DUST Search - Removing Mine detection from tanks.

TheEnd762 wrote:

Ulysses Knapse wrote:

TheEnd762 wrote:

Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example.

That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that.

Nope.

Take the claymore mine. It has a directional blast and must be placed at or above ground level to be effective. This allows them to be used as deterrents, since they are visible to an enemy. An enemy must be aware of something for it to be a deterrent. That's the difference between a deterrent and a trap. Traditional land mines and anti-tank mines are placed on likely avenues of approach and concealed, so that they're more likely to kill before the enemy is aware of them. They are traps. Barbed wire is a deterrent. A electric fence isn't a deterrent unless there's a sign on it saying it's an electric fence. Nuclear Missiles aren't a deterrent if you just start launching them. A deterrent is an avoidable threat of force.

What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jason Pearson 3720	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:17:00 - [1] - Quote If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Zaria for Miss Universe 2014
X-eon Molon Labe. Public Disorder. 78	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:18:00 - [2] - Quote LAVs also get the sound assist. Sometimes they're just going too fast to notice. What do you do when you See "WARNING, Damage Mod Active" on an LAV? You wake up in another suit.
Jason Pearson 3721	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:23:00 - [3] - Quote X-eon wrote: LAVs also get the sound assist. Sometimes they're just going too fast to notice. Perhaps allowing the LAV to keep it would make them even more useful to vehicle groups to run ahead of the tanks to find and detect Mines ^_^ King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Zaria for Miss Universe 2014
Ghermard-ol Dizeriois Maphia Clan Corporation 45	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:37:00 - [4] - Quote Is there a module which gives out the sound or is "included" when you buy the tank? In the second case, I'd say to simply turn it into a module. If you're an hacker, a cheater o a glitcher, you deserve death. In real life.
Jason Pearson 3722	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:39:00 - [5] - Quote Ghermard-ol Dizeriois wrote: Is there a module which gives out the sound or is "included" when you buy the tank? In the second case, I'd say to simply turn it into a module. Second one. But then which module is it? Which tank do we favour here? King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Zaria for Miss Universe 2014
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 952	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:40:00 - [6] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. In real life, mines are used more for their deterrence than they are for destroying, similarly to how machine guns are more for suppression than they are for killing. There's a reason minefields are set up instead of just plopping down mines in a random fashion. Though I do agree that proximity explosives should be more useful. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
Jason Pearson 3722	Posted - 2014.01.01 15:44:00 - [7] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. In real life, mines are used more for their deterrence than they are for destroying, similarly to how machine guns are more for suppression than they are for killing. There's a reason minefields are set up instead of just plopping down mines in a random fashion. Though I do agree that proximity explosives should be more useful. I am not too fond of real life, full of realism and stuff. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Zaria for Miss Universe 2014
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 952	Posted - 2014.01.01 16:02:00 - [8] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: I am not too fond of real life, full of realism and stuff. Well, at least the combat is balanced! What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 938	Posted - 2014.01.01 16:45:00 - [9] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. Haha, Jason, we've gone a full circle. I previously was advocating the beep removal, but now in 1.7 I changed my stance to neutral. (in 1.7 there are two reasons why proxies became functional: tanks move so much more on map so they are more likely to hit them, and this 'lower base HP but god-hardener' sometimes finishes tanks on their weak moment) Why I say a full circle? I previously suggested https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=709425#post709425 ...And you gave a sturdy '-1' on that Hey man don't get it wrong I'm not arguing with you, I totally understand your point even though I don't feel change necessary anymore. I just find it funny how it things change.... Tank spam getting onto your nerves? An improvement:
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 938	Posted - 2014.01.01 16:46:00 - [10] - Quote PS: I still think that infantry scanning for mines would be cool. Tank spam getting onto your nerves? An improvement:

Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 995	Posted - 2014.01.01 17:33:00 - [11] - Quote Naw I think mines are fine. You will end up running over them if you don't know they are there. Only if you do know they are in the general area does the sound help you avoid them. Otherwise I've had plenty of mines nearly kill me. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Jason Pearson 3723	Posted - 2014.01.01 17:45:00 - [12] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. Haha, Jason, we've gone a full circle. I previously was advocating the beep removal, but now in 1.7 I changed my stance to neutral. (in 1.7 there are two reasons why proxies became functional: tanks move so much more on map so they are more likely to hit them, and this 'lower base HP but god-hardener' sometimes finishes tanks on their weak moment) Why I say a full circle? I previously suggested https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=709425#post709425 ...And you gave a sturdy '-1' on that Hey man don't get it wrong I'm not arguing with you, I totally understand your point even though I don't feel change necessary anymore. I just find it funny how it things change.... I must admit my post was a little naive lol, now I feel bad. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Zaria for Miss Universe 2014
Spectre-M The Generals General Tso's Alliance 161	Posted - 2014.01.01 19:41:00 - [13] - Quote I still think it's ridiculous that an arms manufacturer would put a warning system on their mines, real life or not. Isn't the whole point of a mine the element of surprise? The beeping should be removed as it serves little more than to notify the enemy that there is a trap. It needs a better risk vs. reward mechanic or everyone would pack them. Fill a hallway and forget. Remember Golden Eye? But it would also make scanners more useful instead of just wall hacking. Just like all the weapons it would need a breach and assault variant. They could even have a flux variant. They would need to be limited in amount deployed so we don't have people packing 3 types on a logi suit and deploying all of them. Last thing we need is more equipment spam. Amarr Factional Warfare Loyalist Minnmatar in Amarr Armor I am a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing
Shokhann Echo Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 143	Posted - 2014.01.01 20:09:00 - [14] - Quote I think its only for proximity mines. Youtube Alt # 1 Back on main 3-31-2014
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7706	Posted - 2014.01.01 20:21:00 - [15] - Quote I agree, mines seem pointless if vehicles just automatically detect them anyway. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 947	Posted - 2014.01.02 03:59:00 - [16] - Quote To be clear, I'm updating my previous stance: Removing the beeping isn't critical anymore. I'm close to neutral on it. However, if beep is removed I now see that as a trade-off the infantry scanner would have to be able to detect them (or lateral variant of vehicle scanner, crappier on other aspects but able to detect mines) Tank spam getting onto your nerves? An improvement:
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 334	Posted - 2014.01.02 04:26:00 - [17] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: In real life, mines are used more for their deterrence than they are for destroying, similarly to how machine guns are more for suppression than they are for killing. There's a reason minefields are set up instead of just plopping down mines in a random fashion. Though I do agree that proximity explosives should be more useful. Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example.
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1075	Posted - 2014.01.14 16:42:00 - [18] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example. That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that. Here, an article on the usage of land mines. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 547	Posted - 2014.01.14 16:54:00 - [19] - Quote yes. make this a module and remove it as an 'included' feature. then make mines work & explode when tanks are within 5m of them.
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 360	Posted - 2014.01.14 16:59:00 - [20] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: TheEnd762 wrote: Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example. That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that. Nope. Take the claymore mine. It has a directional blast and must be placed at or above ground level to be effective. This allows them to be used as deterrents, since they are visible to an enemy. An enemy must be aware of something for it to be a deterrent. That's the difference between a deterrent and a trap. Traditional land mines and anti-tank mines are placed on likely avenues of approach and concealed, so that they're more likely to kill before the enemy is aware of them. They are traps. Barbed wire is a deterrent. A electric fence isn't a deterrent unless there's a sign on it saying it's an electric fence. Nuclear Missiles aren't a deterrent if you just start launching them. A deterrent is an avoidable threat of force.

Anoko Destrolock Crimson Saints 26	Posted - 2014.01.14 17:01:00 - [21] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. FYI you have to be about 5-10m away to hear the sound. With current tank speed, you have a fraction of a second to bring your tank to a screeching halt. Learn where to drop the mines, that will solve your problem.
Ulysses Knapse Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm 1075	Posted - 2014.01.14 17:03:00 - [22] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: TheEnd762 wrote: Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example. That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that. Nope. Take the claymore mine. It has a directional blast and must be placed at or above ground level to be effective. This allows them to be used as deterrents, since they are visible to an enemy. An enemy must be aware of something for it to be a deterrent. That's the difference between a deterrent and a trap. Traditional land mines and anti-tank mines are placed on likely avenues of approach and concealed, so that they're more likely to kill before the enemy is aware of them. They are traps. Barbed wire is a deterrent. A electric fence isn't a deterrent unless there's a sign on it saying it's an electric fence. Nuclear Missiles aren't a deterrent if you just start launching them. A deterrent is an avoidable threat of force. Did you even click the link? What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage is more lethal.
Meeko Fent State Patriots 1732	Posted - 2014.01.14 18:27:00 - [23] - Quote Should be a new Mine Detecter Module. DUST is a half decent game. Be happy its free.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2014.01.14 20:14:00 - [24] - Quote It makes no sense to make mines provide a warning to the vehicle they are being used against. None.
Brush Master HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 1025	Posted - 2014.01.14 20:34:00 - [25] - Quote Should be no noise at all, does seem silly. Make them appear for vehicle scanners. 514th Wing // Team Fairy DUST // Havok Core [email protected]
Jason Pearson 3906	Posted - 2014.01.14 23:02:00 - [26] - Quote Anoko Destrolock wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides. FYI you have to be about 5-10m away to hear the sound. With current tank speed, you have a fraction of a second to bring your tank to a screeching halt. Learn where to drop the mines, that will solve your problem. Ser, I am the guy driving the tank telling you this feature is silly and makes the chance of me dying go from 80% to 1% King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3567	Posted - 2014.01.14 23:06:00 - [27] - Quote I remember I just stopped the last time I heard mines- 2 friendly LAVs found them for me. We used to have a time machine


Pages: 1 :: [one page]