DUST Search - HAV Operation Like a LAV

NK Scout wrote:

Chesyre Armundsen wrote:

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.

Nice try kid
Eve, 1 person 1 ship
1 supercap 1 person
And then remotes would become fotm
And tanks would be comepletely useles, expeting me to allow a blue to shoot lolz
Nice try
It never should happen and if it did

I would request a god mode button when two people are in then you ***** and moan

Btw you cant turn a turret on a dropship and fly at the same time by your logic, but you just hate tanks so opinion=invalid

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

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!"
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 399	Posted - 2014.01.30 23:24:00 - [2] - Quote Of course, but this is called "balancing", something tankers do not want. They want to keep speeding around in their mobile murder fortresses, shrugging off proto swarms and FGs like they're raindrops, like they're entitled to.
dogmanpig black market bank 125	Posted - 2014.01.31 02:53:00 - [3] - Quote name one game that does that....name me one, go ahead. there is a reason why they don't. You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way. Level 11 2/10 Forum alt. "Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 385	Posted - 2014.01.31 03:14:00 - [4] - 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!"
dogmanpig black market bank 125	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:00:00 - [5] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. the only things that make it stand out from other games is you can talk to players via text to and from ps3& pc and a minor connection in the form of orbitals. other then that its just a smaller battlefield with a space theme painted on it. its not that unique and the parts that are happen to be falling apart cough PC& FW * cough* you also don't know why it works for LAVs, if you knew then you would know it wouldn't work for HAVs. You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way. Level 11 2/10 Forum alt. "Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 482	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:25:00 - [6] - Quote The HAV is a frontline combat vehicle. The LAV is a transport/support vehicle. They don't work the same way. I don't think this stretches reason too much. Besides, it stands to reason there should be at least one vehicle that you can use without having to get a whole squad together.
dogmanpig black market bank 125	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:40:00 - [7] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: The HAV is a frontline combat vehicle. The LAV is a transport/support vehicle. They don't work the same way. I don't think this stretches reason too much. Besides, it stands to reason there should be at least one vehicle that you can use without having to get a whole squad together. LAV are fast, mobile vehicles able to kill with just its speed and survive on it with some decent driving skills- making solo player without guns acceptable and the turret is weak compared to the speed and maneuverability HAV are slower with much less maneuverability that barely kills with its speed and survives on its ability to take damage- needs offensive firepower to be effective, turret is strong compared to speed and maneuverability scouts- fast and lightly armored sentinel- slow and heavy armored pros and cons least ye be underpowered or overpowered. You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way. Level 11 2/10 Forum alt. "Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 386	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:43:00 - [8] - 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!"
Ralden Caster Omega Elite Mercs INC. 28	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:49:00 - [9] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. I think the main problem tankers would have with cooperative tanking is blueberries hopping in and driving tanks off cliffs. Minmatar Dropship. Uprising 1.7.
dogmanpig black market bank 125	Posted - 2014.01.31 04:58:00 - [10] - Quote the op is one giant facepalm You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way. Level 11 2/10 Forum alt. "Its worth half a penny and a reach around"

Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 386	Posted - 2014.01.31 05:17:00 - [11] - 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!"
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 183	Posted - 2014.01.31 05:57:00 - [12] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. Lol no, nice try though 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 183	Posted - 2014.01.31 05:59:00 - [13] - Quote 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 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 64	Posted - 2014.01.31 06:10:00 - [14] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: The HAV is a frontline combat vehicle. The LAV is a transport/support vehicle. They don't work the same way. I don't think this stretches reason too much. Besides, it stands to reason there should be at least one vehicle that you can use without having to get a whole squad together. Sure, but the tank isn't that vehicle?! Dropships already fly and fire with on3 operator. To do so much damage should take multiple operators. There are no one man tanks in real life. It doesn't make sense to give one player a mobile fortress while ground troops get nerfed weapons to deter it with. And before you say "get a tank" no! I'm a real fighter thank you. "Anybody order chaos?"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 388	Posted - 2014.01.31 06:53:00 - [15] - 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!"
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 186	Posted - 2014.01.31 07:21:00 - [16] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. Nice try kid Eve, 1 person 1 ship 1 supercap 1 person And then remotes would become fotm And tanks would be comepletely useles, expeting me to allow a blue to shoot lolz Nice try It never should happen and if it did I would request a god mode button when two people are in then you *** and moan Btw you cant turn a turret on a dropship and fly at the same time by your logic, but you just hate tanks so opinion=invalid 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race**
Rums McCuUladh Valor Coalition 94	Posted - 2014.01.31 08:43:00 - [17] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. Nice try kid Eve, 1 person 1 ship 1 supercap 1 person And then remotes would become fotm And tanks would be comepletely useles, expeting me to allow a blue to shoot lolz Nice try It never should happen and if it did I would request a god mode button when two people are in then you ***** and moan Btw you cant turn a turret on a dropship and fly at the same time by your logic, but you just hate tanks so opinion=invalid This is Dust not EvE. Also EvE completely revolves around the Vehivles/Ships Dust doesn't. The OP's idea does make sense, it takes team-work to destroy a tank so it should take team-work to operate one. Maybe just have it so the operator can only use small turrets while driving. Also if blueberries getting in your tank is a problem then the solution is to have a way to remove the blueberries from the tank.
Lynn Beck Granite Mercenary Division Top Men. 624	Posted - 2014.01.31 08:55:00 - [18] - Quote We still need a tank that can be operated solo. Just make it so you have Xhav's and Hav's. Xhav's have 40% extra HP, and use OP's idea. Also they have 4/3 slot layout. Hav's maintain their current speed, and operate decently solo. Xhav's operate in a team and will stomp any Hav because it's bigger, and has more slots/fitting. Hav's need fitting reduced, as to not be able to fit proto turret, an all proto modules on a base hull. Hav's should have to sacrifice, a nitrous? Or what about a damage mod? Shield extender? Xhav's would gain that lost fitting, and quite possibly have 2 large turrets. Or make it 1xl, 1l, and 1 S/M. Under 28db Officially nerfproof (predicting CR nerf February '14) Selling SP: 10k SP per 100k ISK.
Rums McCuUladh Valor Coalition 94	Posted - 2014.01.31 09:06:00 - [19] - Quote Or how about the finally release the Medium Vehicles which could be the solo ones and HAV's would be team-work? Wonder how long that would take lol
Hecarim Van Hohen Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 386	Posted - 2014.01.31 09:13:00 - [20] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: mobile murder fortresses Cheer up a bit will you (n+ëGùòpâ«Gùò)n+ë:n+Ñn+ƒG£º:n+Ñn+ƒG£º Personal best K/A/D in 1.7 26/5/1

