DUST Search - Solution for Tanks: Decouple Driving and Main Turret

J-Lewis wrote:

The reason tanks are crewed by 3 is specifically to split up the burden of operating it effectively.

A Tank crew consists of a Driver, a Gunner and a Commander.

The Commander is the seniormost member of the crew. The commander scans the surroundings for targets and threats. The commander gives directions to the driver and gunner.

The Gunner is the next seniormost member of the crew. The gunner receives targeting solutions from the commander.

The Driver is the juniormost member of the crew. The driver takes movement orders from the commander and gunner.

Applying this to HAVs in DUST:

The Driver uses the existing front turret seat. The driver has the option of a light turret at his disposition (subject to fitting).

The Gunner uses the seat the Driver currently uses and has control of the turret.

The Commander uses the existing top turret seat, which has greater visibility and a faster turn rate than the main turret (again, actually fitting a turret is optional).

How HAV play is affected:

Solo HAVs would have to be played more like solo LAVs; swapping from Driver to Gunner to Commander seats to move, shoot and scan the surroundings.

Solo HAVs would be vulnerable to smaller quantities of AV, due to the burden of swapping roles on the fly. You cannot drive, shoot and look around at the same time.

Crewed HAVs would be more potent than currently and require different tactics to defeat, as they could both move, shoot and see what's happening around them simultaneously.

This would be a nerf to solo HAV play, but a buff to team HAV play. It would also result in more satisfying cooperative gameplay both for HAV crew teams and AV infantry.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 781	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:25:00 - [1] - Quote The main problem with tanks is that they're too much power for one player to have in a game where the participant counts are limited. If a player requires multiple other players to kill, it's almost like having an uneven participant count. If someone wants to have a vehicle that takes two people to kill, the vehicle should require two people to man. I propose that the driver's seat of a tank should use the small front gun on the tank. The second seat should me the main gun, making it relatively pointless to one-man a tank, and forcing team cooperative play. Finally, the third seat could have the second turret, as well as some sort of additional bonus logistics role in terms of scanning or damage control. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 1517	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:41:00 - [2] - Quote This idea has already been murdered before, no. Btw, a driver using the small turret would still murder everything (the probo blasters are really powerfull) "HP needs no buff, certain weapons need nerf. Or else all other become obsolete." GÿåForum warrior lvl.1Gÿå
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 782	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:44:00 - [3] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: This idea has already been murdered before, no. Btw, a driver using the small turret would still murder everything (the probo blasters are really powerfull) There's really only three ways to fix tanks: 1. Ensure a single AV player can destroy it. 2. Increase the number of players required to drive the tank. 3. Reduce the number of total players allowed on a team with a tank. Otherwise, the sole viable game strategy, is to field as many tanks as possible, because they count as two or three players on their own. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 1180	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:48:00 - [4] - Quote Well I think a medium dropsuit+rifle is too powerful for one player to use. If it takes two non-rifle users to take out a rifle user, it should take two people to use a rifle. They should definately be controlled by two players, one controls the movement/jumping/hacking/equipment, while the other would control the aiming/shooting/grenades. If you didn't guess already, I was making a statement on how OP Racial Rifles are, and also how stupid your idea is. [+ªa¦Ç+¦++-ö-Å94] Level 1 Forum Warrior The Plasma Cannon is not underpowered
