, it shouldnt be a problem, i dont see why it is, i think the only point i have on this is.. theres no benifit to driving a tank solo it doesnt need that kind of nerf, which is what it would be

i could image the tears and tanks nerfs that would follow if all tanks had 3 people shooting proto cannons at them lol although it does sound quite fun and im pretty sure mine might last a bit longer

As a Pilot & HAV driver, I can say honestly that I feel more-or-less balanced against AV. My only issue is the Assault Dropship being so unstable that ANYTHING knocks it into the ground. It should behave the same way my Myron does, but it falls over like its half the size. Any driver shouldn't get too upset by a proto FG taking you out cuz it's doing its job as AV. Just as any infantry (AV or not), shouldn't be bothered by an HAV killing them, because it too is doing its job. We cancel each other out, therefore balance is reached. The only thing that unbalances anything is who has more teamwork, that is not an imbalance.
That is all. Eriknaught out. END TRANSMISSION.

Im a tanker, heres my input

I think its hilarious when people call for an AV nerf, especially AV grenades, if they nerf AV nades, what happens to the Taxi's then. If you nerf something, it will obviously effect something else. I think in Chromosome the vehicle warfare was perfect.
Maybe CCP should just change a few things to the yellow Taxi since its the only thing killing people and making them come cry on forums.

Honestly I run proto AV- lai dai, those ***** are useless, unless you actually catch a well fitted tanker out of line. So currently vehicle warfare is decent. All I say, is fix pg on militia shield tanks and Gunnlogis. I can barely fit that much on them. And then again they nerf the speed of shield tanks, like they really needed a nerf. Then improved armor tanks, made them faster.

I have PRO turrets on my tanks. What do I get for that?

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

Lol? Nobody has been spreading around Tank 514 or HAV 514. It's still AR 514.

Why should one person be able to solo a tank?

I agree on AV vs militia LAVs but not so much vs the Scout and Logi.

Also, PG is okay but honestly could use with some bonuses from skills rather than modules. You act as if LLAV drivers only use their PG to boost their survivability. We don't, not all of us anyway, because we're not all running Carmageddon games.

I use my PG to fascilitate loading up a CRU and Scanner... and there's no possibility of having an armor rep on there which is a HUGE detriment. It means I'm forced to use a vehicle spec rep gun rather than general or infantry specific rep tool when I'm gonna be driving my team anywhere, and it's still a joke trying to repair my vehicle. I'm better off recalling it and requesting a new one on the field at a later point.


The numbers you suggest actually imply a PG nerf which is definitely not needed by any LAV in any situation.

As for lowering armor HP to balance E-HP, this just seems like nonsense to me personally, particularly when armor takes massive damage from AV weaponry in comparison to shields. You're basically trying to kill off armor LAV tanking all together with the numbers you've suggested since it would mean someone with 400k SP and 3k isk in grenades could wipe out my 1.7mil SP and 250k isk LLAV solo in just 2-3 nades. Not even well tossed nades.

The issue is not having adv and pro tanks.

So, should a proto forge or swarm be able to solo a gunlogi or maddy - absolutely. the same way a proto ar with 3 dmage mods wrecks meta 1 shield modules.

however, scaled up, a proto tank will take 3 proto av to kill, the same as a gunlogi or maddy takes 3 std av to kill. this is good balance and giving us real good, expensive, worthwile death machines, is good. if it tanks any more than 3 or more proto av to kill proto tanks, then tanks are overpowered. any less, underpowered. we have the balance in the numbers, but more than half the vehicles are missing and av gear is all there.


my demands: give us adv and pro tanks while keeping av the same

Srry I didnt read the whole thread , my 2 cents (and its easy ) add another slot for nades. So medium suit can carry anti personnel and anti vehicle grenades.

That in itself should make the playing field more balanced . The problem comes when you have to split your squad to take down tanks with their av fits ....

Also make the top end av grenades more accessible by lowering their CPU & PG need . Its very difficult to bounce a nade of a tank without getting your head blown off and in the open almost impossible.

So all in all I think this might work from a infantry perspective .....

wisdom in those words; as being on the AV side (and semi tank) side i couldn't agree. Only thing id "disagree" on is the amount of proto av vs proto tank of 3. Reason is since you compare 1 proto av to 3 basic; that mains 9 basic to 1 proto tank which is a bit to much; as thats over 50% of a team. I'd say 2 proto AV shoudl suffice against a proto tank; and 1-2 for an advanced tank.

I'd also be interested in seeing what adv & proto tanks do; both stats and module wise.

wisdom in those words; as being on the AV side (and semi tank) side i couldn't agree. Only thing id "disagree" on is the amount of proto av vs proto tank of 3. Reason is since you compare 1 proto av to 3 basic; that mains 9 basic to 1 proto tank which is a bit to much; as thats over 50% of a team. I'd say 2 proto AV shoudl suffice against a proto tank; and 1-2 for an advanced tank.