TheEnd762 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 403	Posted - 2014.01.31 11:59:00 - [21] - Quote The hypocrisy of tankers has reached unbelievably idiotic levels.
Hoover Damn H.A.R.V.E.S.T. Legacy Rising 39	Posted - 2014.01.31 13:50:00 - [22] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Nice try You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means. Well, that, or maybe you're just 12 and think it sounds clever. I don't judge.
Ventis Gant Goibhniu Industries 39	Posted - 2014.01.31 14:04:00 - [23] - Quote I find the logic that a HAV should need multiple operators for maximum effectiveness to be valid. It usually takes multiple infantry to take one down. As far as EVE goes, battleships can have massive EHP and damage output compared to frigates because they can barely hit frigates under most circumstances. That is the primary difference and why comparisons fail. If a tank was analogous to a battleship, it would only be good against vehicles. It would be nearly impossible to kill infantry in one.
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 41	Posted - 2014.01.31 16:27:00 - [24] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. Yeah but if you have small turrets you're boned because you switch to those first :( Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) *Subsonic.*
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 631	Posted - 2014.01.31 16:33:00 - [25] - Quote theres pros and cons to your idea. pros meaning u get a good driving and gunner and ull be deadlier than ever. cons meaning some of the above. and not every drives good. right now with current turrets tanks will crash and get stuck into a lot of things. u only see the what the turret is pointed at..
Ghermard-ol Dizeriois Maphia Clan Corporation 129	Posted - 2014.01.31 17:04:00 - [26] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. consider your idea stolen (LOL jk), but thanks for bringing this up. If you are an hacker, a cheater o a glitcher, you deserve death. In real life.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 140	Posted - 2014.01.31 19:19:00 - [27] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: 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. I would vote for the opposite approach: Allow solo dropship pilots to use their guns in some way. LAVs can already run people over when run solo and are fast enough to evade attacks. HAV solo turret operation is completely okay as long as it's fixed on a single target type. Make the turret good at either infantry OR tank killing. And then force them to use additional gunners to attack the other target type. This means that a tank as omnipotent as the current one would need three operators, but doesn't make them useless when run solo.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 561	Posted - 2014.01.31 20:45:00 - [28] - Quote Tanks should stay as one man vehicles. But tanks should be about killing other vehicles. They should have to rely on small turrets to protect them from infantry. There should also be a LAV that let's you use the turret and drive at the same time.
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 66	Posted - 2014.01.31 21:12:00 - [29] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: We still need a tank that can be operated solo. Just make it so you have Xhav's and Hav's. Xhav's have 40% extra HP, and use OP's idea. Also they have 4/3 slot layout. Hav's maintain their current speed, and operate decently solo. Xhav's operate in a team and will stomp any Hav because it's bigger, and has more slots/fitting. Hav's need fitting reduced, as to not be able to fit proto turret, an all proto modules on a base hull. Hav's should have to sacrifice, a nitrous? Or what about a damage mod? Shield extender? Xhav's would gain that lost fitting, and quite possibly have 2 large turrets. Or make it 1xl, 1l, and 1 S/M. "Anybody order chaos?"
Bradric Banewolf D3M3NT3D M1NDZ The Umbra Combine 66	Posted - 2014.01.31 21:13:00 - [30] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: We still need a tank that can be operated solo. Just make it so you have Xhav's and Hav's. Xhav's have 40% extra HP, and use OP's idea. Also they have 4/3 slot layout. Hav's maintain their current speed, and operate decently solo. Xhav's operate in a team and will stomp any Hav because it's bigger, and has more slots/fitting. Hav's need fitting reduced, as to not be able to fit proto turret, an all proto modules on a base hull. Hav's should have to sacrifice, a nitrous? Or what about a damage mod? Shield extender? Xhav's would gain that lost fitting, and quite possibly have 2 large turrets. Or make it 1xl, 1l, and 1 S/M. The speed is the problem not the hp?! I can kill easily if they weren't able to just run to the redline at the speed of an lav?! "Anybody order chaos?"



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page