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 783	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:50:00 - [5] - Quote Um... LOL. That's all I've got for you, Fizzer. LOL. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Malkai Inos Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1072	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:54:00 - [6] - Quote Or just fix the bugged MLT nitro and refrain from knee jerk balance suggestions for the time being. We're one day into 1.7 for crying out loud. You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 783	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:56:00 - [7] - Quote Malkai, it's not just the speed. Seeing a tank being beat on by four plus people off it's active cooldown and surviving with ease? Yeah. That. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 316	Posted - 2013.12.11 15:58:00 - [8] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: This idea has already been murdered before, no. Btw, a driver using the small turret would still murder everything (the probo blasters are really powerfull) There's really only three ways to fix tanks: 1. Ensure a single AV player can destroy it. 2. Increase the number of players required to drive the tank. 3. Reduce the number of total players allowed on a team with a tank. Otherwise, the sole viable game strategy, is to field as many tanks as possible, because they count as two or three players on their own. I agree with all but point 1, destroying a tank solo is not necessary, just let us AVers damage him in a way he is of the battlefield for some reasonable time with that said maybe the cooldown on active modules need to increase...
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 783	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:03:00 - [9] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: I agree with all but point 1, destroying a tank solo is not necessary, just let us AVers damage him in a way he is of the battlefield for some reasonable time with that said maybe the cooldown on active modules need to increase... Any single one of those points could be a fix. Not all of them, that'd be too drastic. Basically, the problem is that right now, a tank is more powerful than 2-4 players. If my team fields four tanks, the enemy team has to field eight AV just to contain them. So while my team has twelve infantry on objectives, their team only gets eight. Unless, of course, I'm also fielding four tanks. The problem with allowing a single player to be more powerful than infantry period, is that it requires an uneven commitment from the other team to counter it. When the other team can't compensate by bringing in more guys, because unlike EVE, the match participant count is fixed, you have an imbalance. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Merlox Lancaster SCIENCE FOR LIFE 4	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:10:00 - [10] - Quote I 100% agree with decouple driver from the main turret. Arming him with that front turret would limit the drivers ability and would require some serious teamwork, and if the team wants to deploy tanks, it's always two people that is going to be missing from the fight, not just one person. I think people have never driven in a tank before, and realize that the hull MG is no where near effective as a blaster or rocket system against infantry. Also this will insure that if the driver willing to drive alone meets any foes, that he will have to swap to the turret, leaving his tank without the ability to do cooldowns / immobile.

Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 783	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:13:00 - [11] - Quote Merlox Lancaster wrote: Also this will insure that if the driver willing to drive alone meets any foes, that he will have to swap to the turret, leaving his tank without the ability to do cooldowns / immobile. Right, a solo tanker can still operate, just not as effectively, he can move his tank, switch to gun, back to driver's seat, etc. Just like a LAV driver. Flix Keptick wrote: Btw, a driver using the small turret would still murder everything (the probo blasters are really powerfull) Actually, the big thing here, is AV infantry could flank a tank driver, because the front blaster can't fire backwards. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
4447 Resolution XIII 931	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:16:00 - [12] - Quote Need better map layout that causes the to play in it's part of the map, Or bigger player count But you are right the factors are stupid and CCP hasn't done anything that has caused the tank to play fair. Just by looking at the factors tanks are always going to win because CCP does everything but look at the problem. The problem is easy and anyone can see it. First is, That a tank can increase the player count on the other side, example If you field a tank this increases your teams player count by, one or two. this is because the enemies team has to field two or three AV to take out that tank. Another reason is the enemies Avers become weak to infantry thus the your team has a bigger advantage. Second is, Map layout, Tanks can go anywhere and i mean anywhere. We're on a battle field and there's no barricades for key points I.E objectives. This is the point of infantry right If tanks have to much of the map then why have infantry. Third is, Tanks need more people in them to balance the gameplay, one seat for driver and one for the turret. Now by doing this people can do it on their own but the have to swap seats. In doing this they have to have a Two second wait before they jump into the other seat. Troll, For lifeGÇª But maybe a dragon, uh a bigger dragon.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 784	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:19:00 - [13] - Quote 4447, I don't think they need a two second wait to switch seats. If you've ever tried switching seats back and forth in a LAV, it's definitely a risk that often gets you shot. But even able to switch instantly, they're going to have to aim the new gun from whatever position it was last left in, that's a big delay that will balance it out. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
4447 Resolution XIII 931	Posted - 2013.12.11 16:22:00 - [14] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: 4447, I don't think they need a two second wait to switch seats. If you've ever tried switching seats back and forth in a LAV, it's definitely a risk that often gets you shot. But even able to switch instantly, they're going to have to aim the new gun from whatever position it was last left in, that's a big delay that will balance it out. True. Troll, For lifeGÇª But maybe a dragon, uh a bigger dragon.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 788	Posted - 2013.12.11 20:33:00 - [15] - Quote Bump. CCP, please do it. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
Merlox Lancaster SCIENCE FOR LIFE 4	Posted - 2013.12.12 00:36:00 - [16] - Quote This would also make squad tanks more effective than current tanks, imagine not trying to drive and gun at the same time? lol
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 264	Posted - 2013.12.12 00:40:00 - [17] - Quote This brings us back to having to fit more than the main turret. Plus, this is the future, I'd expect tanks to only need one driver. How about tanks can either move, or shoot, but not at the same time. Have tanks enter a sort of siege mode, which diverts power from the treads to the weapons.
DoomTree's Clone Titans of Phoenix 1	Posted - 2013.12.12 00:52:00 - [18] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: The main problem with tanks is that they're too much power for one player to have in a game where the participant counts are limited. If a player requires multiple other players to kill, it's almost like having an uneven participant count. If someone wants to have a vehicle that takes two people to kill, the vehicle should require two people to man. I propose that the driver's seat of a tank should use the small front gun on the tank. The second seat should me the main gun, making it relatively pointless to one-man a tank, and forcing team cooperative play. Finally, the third seat could have the second turret, as well as some sort of additional bonus logistics role in terms of scanning or damage control. I LIKE THIS PROPOSAL! WELL DONE SIR SEEMS VERY FARE. I THINK CCP SHOULD CONSIDER THIS THOUGHT DEEPLY. its not impossible for a man from the future to one man a tank but its a more realistic approch
Reno Pechieu Algintal Core Gallente Federation 44	Posted - 2013.12.12 01:45:00 - [19] - Quote I agree, since CCP seem to telegraph that HAVGÇÖs in Dust should require multiple people to take down, itGÇÖs only fair that that it should require multiple people the effectively operate them. This could possibly be what they need, as their power and survivability comes as the cost of strong foot-troops able to fight in close quarter situation around most objectives. If not, give single AW-personnel the possibility to be a serious threat for vehicles if not dealt with quickly or friendly forces on foot. The two secrets to be a good sadist: 1) Don't tell them everything you planned.
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation 507	Posted - 2013.12.12 02:26:00 - [20] - Quote now if there was a tool that could force players out of their vehicles..... well ive seen several and had several players jump on top of my tank before. they seemed to be glued to want to stay on top of my turret..... i managed to get them off finally but i needed the help of some blue berries that were nearby..