I'd also be interested in seeing what adv & proto tanks do; both stats and module wise.

Why shouldnt it be half the team to take out a proto tank

At this rate to get proto vehicles it will require millions of SP for just 1 type of proto vehicle not too mention the massive ISK sink

Enforcers milita grade tanks cost 1.2mil per hull, proto fully fitted will prob be closer to 10mil while proto AV is generally 500k if that and basic AV being less than 20k

Damn right it should be at least half of the team trying to pound on it if they all milita/basic AV scrubs

The logic of an HAV needing 3 people of the same tier to destroy it is broken anyway- how many times are the 2 small turrets actually doing anything but farming assits?

Why shouldnt it be half the team to take out a proto tank

At this rate to get proto vehicles it will require millions of SP for just 1 type of proto vehicle not too mention the massive ISK sink

Enforcers milita grade tanks cost 1.2mil per hull, proto fully fitted will prob be closer to 10mil while proto AV is generally 500k if that and basic AV being less than 20k

Damn right it should be at least half of the team trying to pound on it if they all milita/basic AV scrubs

here is the thing, you are ONLY looking at this situation to benefit yourself making things harder on AV. If you look at the amount of people who actually spec AV in a match (not looking at PC at moment, though fi do, usually its 1-2 AV people plus a tank or 2), as for once ill look at pubs. I'd guess maybe 2-3 people have proto AV in a pub match. Maybe by your standing they'd be able to take out that tank. But if look that they dont have proto AV, you are saying its fair to require 1/2 a team to go AV to kill you which essentially entails them being ripped apart by your infantry.

Essentially you are looking at people calling in proto tanks in pubs more often if they notice its random or non AV people b/c they know there wont be any chance of it being destroyed. Now i am one for not balancing based on pubs; but pub play is part of the game so there needs to be some consideration toward it..

Also for the idea that proto tanks w/ require MILLIONS of SP is your assumption. CCP can easily alter where/how/what tank req will be. Personally i wouldnt mind seeing enforcers being removed completely or make those the advanced tanks and making them better. I'd say make the enforcer tank skill what the marauder skill was, but make it a 15x skill. By doing that, you can keep the skill it has, and maybe add something to it. Then have tanks fall under the race branch (ie Caldari, etc). In doing so you'd need to up the req to to get your tanks, in which id say goes to a 12x skill. By doing that, you have your Madi/Gung as your basic, make the enforcers the adv type ( but make them better), and readd the Sagaris & Surya class as proto. It also make tankers have to think on what they really need. As coming from an infantry, i lost a lot of variation b/c of certain skills, yes tankers somewhat had it "easier" in sense of CPU & PG skills, the ease to get your Mady/Gung as its now cheaper then it use to be, and you get an upgraded LAV as well.

In that scenario, it makes skilling into those HAV worthwhile and not a sink of 4 levels. By doing so, it makes the tankers "career" path longer, and more "worthwhile. As atm, it is easier to get your basic HAV hull (which all tanker use), then it is to get a proto suit, which is usually 'required" to run proto AV effectively.

So yeah, 2-3 specc'd AV should be able to take on a proto tank w/ proto AV. Something need to remember though is, those 2 would be your only real threats in that game, while they need to worry about all 16 players. 1-2 for an adv tank, as proto AV to adv tank, needs to give a semi edge to AV by level.

But yes, to my main point and what O'dell said, proto av works fine against your tanks atm, b/c they are basic. It is not to blame AV for being to good, but to blame CCP for not having in adv & proto tanks. When those are added things will start to balance out.

The logic of an HAV needing 3 people of the same tier to destroy it is broken anyway- how many times are the 2 small turrets actually doing anything but farming assits?

Forget balancing by pub matches

So what if i bring in a proto tank to stomp in a pub match its my choice to do so, whoever is on the other team has to deal with it and its not my problem

In PC its a different story, more organized teams, also more tanks most likely

It will take millions, the covert ops tanks required 4mil SP to use, if the proto tanks are split off into various types then it will require more SP and if mods are expanded to also basic/adv/proto then it mayeb more SP not too mention more mods and turrets with the new tanks

Your comparing basic hull to a proto suit, its no comparision but you can whack on a proto AV weapon to a milita suit anyways like you can use a proto turret on a milita tank

First, you NEED to have balance in pub matches. Yes im a hardcore player, but if you dont balance pub games you alienate most of your players who aren't doing PC & FW, which at this time is trash anyways; and when pub matches are balanced it also helps balane PC games, as PC players PLAY PUBS TOO (simple ex; TAR). So yes, unless your *dah* special, EVERY FPS game tries to balance in pub games as that's where 99% of people play. As i bet if pub games and mechanics were balanced there'd be more people playing Dust then there are now.

