DUST Search - Tanks: Separate Driver From Main Gunner

All Channels

General Discussions

Tanks: Separate Driver From Main Gunner

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:09:00 - [1] - Quote Clone D wrote: The tank driver and main gunner should be two distinct functions and therefore two separate positions inside of a tank. So a single operator would either drive or use the main gun, but not both simultaneously. Thus to drive and fire the main gun simultaneously would require two crew members. Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets...... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:21:00 - [2] - Quote Clone D wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: if you can't solo a tank, that's you being ****** at AV. My technique is fine and I can solo a tank, but think in terms of resource allocation. All of a sudden, I have to drop everything I'm doing, go grab an AV suit and focus my attention on a tank, while a single person in a tank disrupts the entire team in the area. That's too much power per player. Everyone knows it and has complained about it. It's time that CCP took some action to remedy the disproportionate amount of HP, damage and speed granted to a single tanker. Is that not then the purpose of AV? To prevent said disruption? I'm not going to argue that tanks are balanced...... they aren't, AV is pretty punchy right now across most normal tank builds I run, excepting of course the triple rep Maddy....... But I don't feel this is the case. Pre 1.7 we had higher based and EHP values on our tanks and no one complained, only now has it become an issue because AV has gone through a cycle of not being as powerful as it once was....... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 - [3] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Clone D wrote: The tank driver and main gunner should be two distinct functions and therefore two separate positions inside of a tank. So a single operator would either drive or use the main gun, but not both simultaneously. Thus to drive and fire the main gun simultaneously would require two crew members. Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets...... I just want to point out that in Battlefield my anti tank weapon does not take up my primary weapon slot and blasting a tank treads immobilizes it IE proper balancing factors and not being able to repair all damage away while people take pot shots with ridiculously ineffective gear That depends on where you hit it though. A standard tank in BF 4 could take two or three rockets , depending on the weapon which fired it before being into immobilised state, requiring another rocket or two depending on which armour side you hit. Might take 1 shot to immobilise and tank with a shot to rear armour...... in same way you can 2 shot a tank with a rear shot. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:28:00 - [4] - Quote Avinash Decker wrote: Until there is vehicle locking which there isn't , and until the driver doesn't contribute all their isk , sp , and time investing in a tank while the gunner didn't I see these idea being not good. Its never going to be a good idea. No successful shooter with acclaimed vehicle mechanics has broken up piloting and gunning.....why? Because doing that simply is not enjoyable....for anyone. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:17:00 - [5] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Delta 749 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Clone D wrote: The tank driver and main gunner should be two distinct functions and therefore two separate positions inside of a tank. So a single operator would either drive or use the main gun, but not both simultaneously. Thus to drive and fire the main gun simultaneously would require two crew members. Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets...... I just want to point out that in Battlefield my anti tank weapon does not take up my primary weapon slot and blasting a tank treads immobilizes it IE proper balancing factors and not being able to repair all damage away while people take pot shots with ridiculously ineffective gear You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it. You know the counter argument to that is weapons tech advances more rapidly than defensive tech so we should be popping tanks with ease But hey, the tankers cried because being vulnerable to a handful of weapons was a grave injustice No we cried because there was no viability to vehicle. If you have not seen the recent report on the monthly purchases of HAV you would see that several months prior to 1.7 the monthly sales will in the low thousands..... AV could very easily and game breakingly deny all vehicles their basic roles from positions that were entirely impossible for vehicle to strike back at, all the while retaining the basic rendering issues at 50+m. When you cannot see where you are being AVed from you cannot counter it, now you all render, so we can hunt you down and counter you. Tankers never QQed for the simplification for modules and fitting, all tankers wanted pre 1.7 was durability fitting our role....which we did not have. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:18:00 - [6] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ***** Christ. edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea. What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing. "But tank spam!" But shut the up. Tank spam is so overblown it's *** ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match. Not to mention lone wolf tankers are **. People without a mic are ***. Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:23:00 - [7] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ***** Christ. edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea. What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing. "But tank spam!" But shut the up. Tank spam is so overblown it's *** ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match. Not to mention lone wolf tankers are **. People without a mic are ***. Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... So a solo playstyle should be encouraged in a squad based game that rewards teamplay? Hardly, the fitting of modules and turrets that encourage crewing and HAV should be incentivised, while building tanks for solo play de-incentivised, though the primary controls and operation of the vehicle should always be in the hands of the primarily pilot. Perhaps small turrets become better Anti Infantry Weapons, while all Tank Turrets become AV weapons, making tanks the primary top tier ground based AV weapons, requiring gunners to protect them from infantry. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:38:00 - [8] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9862	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:50:00 - [9] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9863	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:29:00 - [10] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Large turrets shouldn't be incapable of AP. Small turrets should just be better at it. Of course not......no one survives a 80Gj Rail slug to the chest......or a Siege Cannon Shell, or a Ball of Plasma, or a High Output energy beam. It just shouldn't be easy to engage and target such small units however. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9868	Posted - 2014.04.29 01:12:00 - [11] - Quote Clone D wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Clone D wrote: It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you. Tankers do not tank because of this but for the reason that is their love for vehicle usage and the support factor . The tank is the shark of the land. In no way is it a support role. It is a massive hunter killer, which happens to have stealth properties in this game. That depends how you use it. My tank is fitted out to operate with a dedicated crew of 3. Myself operating the HAV as a gun platform, anti vehicle platform, mobile scan device, APC, and mobile cover. I arrive at a location, scan down the area, deploy my crewmen, and provide overwatch until they are ready to leave, at which point we pack up shop, re-embark, and redeploy. My HAV fit is entirely designed to provide support to the squad as a whole. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9883	Posted - 2014.04.29 04:32:00 - [12] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Easier to get AP kills? You are already swatting us away like flies. Not everybody should have to skill into Swarm Launchers or Forge Guns to fight back against vehicles. Personally, I think LAVS should be able to attack HAVs, LAVs and Infantry. They should make it so a HAV can only attack HAV's and LAV's, NOT attack infantry. You want to attack the guy with the swarm launcher, jump out of your shell and take him 1 on 1 outside the safety of your tank. I'm sick and tired of getting lit up by f**ing Magruders 3,4,5 times in a match because he is rolling around in a mobile fort I can't do anything to with my pea-shooter. At least with LAV's the driver is in the open so I can kill the driver. If someone is in a tank, I have absolutely no defense or recourse to him shooting me over and over and over, other than having to, as I said, skill into AV and waste it on something I have no desire to do. You wish to be able to defeat the purpose of heavy armour on vehicles by being able to destroy vehicles with small arms......thus not only defeating the purpose of the vehicle.....but also of all AV everywhere......... Why don't you invest in AV..... I'm a bloody tanker and I have AV options....if you don't have AV at this stage in the game, and you aren't new...... then you are doing something wrong. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9884	Posted - 2014.04.29 05:23:00 - [13] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thokk Nightshade wrote: Easier to get AP kills? You are already swatting us away like flies. Not everybody should have to skill into Swarm Launchers or Forge Guns to fight back against vehicles. Personally, I think LAVS should be able to attack HAVs, LAVs and Infantry. They should make it so a HAV can only attack HAV's and LAV's, NOT attack infantry. You want to attack the guy with the swarm launcher, jump out of your shell and take him 1 on 1 outside the safety of your tank. I'm sick and tired of getting lit up by f*ing Magruders 3,4,5 times in a match because he is rolling around in a mobile fort I can't do anything to with my pea-shooter. At least with LAV's the driver is in the open so I can kill the driver. If someone is in