DUST Search - A quick PSA about vehicle crews.

Spkr4theDead wrote:

Zero Harpuia wrote:

I'd like to get this off my chest, as I've seen people defend this-or-that with excuses about maximum crew and such-n-such. As a current standard infantryman who played AV in E3 and HAVs on the tail of Chromosome, I like to feel that I am somewhat unbiased if a bit outdated, but feel free to sling mud and power up your plasma torches. I'm only here to educate and illuminate.

People say that certain vehicles deserve a certain amount of power because of their relative amount of stored manpower. Not too many use this particular gem, but I've seen it enough to formulate the counterarguments and get tired of the question in general, so here we go. I will assume that none of the people in a vehicle have vehicle skills, they just found a thing in a ditch or hacked it. You'll see why later on.

A LAV has a maximum capacity of three. All three players that man the LAV can be individually targeted with small arms fire and can also be destroyed by AV capable weapons aimed at the chassis. The Pilot of the LAV has control of the Navigational Systems and Activate Module Systems while the Targeting and Firing Systems are under the control of the Gunner. The Passenger has no active roll, and cannot even turn their head from side to side. This gives a count of two significant manning players due to their separation of roles and one passenger due to his lack of contribution and utilization of the LAV as a means of transit.

A Dropship has a maximum capacity of seven. All can be targeted by small weapons fire with the sole exception of the pilot, but all have a small window of time allowed to bail from the craft if it suffers catastrophic damage. Of those seven, four are pure Passengers, partially safe behind retractable blast shields. The Pilot mans the craft, having the same control over the Navigation and Active Modules as the LAV, while the Gunners, of which there are two, have the same Targeting and Firing control as the LAV. However, most Dropships can only truly cater to one of their gunner's Line of SIght, leaving the other to starve, as flying directly over an enemy force so that it surrounds the Dropship is somewhat suicidal. Certain Dropships, the Assault variants, have the Gunner role also added into the Pilot role. This gives a count of two to three significant manning players, taking into account the gunning effectiveness issue. The other four are, understandably, using the Dropship as a means to be dropped off.

The HAV has a maximum capacity of three. None can be targeted individually by small weapons fire, only going down in the HAV itself does. Furthermore, the HAV is the only vehicle with variable seating numbers, ranging from three to one. The Pilot has access to all major functions, Navigation and Active Modules like the other vehicles but also Targeting and Firing Systems. The other seats, if they are installed at all, are gunners at best, passengers at most times. HAV pilots rarely cater to the needs of their gunners, and most have removed the guns as the option is now available to them. This makes the significant manning player count one, with two Passengers if the seats are even installed.

So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around?

I don't have any gunner seats.