PC is a totally different beast, as you'll have tanks and AV to deal with. This is how AV corresponds w/ Vehicles, not Vehicle to Vehicle, as the biggest problem there is ow horrible shield tanking is. Those are 2 different topcs.

Also, i can compare a proto suit to a basic tank hull b/c both require SP. Unless the game has changed, i was referring to SP required. As it takes ~1.2M to get a basic proto suit; whereas a Basic tank hull costs ~250k. So they gives you almost an extra 1M SP to spend at your leisure. And you know what, your proto tank SHOULD cost a lot and time to get. Your proto hull and my racial hull will be similiar in the amount of SP required to get them, so yes, its fair and balaned then.

Also you can fit a proto AV weapon on a militia suit, but is is rather poor, and you wouldn't do it. The way you can fit it is:

Caldari Militia Suit, Wiki SL, Toxin, Complex & Enhanced damage mod, basic CPU upgrade, basic Nano. Now that ONLY works b/c of the amount of SP i have into my passive skills. Otherwise that doesn't work at all.

HOWEVER, you can fit a Proto Rail on a militia Tank, and still be effective W/O PUTTING ANY SKILLS INTO ANYTHING BUT YOUR TURRET !!!! You can use either Militia tank, and either throw on a militia CPU or PG upgrade, and can run a proto rail. Yes you may be a glass cannon, but if you are using a rail as it should be (via distance), you won't have to worry that much.

So yeah, go back to the drawing board Snake, and actually test what you preach. As just debunked your entire reasoning. Go back to MAG w/ =V= who got trashed on so many times.

Next in line plz

lol you think you done?

You dont balance a game with results from pub matches where it can be groups vs solo randoms - you do that and the entrie game will be broken even more than it is now, what is wrong with you? its as bad as trying to balance AV and vehicles from results in ambush its a bad idea and a stupid one at that

Its why PC is much better for stat collectiing and balancing because its organized teams in full proto going at each other

But whats better is having a testing room to see if everything working how it should be

We dont have proto vehicles so no you cant compare unless you can see into the future, for all we know a proto mauruader may be a 15x skill and cost more SP overall

The free suit with proto AV can work and does, try it with a milita tank where the turret alone costs 1mil and gives you 3 shots, if both went up against each other the AV would win easily

Im on the drawing board, you must be out of the classroom and in detention because them are some bad ideas and examples you better think of some better ones while you stay behind and write lines

if you took the time to read my first post; i gave a possibility on how tank advanced could work; which is what i was basing the SP advancement on.

As to where to collect data; you need it from all sources. That includes PC and pubs alike. You need balance in them all; as if a pub isnt balance who will want to play then ?

As pub play is part of the game, so needs balance. What makes you so special that your tank should be an i win button in a pub match ? Anything should be have the chance to be destroyed; which means sometimes you need to cater to the less competent (which i cant believe im saying), but you should feel risk in calling out what would be a proto tank in a pub. If there is no fear that you'll be destroyed then there is something wrong with the game.

I will agree, we need a testing room or something; as anyone who has been here long enough knows CCP internal testing is trash, and should all be fired, as that salary should be used for a test server.

But overall, this game needs to be balance throughout, meaning PC/FW/Pub/Null ,everything. You need to have the same fear of taking out a proto suit in a pub as you do a PC match (only difference is you know ull die in a PC match more). Same goes w/ tanks. You should have fear of being destroyed in a pub, as you would in a PC, except you know it'd happen more in a PC match

Overall, im simply sick of the AV-Vehicle topic; as there are to many people who won't budge on whether there side is OP/UP/etc . There are select few i respect in this area (many of which aren't the ones posting here) for their beliefs and being able to see both sides of the coin. To many want one side of the coin to be useless so they have an easier time

Never said i want it to be an i win button but its a tank it needs to be a tank espc at proto level which means it needs to stand up to proto at least but if im a pub match with a bunch of muppets and i bring out a proto tank and they only have milita/basic i will stomp on them most likely and my tank will survive and so it should, if they bring out proto then so be it

Pubs is pubs, random ppl in random matches and only way to balance is matchmaking or by basic/advanced/proto levels and also maybe soloplay and groups

But this is just 1 vehicle, the dropship is ****** right now and next to unusable anyways and that has a serious problem worse than the tank

Either way why should a give a **** CCP are adding a AA HAV for all the dropships which are plaguing the skies so much

The logic of an HAV needing 3 people of the same tier to destroy it is broken anyway- how many times are the 2 small turrets actually doing anything but farming assits?