J-Lewis Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 321	Posted - 2013.12.12 03:55:00 - [21] - Quote The reason tanks are crewed by 3 is specifically to split up the burden of operating it effectively. A Tank crew consists of a Driver, a Gunner and a Commander. The Commander is the seniormost member of the crew. The commander scans the surroundings for targets and threats. The commander gives directions to the driver and gunner. The Gunner is the next seniormost member of the crew. The gunner receives targeting solutions from the commander. The Driver is the juniormost member of the crew. The driver takes movement orders from the commander and gunner. Applying this to HAVs in DUST: The Driver uses the existing front turret seat. The driver has the option of a light turret at his disposition (subject to fitting). The Gunner uses the seat the Driver currently uses and has control of the turret. The Commander uses the existing top turret seat, which has greater visibility and a faster turn rate than the main turret (again, actually fitting a turret is optional). How HAV play is affected: Solo HAVs would have to be played more like solo LAVs; swapping from Driver to Gunner to Commander seats to move, shoot and scan the surroundings. Solo HAVs would be vulnerable to smaller quantities of AV, due to the burden of swapping roles on the fly. You cannot drive, shoot and look around at the same time. Crewed HAVs would be more potent than currently and require different tactics to defeat, as they could both move, shoot and see what's happening around them simultaneously. This would be a nerf to solo HAV play, but a buff to team HAV play. It would also result in more satisfying cooperative gameplay both for HAV crew teams and AV infantry.
Ivy Zalinto Bobbit's Hangmen 155	Posted - 2013.12.12 04:10:00 - [22] - Quote People are really stupid about tanks...particularly the av players. They are no more of a threat to me as they used to be. Only thing that changed is their more fun to actually field now and you can make money using them. Learn to maneuver around the tanks and you will be fine. Well as fine as you can be with several players cheering for your clones blood. Dedicated scout. New player tutor; scout instructor Scrambler Pistol dedication
Nomzi FemmeFatality 10	Posted - 2013.12.12 05:41:00 - [23] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: This idea has already been murdered before, no. Btw, a driver using the small turret would still murder everything (the probo blasters are really powerfull) There's really only three ways to fix tanks: 1. Ensure a single AV player can destroy it. 2. Increase the number of players required to drive the tank. 3. Reduce the number of total players allowed on a team with a tank. Otherwise, the sole viable game strategy, is to field as many tanks as possible, because they count as two or three players on their own. You do realize there's no way to ensure one player's ability to kill a tank? Especially considering that it's actually possible now. You have to be perceptive. CCP isn't responsible for incompetence. They should, however, make it just a tad easier to counter their insane speed. That's my biggest gripe. I agree with you, otherwise.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 269	Posted - 2013.12.12 05:50:00 - [24] - Quote J-Lewis wrote: The reason tanks are crewed by 3 is specifically to split up the burden of operating it effectively. A Tank crew consists of a Driver, a Gunner and a Commander. The Commander is the seniormost member of the crew. The commander scans the surroundings for targets and threats. The commander gives directions to the driver and gunner. The Gunner is the next seniormost member of the crew. The gunner receives targeting solutions from the commander. The Driver is the juniormost member of the crew. The driver takes movement orders from the commander and gunner. Applying this to HAVs in DUST: The Driver uses the existing front turret seat. The driver has the option of a light turret at his disposition (subject to fitting). The Gunner uses the seat the Driver currently uses and has control of the turret. The Commander uses the existing top turret seat, which has greater visibility and a faster turn rate than the main turret (again, actually fitting a turret is optional). How HAV play is affected: Solo HAVs would have to be played more like solo LAVs; swapping from Driver to Gunner to Commander seats to move, shoot and scan the surroundings. Solo HAVs would be vulnerable to smaller quantities of AV, due to the burden of swapping roles on the fly. You cannot drive, shoot and look around at the same time. Crewed HAVs would be more potent than currently and require different tactics to defeat, as they could both move, shoot and see what's happening around them simultaneously. This would be a nerf to solo HAV play, but a buff to team HAV play. It would also result in more satisfying cooperative gameplay both for HAV crew teams and AV infantry. I actually like this idea. The only issue is what incentive do we have to crew it with 3 people? Tanks would need to remain as powerful or become even more powerful to justify taking 2 guns off the field. AV has been using the same argument about taking more than one AV to kill a tank takes infantry weapons off the field.
Reign Omega BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 58	Posted - 2013.12.12 05:59:00 - [25] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually like this idea. The only issue is what incentive do we have to crew it with 3 people? Tanks would need to remain as powerful or become even more powerful to justify taking 2 guns off the field. AV has been using the same argument about taking more than one AV to kill a tank takes infantry weapons off the field. There actually would be much incentive. If you remember Chromosome tanks, even Uprising prior to 1.7 the passenger point bonus is a viable way to stack WP, the commander could also be responsible for the scanner, thus providing intel kill assist points. Manned properly a 3 man tank could be a monster force on the field, while allotting for 3 people focusing on AV without there being a disadvantage in infantry numbers. This idea as a whole is valid, some tweaks for when the pilot suit is introduced, as well as maybe applying a stacking bonus to tank skills if all 3 members of a tank are skilled into Vehicles, with some penalty to prevent overpowering. Also the passengers could exit the tank at intervals to help the team much as they did before..