Now what some do, when they realize they can't spam the O button to get into my tank, they'll jump on top of the turret and start tea bagging it. The best part is that I choose when I want to engage targets, instead of terrible blue dots forcing my hand and forcing me to react to them, instead of me forcing another vehicle to react to me.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1374	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:09:00 - [1] - Quote I'd like to get this off my chest, as I've seen people defend this-or-that with excuses about maximum crew and such-n-such. As a current standard infantryman who played AV in E3 and HAVs on the tail of Chromosome, I like to feel that I am somewhat unbiased if a bit outdated, but feel free to sling mud and power up your plasma torches. I'm only here to educate and illuminate. People say that certain vehicles deserve a certain amount of power because of their relative amount of stored manpower. Not too many use this particular gem, but I've seen it enough to formulate the counterarguments and get tired of the question in general, so here we go. I will assume that none of the people in a vehicle have vehicle skills, they just found a thing in a ditch or hacked it. You'll see why later on. A LAV has a maximum capacity of three. All three players that man the LAV can be individually targeted with small arms fire and can also be destroyed by AV capable weapons aimed at the chassis. The Pilot of the LAV has control of the Navigational Systems and Activate Module Systems while the Targeting and Firing Systems are under the control of the Gunner. The Passenger has no active roll, and cannot even turn their head from side to side. This gives a count of two significant manning players due to their separation of roles and one passenger due to his lack of contribution and utilization of the LAV as a means of transit. A Dropship has a maximum capacity of seven. All can be targeted by small weapons fire with the sole exception of the pilot, but all have a small window of time allowed to bail from the craft if it suffers catastrophic damage. Of those seven, four are pure Passengers, partially safe behind retractable blast shields. The Pilot mans the craft, having the same control over the Navigation and Active Modules as the LAV, while the Gunners, of which there are two, have the same Targeting and Firing control as the LAV. However, most Dropships can only truly cater to one of their gunner's Line of SIght, leaving the other to starve, as flying directly over an enemy force so that it surrounds the Dropship is somewhat suicidal. Certain Dropships, the Assault variants, have the Gunner role also added into the Pilot role. This gives a count of two to three significant manning players, taking into account the gunning effectiveness issue. The other four are, understandably, using the Dropship as a means to be dropped off. The HAV has a maximum capacity of three. None can be targeted individually by small weapons fire, only going down in the HAV itself does. Furthermore, the HAV is the only vehicle with variable seating numbers, ranging from three to one. The Pilot has access to all major functions, Navigation and Active Modules like the other vehicles but also Targeting and Firing Systems. The other seats, if they are installed at all, are gunners at best, passengers at most times. HAV pilots rarely cater to the needs of their gunners, and most have removed the guns as the option is now available to them. This makes the significant manning player count one, with two Passengers if the seats are even installed. So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around? Shields as Weapons
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 355	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:13:00 - [2] - Quote I still install gunner seats, as i want to make it a team asset. However, 90% of my squaddies believe that i should be able to solo 6-10 AV'ers and 2 tanks. So they're never manned. However, the moment i do remove them, everyone's going to ***** at me because 'i'm a solo tanker' Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) The only bad AV is ones not using Plc.
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1374	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:18:00 - [3] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: I still install gunner seats, as i want to make it a team asset. However, 90% of my squaddies believe that i should be able to solo 6-10 AV'ers and 2 tanks. So they're never manned. However, the moment i do remove them, everyone's going to ***** at me because 'i'm a solo tanker' It's an unwinnable situation. Logistics players are in the same boat. Use the suit as the name implies and only as, and you're a waste of a slot because you sit there with your rep tool out all match. Dare to pull out your weapon once and BAM, you are now an AssLogi. It's like my early TF2 days all over again... It's pretty sad too, as the light turrets are actually getting better and the roof turret of the HAV has been fixed, but I do digress. The gunner seats are not mandatory in the slightest, like the Dropship or LAV ones, so they really don't count as essential crew and debunks the 'HAVs are 3 man vehicles' DUST myth. Shields as Weapons