Know you didnt say you wanted an i win button; but idk how long you've been playig; but back in E3/Codex days; the Sagaris & Suryas, they took 3+ people w/ AV to kill them, and even then it was just iffy if you'd get the kill. I understand tankers opinion more from my alt; but at same time, being AV im nervous people want to go back down that road, where 3-4 proto AV wouldn't kill a tank. Yes, i think 2-3 for a proto tank, pending on type and what is being used and setups is fine, but 3+ is to much.

Either way, only CCP can really fix this and it isn't in buffing or nerfing AV or vehicles, its simply ad

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

One man using proto avs should not be able to take out a proto tank, and in fact they cannot unless the tanker is real stupid thoughI have never seen this happen. All the proto tanks I have seen have been just that, tanks. This thread is just about people getting mad when they lose big money on tanks.

What proto tanks?

My bad I meant the racial enforcers.

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.

So here is my question: Should the average tanker (think about the average tanker you see in a game that dies in the first 5 minutes of deploying his tank - 95% of all tanks) require 2 or 3 average av players to kill him with a 90% success rate averaged out over every possible scenario? or more? or less?

Just putting my ideas out there, but I think that if someone puts a mil isk into a vehicle, then it should not go down easy unless the group attacking it has a combined isk cost of ~1mil, that way, you fell as if an investment was lost because the other team invested the same or even more to try and destroy you. a tank on tank battle, for instance, seems fair because they are similar in cost, and it comes to the skill of the player.

comment on what you think, just a roaming dropship lost in the forms

The problem..... proto av vs standard tank. Imbalance.

Balance? PROTO TANK vs PROTO AV issue resolved.

At least untill ccp gives us our proto tanks that are prob going to suck.

Proper proto tank

A LOT more cpu/pg

A LOT more ehp

2 slots one high and one low.

not to mention bonuses to that will have effect on which way the game turns.

A full sqd of GOOD players geared up will have more of an effect than 6 tanks with proto blasters.

what AV level are the people using? as that is a big determinant. Personally, i say if is in regards to proto, then NO. 1 should suffice, b/c by being destroyed teaches the tanker something about knowing his abilities, his surroundings, and makes you a better player. Sometimes you need that one person on the other team to make you think twice about what you want to do

So here is my question: Should the average tanker (think about the average tanker you see in a game that dies in the first 5 minutes of deploying his tank - 95% of all tanks) require 2 or 3 average av players to kill him with a 90% success rate averaged out over every possible scenario? or more? or less?

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.

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.

So here is my question: Should the average tanker (think about the average tanker you see in a game that dies in the first 5 minutes of deploying his tank - 95% of all tanks) require 2 or 3 average av players to kill him with a 90% success rate averaged out over every possible scenario? or more? or less?

Wait for proto tanks to come back before flipping out.

If a solo HAV pilot is outnumbered by average (non militia) AVers, then yes, they should destroy them the majority of the time.
However, small turrets need to be more effective so a full tank is actually a much bigger threat than a solo tank.

Another question: should forge guns have a bigger bite than large railguns? I say yes, because heavies are very slow, and more vulnerable than HAVs

the 1st statement is wrong

Nope

yeah it is because its stating that no tank driver is competent and reliable in which case it is wrong.

but that's NOT taking into account the reliability of the tank drivers themselves, if im going against 2 av then I should be instantly killed according to you, but I KNOW how to drive tanks and I know how to deal with av therefore it should take at least a squad to take ME down. but it doesn't since I know how to drive and avoid being killed, I know tactics and use them therefore it should NOT be purely based on level of gear because the most idiotic tank driver will get the most powerful tank destroyed in an instant because he has no idea how to drive tanks while the most crapy fitted tank will survive most situations if the driver is an experienced driver that knows what hes doing. you see its not based on gear level alone, you HAVE to take into account the drivers personal skills.

I never said 2 AVers should instantly kill the HAV- I'm saying they should eventually kill it before it kills them.

And again- >>>AVERAGE<<< tankers, im a dumbshit. If you're good and have a good fit, you're fine. The fact is, most HAVs I destroy are bad fits with bad drivers.

eventually yeah they should kill havs that are on the same level of gear but it should take 2 alone to do it within 10 seconds, 2 avrs are the minimum of what should be required.

Who said within 10 seconds?

nobody did, but that's the average time it takes a solo AVer to kill of an HAV so it needs to be addressed also.

iv seen countless havs get taken down within 10 seconds from a solo aver, iv seen it since chromosome and its continued to now, the weapon I see used 9/10 times are av grenades.

The only time I've ever seen it are from the worst of the worst HAVs