DUST Search - HAV Operation Like a LAV

Takahiro Kashuken wrote:

Such a bad idea

Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc

The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met

1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner

2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad

3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it

4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver

5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle

6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots

7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters

8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods

9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out

10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc

...


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 383	Posted - 2014.01.30 23:14:00 - [1] - Quote Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time? Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV. A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back. I believe this may offer a good dynamic. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 385	Posted - 2014.01.31 03:14:00 - [2] - Quote dogmanpig wrote: name one game that does that....name me one, go ahead. there is a reason why they don't. DUST isn't like like other games out there and CCP is trying to do something unique. This is a valid option that works for the LAV and the mechanics would be no different in the HAV. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 386	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:43:00 - [3] - Quote The idea is not to diminish the functionality of the HAV in a combat role. Nothing changes how lethal or well defended the HAV is, or how modules would be activated. The only change is that the driver of a HAV doesn't have the ability to fire while driving. You do not need a whole squad to use a LAV. A solo player can drive a LAV and then switch to the turret if they choose. It doesn't have the effectiveness as if it was fully loaded with a dedicated gunner, but it is still viable. The proposed change to HAVs would offer the same to a solo operator. The HAV would be driven into position where the player quickly switches to whichever turret they choose to use. Unleashing their barrage as per normal when they choose to move again they switch to the operator seat and maneuver accordingly. If the HAV is manned by more than one person the level of danger for targets only increases. HAV operators would never have to leave their vehicle and would still have full control of modules. There is no downside save for the lack of "run and gun" by a solo operator. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 386	Posted - 2014.01.31 05:17:00 - [4] - Quote Ralden Caster wrote: I think the main problem tankers would have with cooperative tanking is blueberries hopping in and driving tanks off cliffs. Thanks for the feedback. That's the only downside I can think of with the situation, but you presently have the same issue with LAVs. This idea came out of brainstorming when reading threads where the major complaint is solo players fielding HAVs fitted with a single turret. I admit that the potential of having a blueberry unfavorably hog a turret is more likely in the congestion of front line action, where a LAV in the middle of nowhere is less likely a target, but maybe that becomes a good thing. HAV's then support infantry from a greater distance to keep their operators spot open. If they move in closer to engage it then becomes a liability that someone else may jump in. All the more need for communication. I think the added time having to move your turret into position after maneuvering would buy infantry a bit of time to run for cover instead of being driven over while the driver is simultaneously gunning them down, without nerffing or buffing anything. I hate nerfs and buffs! I'm looking for a solution which may give infantry the added window to deal damage using the current AV weapons without diminishing the might of HAVs. I'm a grunt and I like it that way. I enjoy the challenge of keeping armor at bay to help my squadies live, and I will always be against a 1 hit 1 kill AV weapon. I also don't think a player should be required to be wielding proto weapons with proficiency skills and damage mods to be a useful AVer. Giving a slightly greater window of opportunity between the advance of a HAV and their time to attack might be all that's needed. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 388	Posted - 2014.01.31 06:53:00 - [5] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Seriously terrible idea, terible, wish i can -1, that would make havs completely useless Unless of course you make it so it takes 2 peopleto move and shoot a ar Nice try, but that would hardly make a HAV useless: HAVs have a huge armor advantage over infantry. Without firing a weapon a HAV operator can still run over infantry to score kills. Once holding position it's a simple button push for the operator to switch to a long range option. Anyone playing a sniper already has to hold their position to increase their effectiveness in their role. If you do have 2 or more operators in a HAV you now have the ability to double your threat. At present the running line is that AV should have to work in a team to destroy a HAV, so your second point is essentially already the case. You need more than one person to attack a HAV well. As for the concern that a single pilot can fly an assault dropships and attack. The front mounted turret is a small caliber compared to the large which is on the HAV, and the base hp is lower than that of the HAV as well. In addition to these points the momentum based flight means that DS pilots are more likely to make strafing runs rather than camping in one location. I don't think the inconvenience of hopping seats is the same as being helpless. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 399	Posted - 2014.01.31 23:52:00 - [6] - Quote Sole Fenychs wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Tanks are for killing tanks, or at least I think they should be AV focused, not infantry focused. Tankers should SUPPORT infantry, or in other words "SUPPLEMENT" not outright own them. Small turrets are there for AI purposes. You aren't restricted on your suits like this, there is no reason a tank should be as well. But I agree, if it takes a team to kill a tank, it should take a tank team to kill infantry. If tanks are AV focused - What the hell are they for? That literally means that they are pointless outside of their own microcosmos. You wouldn't even need to call in another tank when the enemy gets one, because an enemy with a tank just means that one of their squad members suddenly stopped contributing meaningfully. That's why large AI turrets need to exist. With infantry, I can be either AI or AV. As a commando even both. Let's disregard the imbalances that exist for the current AV situation. Just a quick reply without reading Tebu's thread on turret balance yet, I believe the idea that's being put forth is that the large turret equipped would be an AV weapon that would have difficulty hitting infantry effectively. This would mean that the small turrets would be the ones focused on AI. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 399	Posted - 2014.01.31 23:56:00 - [7] - Quote Bojo The Mighty wrote: I don't think you currently understand the advantage infantry have by lone-operated HAVs. Currently, to see where you are driving, an HAV must have their turret pointed in the general direction. This allows people to sneak up behind HAVs and place REs, or AV nade them. Give HAV dual operation and you have a constantly mobile heavy weapon platform where turret tracking speed (which is relatively slow) does not hinder the ability to retreat. I've had many HAV's screw themselves over because they panic and they reverse without swiveling the turret before hand and thus run themselves up a rock and they lose the vehicle. Allowing the HAV turret operator to be given only a single focus would be bad because then we'd have HAV operators controlling their vehicles much more easily. The HAV driver only has to worry about movement and HAV health while the HAV turret operator only has to focus on targets. Currently, the HAV operator has to focus on the HAV health, the targets, and where they are going. It would be better to leave as is so we don't lessen the load of responsibilities handed to a HAV. No I am not a tanker I do the shady sands shuffle. I appreciate the constructive addition Bojo. Welcome to the thread. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 406	Posted - 2014.02.03 06:11:00 - [8] - Quote For the record I would like to say that I am not trying to split the roles of a tank to require 2 operators minimum. I want an open dialogue where both tankers and AV infantry alike can discuss options to direct future gameplay in a harmonious way. I was addressing something I saw. I found it was interesting that the LAV had no means of solo attack where the HAV large baster can do a great job murdering infantry, and so I thought "why does the HAV have this ability?" The proposed idea was not one with a selfish motive that more mercs would be tied up to operate a vehicle, but a question of why this role was given to a HAV operator to singlehandedly be a monstrous force. I know very well that DUST will have many more changes over the years, and that the current state of vehicles is lacking compared to the scope CCP has indicated that they would like to see them in. It was said before the release of 1.7 that the now current changes would not be final, and that adjustments and additions would be made. What I want are intelligent ideas brought to the table that do more than simply buff and nerf damage/resilience, and I believe the thread is doing well on that angle. These ideas, whether good or bad, will shape the future. Lets make it a bright one. :) Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 420	Posted - 2014.02.06 23:32:00 - [9] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Such a bad idea Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met 1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner 2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad 3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it 4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver 5. No gun for the driver, not even a **** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle 6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots 7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters 8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods 9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out 10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc ... For the sake of argument lets address some of these: 1. The addition of the MAV which as been talked about in multiple threads could offer a solo operated, single turret vehicle which would replace the current solo HAV. 2. ...that's a different thread 3. The base stats and slot layout should be the same. MAVs could have reduced slots/stats for their versatility as a solo vehicle and the current HAVs will only be more formidable with dedicated gunmen. 4. Yup. Exactly the same as the LAV 5. Correct again. Just like the LAV the driver would be dedicated to driving the beast and keeping it out of harms way. 6. This is already the case for HAVs. Its a task and a bit of luck for a single player to kill a HAV, therefore i'd say that this is already met. Most often its a team of AV to take down armor and I think that's fine. 7. Yup 8. Yup 9. I don't agree. It should be a liability like in any other vehicle. 10. More skills for everybody! :) I think we need diversity where there are "entry level" vehicles which offer a taste of whats out there and then really reward those who choose to specialize. The trick is doing so without making any one unit (man or machine) invulnerable. Mihi gravato Deus** - "Let God lay the burden on me!"