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2545	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:22:00 - [4] - Quote I started life as a dropship pilot so I care a bit more about secondary gunners in a HAV than most might just because I'm used to needed them. However the degree of caring depends upon how effective they can be and that has varried quite a bit over time. Most blueberries are actively obstructive, giving away my position or inciting installations to shoot me so secondary seats go to squad members. Then there is the matter of return on fitting investment which I haven't worked out. Finally, I would welcome the choice to seperate the diver and main gunner positions. As a dropship pilot I know how much shooting detracts from piloting and therefore how much more powerful a double crew would be in the same tank. Imagine being able to circle targets at speed while your gunner keeps the gun trained on the target. I think that ability and a second pair of eyes would more than double the effectiveness of the vehicle.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1944	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:23:00 - [5] - Quote I only kept them on mainly because i had no choice, i also removed small proto turrets and replaced with basic except for PC matches The main reason because i cannot control who is allowed in my tank, i may have a gunner with me and he can get out and hack but a sneaky scrubby bluedots jumps in and take the seat, i cant remove them all i can do is drive to the redline and hope he jumps out instead of firing at the enemy MCC with a blaster turret 99% of players are idiots, thats over 4000 possible players i do not want in my tank, in a match thats 15 of them that can go ** themselves the majority of the time Anytime i am near bluedots at a point 1 or 2 will always try and jump in, my gunner can never jump out and hack a point unless we are on our own and no bluedots are near Now i take off turrets as standard because at least it solves the bluedot problem I also do this with DS and its funny as hell when they realise there are no turrets and endless swap seats for the hope of a turret appearing, i also cannot boot the bluedots out also Add in locking and also give me a kick button and small turrets will return to my hull Until then bluedots can ** off
Reav Hannari Red Rock Outriders 2233	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:29:00 - [6] - Quote The LAV actually seems to be the most balanced. The crew is at risk at all times and requires two people if it's going to be a fully functioning combat platform. If I wasn't focusing on dropships I'd seriously look at leveraging the LAV. I think switching crew functions of the HAV to function like the LAV would make it much more balanced but the HAV pilots will just scream at me for even mentioning it (again). To be able to unleash that much fire power there should be a full crew. Instead you can have three tanks on the field or two more infantry. Combined that with the reduced expense of running HAVs and we can expect a full deployment of tanks most of the time now. Since my vehicle SP is still only around 2 million I'm struggling to fit all the turrets to my Python. So, I have a choice. When I'm running solo I have better defenses and only my nose gun. When my squad is online I have a weaker ship with three turrets. I'd be more tempted to run three turrets full time if we had real vehicle ownership and I could land to repair my ship without losing it to a blueberry. // Adapt or Die // Matari Logistics / Scout / Dropship Crash Tester // @ReesNoturana
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1499	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:35:00 - [7] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: I'd like to get this off my chest, as I've seen people defend this-or-that with excuses about maximum crew and such-n-such. As a current standard infantryman who played AV in E3 and HAVs on the tail of Chromosome, I like to feel that I am somewhat unbiased if a bit outdated, but feel free to sling mud and power up your plasma torches. I'm only here to educate and illuminate. People say that certain vehicles deserve a certain amount of power because of their relative amount of stored manpower. Not too many use this particular gem, but I've seen it enough to formulate the counterarguments and get tired of the question in general, so here we go. I will assume that none of the people in a vehicle have vehicle skills, they just found a thing in a ditch or hacked it. You'll see why later on. A LAV has a maximum capacity of three. All three players that man the LAV can be individually targeted with small arms fire and can also be destroyed by AV capable weapons aimed at the chassis. The Pilot of the LAV has control of the Navigational Systems and Activate Module Systems while the Targeting and Firing Systems are under the control of the Gunner. The Passenger has no active roll, and cannot even turn their head from side to side. This gives a count of two significant manning players due to their separation of roles and one passenger due to his lack of contribution and utilization of the LAV as a means of transit. A Dropship has a maximum capacity of seven. All can be targeted by small weapons fire with the sole exception of the pilot, but all have a small window of time allowed to bail from the craft if it suffers catastrophic damage. Of those seven, four are pure Passengers, partially safe behind retractable blast shields. The Pilot mans the craft, having the same control over the Navigation and Active Modules as the LAV, while the Gunners, of which there are two, have the same Targeting and Firing control as the LAV. However, most Dropships can only truly cater to one of their gunner's Line of SIght, leaving the other to starve, as flying directly over an enemy force so that it surrounds the Dropship is somewhat suicidal. Certain Dropships, the Assault variants, have the Gunner role also added into the Pilot role. This gives a count of two to three significant manning players, taking into account the gunning