a tank, I have absolutely no defense or recourse to him shooting me over and over and over, other than having to, as I said, skill into AV and waste it on something I have no desire to do. You wish to be able to defeat the purpose of heavy armour on vehicles by being able to destroy vehicles with small arms......thus not only defeating the purpose of the vehicle.....but also of all AV everywhere......... Why don't you invest in AV..... I'm a bloody tanker and I have AV options....if you don't have AV at this stage in the game, and you aren't new...... then you are doing something wrong. Nope. I never suggested that in any way shape or form. Small arms should not be able to damage vehicles in any way, as they are now. There is no way a CR, RR, LR, etc. should do any damage to a tank. The idea is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that in any way. What I'm saying is I'm tired of someone rolling around in an inpenetrable fortress blowing the out of me and going 25-0 killing infantry people who don't have the ability to do anything to fight back. Again, why should I be FORCED to skill into something I have no desire to do just to be a minimal threat? This is liking telling a baby gazelle to grow pointy hooves to defend itself against a lion. You are still absolutely and completely outmatched and outgunned and stand basically no shot. I don't want to be a vehicle hunter. I want to run my logi, support my team, and not have to worry about equipping a weapon that is effective only against vehicles (Swarm) and give me absolutely no way of defending against other infantry. The other option is throwing a *-ton of SP into heavy weapons to get to whatever level I need in order to run a forge. In doing this, I'm not able to invest into my armor, shields, Combat Rifle etc. so I'm not increasing my ability to kill infantry while others are so actually I'm becoming less effective on that front and, after skilling into Sentinel, heavy weapons, and forge, I'm still getting a basic weapon that is still practically worthless against a triple rep magruder. I know it's not going to happen. I'm just sick of tankers rolling around in Ambush racking up 25 kills in a 50 kill match while not dying once because nothing on the battlefield can do anything to it. Or, if there is someone who can, he gets hit a couple of times, retreats for 20 seconds, reps back up, and goes right back to the center of the action. I'm just not for the fastest, heaviest, most armored, most DPS weapon on the battlefield being able to completely control a match so it no longer becomes fun for either team (because his own team isn't able to really do anything because the tanker is stealing all his kills.) Then basically you are placing you well being the hands of strangers or squad mates. If I then go and annihilate you all you have no one but yourself to blame for not even trying. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9890	Posted - 2014.04.29 09:32:00 - [14] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: I don't speak for those tankers, but the fact of the matter is if you can't solo a tank, that's you being ****** at AV. if a tank driver get solod in a tank the he is simply a scrub, lost all credibiltiy and have no business in talkinga bout anything tank related I havent lost a single MLT tank to AV since the tank "overhaul" and I have zero SP in tanks. the only thing that gets me are other tanks. I don't necessarily think that is true my friend. When I do play Dust I almost always tank, as opposed to you sir who happens to be a relative Johnny Come Lately to tanking. I typically am exposed to vastly more and frequently different and creative strategies. Being Soloed is as simple as being Jihad Jeeped, Remoted, blown up by another HAV. All of that is being "Soloed" and despite your claims I doubt you either deploy that tank frequently enough to have a this sense of entitlement you seem to possess, nor are you being truthful when you say you have never been soled. Even if you statement held some validity....and trust me it doesn't as MLT Tanks essentially and fundamentally in their current form invalidate massive amounts of tank based SP through MLT Modules reflecting already potent modules for low ISK value and 0 SP as you stated, you yourself admit to not being a tanker through lack of SP allocation.....I am highly inclined to simply disregard you assertions and a predisposed bias and frustration with the current meta. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9890	Posted - 2014.04.29 09:35:00 - [15] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable? This is one of the most constructive HAV-AV conversations I've ever seen on these forums. There's some fundamental disagreement, but a willingness on both sides to keep the debate rational. Keep going guys. Personally I think the game needs both solo and crew-only assault vehicles. I'd go with crew-only HAVs and solo MAVs, but there are other viable options. I'd suggest that the skills required to operate the MAV (for solo play) form the basis for HAV work so tankers don't need to make a fundamental choice between the two. I assume it would be important to have the choice, in each battle, of whether to call in a solo or crewed vehicle. No a bad suggestion at all.... however I am still inclined to champion single pilot HAV until such a time as a better reasoned or phrased argument....however as always I will try as best I can to remain open to suggestions, and try to respond in an unbiased manner....which admittedly is not always easy. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9891	Posted - 2014.04.29 10:03:00 - [16] - Quote Korvin Lomont wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ***** Christ. edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea. What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing. "But tank spam!" But shut the up. Tank spam is so overblown it's *** ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match. Not to mention lone wolf tankers are **. People without a mic are ***. Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. Well this would even the playing field a bit in the numerical balance between av vs Hav. That's all, to be honest Havs have are unique in that regard as LAV's have the driver separated from the gunner as well as most dropships so this would bring havs more in line with the other vehicles in theory. The problem I see with this is the lack of roles Havs have..the LAV is more a fast transport than an attack vehicle (even if i can be used as such) and the same is true for a dropship. But a Hav... And that's the main problem Hav's have no real role besides slaughtering infantry and maybe Av if there is another Hav. With the Railgun nerf they are not even that effective vs dropships. So basically Havs are there to fight other Havs or to fight infantry and this is not good at all at least for the second part. They need a role that is important but does not rely on slaughtering infantry and currently I don't see such a role. So I am afraid the current problems will stay. With favoring one side and then the other side depending on who cries the loudest. But I doubt CCP is able to solve this issue in the near future... What would you say if the purpose of HAV was just what you said it was....to combat any and all other ground based vehicles of equal or lesser size? To compensate for this HAV would have trouble engaging mobile units like infantry, not impossible, but no easy. Under this model HAV would become the top tier ground units, the hardest, most expensive units that ground based vehicle users could skill into, designed to take down emplacements, enemy vehicles, and anchor the line. However they would be susceptible to infantry and to a greater extent AV fire, which would require HAV to equip turrets or work with friendly infantry if they wanted to survive against enemy infantry. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9892	Posted - 2014.04.29 11:10:00 - [17] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: This is one of the most constructive HAV-AV conversations I've ever seen on these forums. There's some fundamental disagreement, but a willingness on both sides to keep the debate rational. Keep going guys. Personally I think the game needs both solo and crew-only assault vehicles. I'd go with crew-only HAVs and solo MAVs, but there are other viable options. I'd suggest that the skills required to operate the MAV (for solo play) form the basis for HAV work so tankers don't need to make a fundamental choice between the two. I assume it would be important to have the choice, in each battle, of whether to call in a solo or crewed vehicle. No a bad suggestion at all.... however I am still inclined to champion single pilot HAV until such a time as a better reasoned or phrased argument....however as always I will try as best I can to remain open to suggestions, and try to respond in an unbiased manner....which admittedly is not always easy. Do you have any specific objections to the solo-MAV, crewed-HAV model, or does it just need more elaboration? Here's a brief outline anyway:- I'd go with two MAVs initially, the Amarr mobile gun platform and the Minmatar squad transport. The squad transport has driver, top (small) turret and 4 extra seats; its almost as fast as a LAV, and has high EHP. The Amarr Mobile Gun Platform is single-seat, is as fast as HAVs are now, mounts a single large turret (only) but doesn't have much EHP. For HAVs, the driver would get the front (small) turret, along with its field of view. The large turret would get a small field of view. The third-person field-of-view would go to the top (small) turret - this would be for the tank commander, who would run the tank, issuing orders to the driver and main gunner. HAVs would get a slight speed nerf, the guns would remain roughly unchanged, and they could probably get an EHP buff to compensate for the requirement for 3 players. As for AV, the ISK cost of swarms and forges should be increased significantly, so that a decent fully-fitted AV suit costs about a third of what a decent fully-fitted HAV costs. AV vs HAV should be balanced around 3 competent players each side, both spending as much as they can, and then scaling down from there. AV vs MAV (gun platform) should be balanced around 1v1, with the MAV being tougher but the AV being able to hide and use cover more effectively. Balance around the AV player winning if he can get into a decent firing position, but getting slaughtered if he can't. When MAVs are introduced, all players should get the basic MAV skill and as many levels as they have in their best HAV skill. Oh, and introduce an Amarr laser cannon large turret to go with that MAV :-) It is that I am against it, I simply feel that if seats need to be broken down then any vehicle than can both pilot and provide a strong anti vehicle presence should be broken up. But I stand by my suggest that HAV don't need to necessarily provide pilots with a strong durable frame and AI capacity. A strong frame an powerful AV capacity would suffice, reducing the detrimental effect that HAV can have on infantry gameplay, while still allowing the main pilot to enjoy a specific and active role, at the same time encouraging multiple crew members, and reinforcing the role of the MAV as a troop transport and support vehicle. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:48:00 - [18] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:44:00 - [19] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. ^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules! Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO, basic should be doing maybe 180-200 per missile), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do. These moderate rebalances for AV, combined with the return of armor repairs as an active module, NOT an always-on passive module, will likely be sufficient to bring V/AV into balance. At the very least, it's a good starting point that is unlikely to cause major balance issues, like we have seen in the past. Yes I cannot deny that Swarms scale poorly per tier......something like a 53% increase from STD to Proto......thats not even remotely right, a rebalancing of this is require taking the STD damage up to a proportionate level damage per volley is absolutely necessary. I am not wholly sure about the PLC.... Would not large magazine capacity suit better? Or is its primary functionality supposed to be that of an arcing RPG round? AV grenades certainly do not need a full 50% buff, certainly some tweaks to their damage models may be required, but no so much so fast without testing or community feed back. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:55:00 - [20] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:08:00 - [21] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: True Adamance wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. I would like to querry that point, if you don't really care about kills, what do you care about? What drives a tanker to kill so many people? Money, winning? What defines the difference in kill importamce to a tanker? Out of intrest, no insult intended. I tank for fun..... well more specifically than that for the play style they have and used to have. I personally never thought I would be a vehicle person, but I like the slowed down and tactical approach you have to take when going up against strong tanker opposition. Positioning, Fire Power, Module Activation and timing, etc. I can't speak for all tankers, but to me things like Kills and WP mean so little, for me its all about ISK destroyed vs ISK lost both in a tank and on foot.. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10013	Posted - 2014.05.01 05:03:00 - [22] - Quote Guiltless D667 wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ***** Christ. edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea. What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing. "But tank spam!" But shut the up. Tank spam is so overblown it's *** ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match. Not to mention lone wolf tankers are **. People without a mic are ****. Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. It isn't a terrible idea. It doesn't solve anything 100% but it does have an effect on the problem by presenting a risk if overused, which is good enough without actually doing anything too severe regarding anything relating to stats or vehicle caps. How does it effect tank spam?Takes another boot off the main force,require two players in order to operate a HAV,spam too many tanks on the field at once and you run too little infantry power on the ground who actually do all the work,kinda in the same way spamming tanks effects players on the opposing team by them having switching single if not mutiple players to AV weapons to have to deal with you and just you. Tank spam is blown out of proportion yes but it very much real and does happen often because there nothing stomping someone over the range of a match from calling in tank after tank,death after death with little consequence when they have the ISK. In all honesty how many HAV do you think you will see if Tankers have to fully rely on another random players, or corp mate to fulfil a fundamental role? I know I won't be doing it, not because I can't but because I do not have a TZ that matches up with the rest of my corp. For your convenience you would effective kill the game for me, and probably other players alike..... I would just wait to spec into MTAC or Jets, etc. I don't understand why players come up with suggestions like this but instead ignore more reasonable statement like making HAV powerful AV units, requiring gunners and infantry support....... Luk Manag, the glorious individual who made me what I am today! LvL 10 Forum Warrior you scrubs!

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.