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 269	Posted - 2013.12.12 06:06:00 - [26] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually like this idea. The only issue is what incentive do we have to crew it with 3 people? Tanks would need to remain as powerful or become even more powerful to justify taking 2 guns off the field. AV has been using the same argument about taking more than one AV to kill a tank takes infantry weapons off the field. There actually would be much incentive. If you remember Chromosome tanks, even Uprising prior to 1.7 the passenger point bonus is a viable way to stack WP, the commander could also be responsible for the scanner, thus providing intel kill assist points. Manned properly a 3 man tank could be a monster force on the field, while allotting for 3 people focusing on AV without there being a disadvantage in infantry numbers. This idea as a whole is valid, some tweaks for when the pilot suit is introduced, as well as maybe applying a stacking bonus to tank skills if all 3 members of a tank are skilled into Vehicles, with some penalty to prevent overpowering. Also the passengers could exit the tank at intervals to help the team much as they did before.. You have a point. This, and a limit on how many tanks can be in a match per side, and I would be happy. My dropship can finally live. I don't want tanks nerfed, because that nerfs me too.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 805	Posted - 2013.12.12 07:56:00 - [27] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually like this idea. The only issue is what incentive do we have to crew it with 3 people? Tanks would need to remain as powerful or become even more powerful to justify taking 2 guns off the field. AV has been using the same argument about taking more than one AV to kill a tank takes infantry weapons off the field. Simple: 1-man tank: - Has to jump between driver seat and main turret. - Still requires like two people worth of AV to kill, but it has to choose between fighting or retreating, so it's weakened in it's ability to actually fight AV users. 2-man tank: - Can drive and shoot at the same time. - Takes like two good AV people to kill. It's fair. 3-man tank: - Give the third seat an additional damage control feature of some kind. - Due to third seat's damage control, takes three good AV people to kill. Still fair. That way, the tank's ability scales up with how many people you put in it. Tanks become less a way to outright dominate people on the field, and more a way to press through to a well-defended objective. It breaks enemy lines, and forces enemies to reposition and restrategize to handle it. Top Men. - The DUST Arm of the CFC www.dust-gents.com Recruiting corporations and players now!
WASTED MERC The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 46	Posted - 2013.12.12 10:55:00 - [28] - Quote I was going to say the same thing, separate driver and gunner I'd also say add a fourth seat, for an engineer. When occupied this position gains control of things like modules, scanning, defense systems etc but only when occupied and maybe he sees an overhead map. When not occupied the driver has control of modules etc. This would remove another player from the field but it'll make the other tank roles easier, essentially buffing the tank as it should be buffed, with the addition of players. Driver just drives Gunner just guns Commanders just commands Engineer just engineers The swarm launcher can be buffed in a similar way, make it work better with 2 people. 1 has a targeter with a very long targeting range and the other has the swarm launcher
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 323	Posted - 2013.12.12 11:42:00 - [29] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually like this idea. The only issue is what incentive do we have to crew it with 3 people? Tanks would need to remain as powerful or become even more powerful to justify taking 2 guns off the field. AV has been using the same argument about taking more than one AV to kill a tank takes infantry weapons off the field. Oh if this is done there is no problem with them beeing powerfull if it takes 3 AV guys to bring down one tank it should also need three to make the tank fully operatable. The incentive for other crew members is already there. Protection and vehicle Assists. A well coordinate Tank crew can rack up lots of WP for every single kill...and to my knowlegde the Crews skills do stack...
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 896	Posted - 2013.12.12 14:33:00 - [30] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: The main problem with tanks is that they're too much power for one player to have in a game where the participant counts are limited. If a player requires multiple other players to kill, it's almost like having an uneven participant count. If someone wants to have a vehicle that takes two people to kill, the vehicle should require two people to man. I propose that the driver's seat of a tank should use the small front gun on the tank. The second seat should me the main gun, making it relatively pointless to one-man a tank, and forcing team cooperative play. Finally, the third seat could have the second turret, as well as some sort of additional bonus logistics role in terms of scanning or damage control. No. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page