effectiveness issue. The other four are, understandably, using the Dropship as a means to be dropped off. The HAV has a maximum capacity of three. None can be targeted individually by small weapons fire, only going down in the HAV itself does. Furthermore, the HAV is the only vehicle with variable seating numbers, ranging from three to one. The Pilot has access to all major functions, Navigation and Active Modules like the other vehicles but also Targeting and Firing Systems. The other seats, if they are installed at all, are gunners at best, passengers at most times. HAV pilots rarely cater to the needs of their gunners, and most have removed the guns as the option is now available to them. This makes the significant manning player count one, with two Passengers if the seats are even installed. So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around? I don't have any gunner seats. Now what some do, when they realize they can't spam the O button to get into my tank, they'll jump on top of the turret and start tea bagging it. The best part is that I choose when I want to engage targets, instead of terrible blue dots forcing my hand and forcing me to react to them, instead of me forcing another vehicle to react to me. Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me, such is the motto of the anti vehicle infantry.
8213 BIG BAD W0LVES 1074	Posted - 2013.12.16 19:47:00 - [8] - Quote Gunners can be invaluable on my HAV. Especially squad mates. But. since HAVs have neither large cost or LOCKS I haven't put a small turret on any HAV I made.
Vitharr Foebane Blood Money Mercenaries 413	Posted - 2013.12.16 20:16:00 - [9] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Zero Harpuia wrote: I'd like to get this off my chest, as I've seen people defend this-or-that with excuses about maximum crew and such-n-such. As a current standard infantryman who played AV in E3 and HAVs on the tail of Chromosome, I like to feel that I am somewhat unbiased if a bit outdated, but feel free to sling mud and power up your plasma torches. I'm only here to educate and illuminate. People say that certain vehicles deserve a certain amount of power because of their relative amount of stored manpower. Not too many use this particular gem, but I've seen it enough to formulate the counterarguments and get tired of the question in general, so here we go. I will assume that none of the people in a vehicle have vehicle skills, they just found a thing in a ditch or hacked it. You'll see why later on. A LAV has a maximum capacity of three. All three players that man the LAV can be individually targeted with small arms fire and can also be destroyed by AV capable weapons aimed at the chassis. The Pilot of the LAV has control of the Navigational Systems and Activate Module Systems while the Targeting and Firing Systems are under the control of the Gunner. The Passenger has no active roll, and cannot even turn their head from side to side. This gives a count of two significant manning players due to their separation of roles and one passenger due to his lack of contribution and utilization of the LAV as a means of transit. A Dropship has a maximum capacity of seven. All can be targeted by small weapons fire with the sole exception of the pilot, but all have a small window of time allowed to bail from the craft if it suffers catastrophic damage. Of those seven, four are pure Passengers, partially safe behind retractable blast shields. The Pilot mans the craft, having the same control over the Navigation and Active Modules as the LAV, while the Gunners, of which there are two, have the same Targeting and Firing control as the LAV. However, most Dropships can only truly cater to one of their gunner's Line of SIght, leaving the other to starve, as flying directly over an enemy force so that it surrounds the Dropship is somewhat suicidal. Certain Dropships, the Assault variants, have the Gunner role also added into the Pilot role. This gives a count of two to three significant manning players, taking into account the gunning effectiveness issue. The other four are, understandably, using the Dropship as a means to be dropped off. The HAV has a maximum capacity of three. None can be targeted individually by small weapons fire, only going down in the HAV itself does. Furthermore, the HAV is the only vehicle with variable seating numbers, ranging from three to one. The Pilot has access to all major functions, Navigation and Active Modules like the other vehicles but also Targeting and Firing Systems. The other seats, if they are installed at all, are gunners at best, passengers at most times. HAV pilots rarely cater to the needs of their gunners, and most have removed the guns as the option is now available to them. This makes the significant manning player count one, with two Passengers if the seats are even installed. So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around? I don't have any gunner seats. Now what some do, when they realize they can't spam the O button to get into my tank, they'll jump on top of the turret and start tea bagging it. The best part is that I choose when I want to engage targets, instead of terrible blue dots forcing my hand and forcing me to react to them, instead of me forcing another vehicle to react to me. You might wanna edit that quote of yours then, TBA IS NOT A NAME! At least give the heavy laser a name so we know you MIGHT be working on it.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 313	Posted - 2013.12.16 20:22:00 - [10] - Quote I have removed both of mine, but only because there is a bug that disallows me putting the turret where I want it. Once that's fixed, all my tanks will have one seat for infantry killing.

Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 356	Posted - 2013.12.16 20:25:00 - [11] - Quote If they gave vehicle owners te ability to kick and lock, then i will return small turrets. Wana make the Hav require 2 people to even shoot will just bring back railgun snipers, with the guy parking somewhere and switching seats. Make it a second Tank, with less speed, more armor/shield, and more slots. We need to remember the people who DON'T have a 300-1000+ man corp. imagine if driving an Lav needed a person to operate the gas, and another for steering, without a single man alternative? Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) The only bad AV is ones not using Plc.
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1375	Posted - 2013.12.16 21:09:00 - [12] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: If they gave vehicle owners te ability to kick and lock, then i will return small turrets. Wana make the Hav require 2 people to even shoot will just bring back railgun snipers, with the guy parking somewhere and switching seats. Make it a second Tank, with less speed, more armor/shield, and more slots. We need to remember the people who DON'T have a 300-1000+ man corp. imagine if driving an Lav needed a person to operate the gas, and another for steering, without a single man alternative? That's just silly and you know it. Even Linebeck needed Link to operate the cannon while he handled his steamboat's navigation. An LAV already HAS separation of roles, one guy for the gun, one for the piloting. Doing the same thing to HAVs would double or triple their threat level as the pilot could move independently to the gunner's tracking and firing, and the triggers would be freed up for forward and back, uncluttering the control stick inputs to directional input only. It isn't what I'm asking for in the OP, but separating the two roles is something I am entirely for. As for the little Rail Sniper thing, LAVs do that too. They snipe Installations with Small Missiles all the time. If anyone sees their immobile bums, they get shelled into the dirt before they can retreat. For the record, I'm not against adding a new HHAV or SHAV or whatever you'd call it, but it would require the current HAV to be nerfed somewhat in survivability, maybe even downgraded to MAV, and the whine threads would block out the sun. Shields as Weapons
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2546	Posted - 2013.12.16 21:42:00 - [13] - Quote I would love being able to use dual sticks for movement because the current setup is absolute crap for being able to rotate in place. Couple that with being able to swap to a reverse camera for backing up and driving becomes far more enjoyable.
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 845	Posted - 2013.12.16 21:43:00 - [14] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around? my tank has no small guns, it is largely due to PG constraints and given the opportunity I would probably put back the top gun and ditch the front gunners position. I've gotten bad gunners over and over again and completely understand the motives of anyone who said bucket and removed all their smalls. small gunners are really useful and yes I did cater to them when the situation presents it self. however neither gun is well placed on the tank. the top gun can't track down far enough to to be useful in short to mid range combat and smalls are really bad at any range at all, so unless your target was above you(in which case it is likely that they are protected by a railing) it is essentially useless, another strike against the top gun is that is off center of the main turret rendering tracking with both simultaneously turrets nearly impossible. the front gun is worse than the top gun, the front gun's only saving grace is that is substantially more accurate than the to gun due to the a fore mentioned placement issue. it's field of fire is horrendous and catering to it very often endangers the integrity of the tank. the full 360 movement ability of the main turret means that broadsiding your target is possible and if the situation arises you can pull transversal on any threat perpendicular to your tank often breaking line of sight. facing your enemy so that the front gunner can line up shots is preferable however if a threat arises the only means of escape is to eliminate the threat or reverse which never breaks line of sight and can't take advantage of transversal. there is one situation where pulling forward into the enemy lines in a blitz is a viable option and in fact preferable to any other maneuver. in the case that you are facing enemy lines and parked, good squad leaders will often plant an orbital on the back end of the tank because allied infantry often use the tank for cover and many tankers first instinct is to full reverse out of danger and into their own lines. this gives the squad leader a 2 for 1 taking out the panicked driver who reversed further into the OB and his infantry support. there is of course the human element of having gunners, I have had excellent gunners but more often than not I get very, very bad gunners. the guy AFKing in my top turret(the semi useful one), the impatient blueberry in the front gun firing very angrily at nothing in my front gun because I'm not lining up shots for him, as doing so would endanger the tank. the ******* shooting at blues for sport, the guy who refuses to leave so I can recall the tank. the guy who doesn't understand the basics of tanking and shoots at nothing giving my position to the whole wide world while I wait for favorable conditions to engage. the guy frantically switching seats trying to get the drivers seat(he's probably moving to fast to notice if he actually got it). I've spent a lot of time tanking and gunning for other tankers, I hope that this helps the community at large understand the decisions we make with our machinery and why we do what we do how we do it.(say that last bit 5 times fast for extra fun!) and I hope this post helps at least some people realize that while tanking may be EZmode now, good tankers put a lot of thought into when and how they move. "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 83	Posted - 2013.12.16 21:59:00 - [15] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: I So them's the facts, hope I educated someone today. And as for the HAV thing, I want you to be totally honest with me HAV pilots of the world. How many of you ever gave a damn about your gunners, and how many immediately removed the gunner seats the moment 1.7 came around? I actually kept small turrets!!!! I used to run triple blaster tanks before 1.7 when small blasters were out damaged by ARs, and I always kept my front turret pointed at enemy infantry. Even when 1.7 came out I thought of running a triple blaster tank, but then some blue dots got in in a FW match and teamkilled a few people, so now I have none =/
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2547	Posted - 2013.12.16 22:10:00 - [16] - Quote Multi-crew mandatory vehicles would raise a few issues that need to be considered. Who pays for the vehicle? Who's skills count for fitting and who's for performance? Who gets to call it in? If we consider a tank with a driver and large turret operator they are pretty much equal in terms of importance. It's unfair to demand that one crew member shoulder the whole burden. That way lies resentment. Nobody wants to feel as if they are buying someone else a great shooting experience for free. Neither do they want to rely upon a driver with no skin in the game. There should be a formal mechanism for cost sharing.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 265	Posted - 2013.12.16 22:21:00 - [17] - Quote message from Godin: 1: Did I cater to my gunner? Yes. I would have my main fit, and several fits catering towards whatever my squad liked. 2:Did I remove the smalls in 1.7? Yes. Why? Because due to the anemic issues of Maddy's, I can't fit them anymore. Hell, I can't even fill all my high module module slots, and this is with max reduction skills. If I had more CPU/PG, , I definitely would fit smalls, even though it would cost more. That's more firepower, and I can haul some infantry in it as well.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]