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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Clone D 314	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:22:00 - [1] - Quote 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. .
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2846	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:23:00 - [2] - Quote Cue the tanker QQ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
Supernus Gigas sNk Syndicate 783	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:24:00 - [3] - Quote No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ******* Christ. +öMiGü+¹ = GêÆ+¦+ún=1NDi[n][+újGêêC[i]Fji[n GêÆ 1] + Fexti[nGü+¹]]
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2273	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:24:00 - [4] - Quote This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. Nerdier than thou
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 662	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:25:00 - [5] - 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. NO . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Clone D 314	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:27:00 - [6] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. If there are that many people that support this concept, then this post should get a lot of likes. .
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 662	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:27:00 - [7] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. There is nothing to rage about besides another thread that tries to kill a role in the world of New Eden and that's what this forum does on a daily . Not a day goes by where this does not happen . If and when it does then maybe this community can start making strides to fix some of the real problems in game . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 2091	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:27:00 - [8] - Quote Why? ISK Donuts are delicious Q_Q Moar
LEHON Xeon Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 483	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:28:00 - [9] - Quote Inb4Speaker and Takahiro start the "poor me" tanker syndrome and how AV is fine and in some cases still OP yet. Always the last person to leave. Always the one cleaning up people's messes.
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2273	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:28:00 - [10] - Quote Clone D wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. If there are that many people that support this concept, then this post should get a lot of likes. likes are meaningless. CCP has already examined this idea and discarded it, you're doing absolutely nothing useful by bringing it up again. Dust needs an ISD system so we can lock **** like this. Nerdier than thou

jerrmy12 kahoalii Proficiency V. 1313	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:29:00 - [11] - 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. yawn Also your gun tanks two people to move and shoot I <3 girl gamers Tears, sweet delicious tears
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 662	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:29:00 - [12] - Quote Why wont a CPM make a post about the poison that is in the community and stop trying to push their agenda's ??? Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Sev Alcatraz Bullet Cluster 633	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:29:00 - [13] - 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. i want infantry to be multi maned as well separate legs from arms and head closed beta Vet >In a man to man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine. Erwin Rommel
Stupid Blueberry Nova Corps Marines Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 168	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:29:00 - [14] - 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. Ishukone loyalist and Caldari Scout enthusiast. Nerf the CR so I can justify using something else!
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 2592	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:30:00 - [15] - Quote I do think there is a place for a HAV variant that does this, just not all HAVs.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2847	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:41:00 - [16] - Quote 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. Good, now tell that to all those tankers who said it should require people working together to destroy them "Because Im in a tank" I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
Clone D 314	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:57:00 - [17] - Quote 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. One issue that this idea addresses is a disproportionate amount of HP, damage and speed granted to a single player. If two people operate a tank, then it significantly reduces the HP and damage per player. The game is obviously already a perverted simulation of war anyway with many weapons being rebalanced and having limited amount of grenades because people aren't having fun with too many grenades. So it seems that the game is not approaching realism, but some idea of persistent player frustration that CCP would like to offer to the world. So from a standpoint of fun alone, the community has made it quite clear that there is a problem with tanks. Why CCP would ignore that outcry and yet focus so intently on balancing the infantry gear is beyond me. I don't understand what you mean about "the complications of this convoluted idea" so if you wouldn't mind expounding, I can respond to that. If you're referring to the communication between driver and gunner, my response would be that the tank is perfectly playable without communication between them, just as the LAV is perfectly playable although the driver and gunner are separate. .
Supernus Gigas sNk Syndicate 783	Posted - 2014.04.28 20:57:00 - [18] - Quote Delta 749 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. Good, now tell that to all those tankers who said it should require people working together to destroy them "Because Im in a tank" 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. I lone-wolf pretty much all the time and the only tanks that I have a hard time soloing now are Triple Rep Madrugars, but that's a different problem on it's own. It doesn't take teamwork to take out a tank, it just makes it easier. +öMiGü+¹ = GêÆ+¦+ún=1NDi[n][+újGêêC[i]Fji[n GêÆ 1] + Fexti[nGü+¹]]
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2092	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:01:00 - [19] - Quote Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Clone D 314	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:02:00 - [20] - Quote 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. .

Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2092	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:03:00 - [21] - Quote This idea has been rejected so many times. Why try again? No. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lynn Beck Wake N' Bake Inc Top Men. 1577	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:04:00 - [22] - Quote Current tanks may be too strong, (might be) in terms of Mlt tank to Adv AV. However, i think we could just make the current HAV a little weaker, and introduce a HHav, with 4 seats(driver, gunner main, gunners 1/2) This HHav would have 4000 shield/2000 armor, or 5000armor, 2000 shield It would have a slot layout of 2/4 or 4/2 and move slower than a plated gunnlogi on a upward hill. General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4234	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:09:00 - [23] - Quote Do it. Respec my SP you mug. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:09:00 - [24] - 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
deepfried salad gilliam Sanguine Knights 695	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:10:00 - [25] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Current tanks may be too strong, (might be) in terms of Mlt tank to Adv AV. However, i think we could just make the current HAV a little weaker, and introduce a HHav, with 4 seats(driver, gunner main, gunners 1/2) This HHav would have 4000 shield/2000 armor, or 5000armor, 2000 shield It would have a slot layout of 2/4 or 4/2 and move slower than a plated gunnlogi on a upward hill. i wouldnt call it heavy heavy assault vehicle It'll help define roles, i promise:)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 839	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:12:00 - [26] - 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? No, terrible idea that doesn't address the problems with tanks. And using an LAV as comparison is TERRIBLE, as a LAV gunner ISN'T ESSENTIAL TO OPERATE THE LAV. Hell most of my LAV setups remove the turret all together. Yes, tanks are a little OP atm, but I've noticed a large shift away from their use since the recent changes. I will admit that it requires a bit more skill with the nerfs to operate a tank, and most scrubs aren't up to the task. Want some idea's on things that WILL make a difference to tanks. Fix forgeguns Add modules back in Adjusting timers on active modules Passive versions of the active modules Turret variety A focus on turret roles, and how that affects the tank overall I could go all day fella. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 839	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:13:00 - [27] - Quote 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...... Not to mention, that's MY isk invested in a tank I HAVE to share with someone else just to use. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2847	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:17:00 - [28] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: Delta 749 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. Good, now tell that to all those tankers who said it should require people working together to destroy them "Because Im in a tank" 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. I lone-wolf pretty much all the time and the only tanks that I have a hard time soloing now are Triple Rep Madrugars, but that's a different problem on it's own. It doesn't take teamwork to take out a tank, it just makes it easier. Ah that old fall back excuse that ignores the things that are broken with AV I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2850	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:19:00 - [29] - Quote 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 I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:21:00 - [30] - 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

Clone D 315	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 - [31] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Not to mention, that's MY isk invested in a tank I HAVE to share with someone else just to use. Agreed, but remember that you would still be able to use the tank for the many wonderful benefits that a tank provides, just not use the gun and drive simultaneously. It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you. .
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 - [32] - 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
Avinash Decker Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 113	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:25:00 - [33] - Quote 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:28:00 - [34] - 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
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:29:00 - [35] - Quote True Adamance 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 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. The point isnt how many shots it takes to destroy the tank but that your overall effectiveness isnt inherently gimped if you choose to engage one and that by immobilizing it you reduce its threat level as opposed to hitting the enemy in the back once and him activating his reps while you recharge or relock and popping his after burner to zoom off out of range and to safety One is an example of something being dangerous but having weaknesses that can be exploited, the other is an example of broken BS and personally I would much rather have the first in this game I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
MINA Longstrike 573	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:29:00 - [36] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). No. That is for literally every capsuleer ship in eve, even titans. It may take a years worth of real life training time to be able to undock like that, but it is doable by a single individual Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1333	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:36:00 - [37] - Quote Tanks are clearly too strong at the moment; this is evident from the need to arbitrarily limit them in Ambush. At some point CCP will nerf them and they'll become too weak. Then the cycle will begin again. The HAV / AV balance will swing back and forth forever, as far as I can tell, because it is simply impossible for CCP to find a middle ground that both sides are happy with. This is because tank drivers believe they should be more powerful than infantry, because of ISK spent and "its a tank". Infantry, on the other hand, see one player with a massive speed, HP and DPS advantage over other players, in a game where the most scarce resource in any battle is the 16 players per side. The OP is a sensible suggestion for how to break this cycle, by balancing HAV vs AV around 3 players on each side. I agree, however, that CCP are very unlikely to implement it. Enjoy the merry-go-round RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:37:00 - [38] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). No. That is for literally every capsuleer ship in eve, even titans. It may take a years worth of real life training time to be able to undock like that, but it is doable by a single individual The capsules reduce the number of crew needed but those ships still have a crew Hell you can just type "do capsuleer ships have crews" and the first thing that pops up is an Eve forum thread discussing and confirming yes those ships have crews I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
Autoaim Bot514 The Hetairoi 91	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:38:00 - [39] - Quote This would actually empower tanks. You get a second pair of eyes, and 2 brains operating a vehicle. One driving and managing modules, and the other concentrating on shooting.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2093	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:46:00 - [40] - 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 You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

R F Gyro Clones 4u 1334	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:49:00 - [41] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it. That is in no way a valid game balance argument. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:50:00 - [42] - Quote 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 I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
Izlare Lenix Arrogance. 524	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:51:00 - [43] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). No. That is for literally every capsuleer ship in eve, even titans. It may take a years worth of real life training time to be able to undock like that, but it is doable by a single individual Are you seriously comparing a titan to a tank? A titan costs roughly 80bil ISK, which even in EVE is a boat load of isk. More than most players could even come close to. It takes years to train to fly one and months to build. Most importantly you will NEVER see a player solo in a titan, unless they are complete idiots. Titans are only used when there is a massive fleet to support them. Tanks on the other hand are cheap, even by dust standards. They are easy to train, easy to use and do not require support. Tankers feel it is fair and balanced that it requires teamwork to kill them. Yet they cringe at the very idea of a tank requiring teamwork. This proves tankers want their easy mode to stay a solo mode, regardless of how unbalanced it is. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.
Byozuma Kegawa Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 243	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:07:00 - [44] - Quote Back to the issue of tanks and gunners you have to understand that practically all of those other FPS mentioned the tanks are a fixed spawn. They will almost always spawn where they spawn (unless a troll on the other team takes them all and hides them in their base). As such there is no personal risk in it's loss. So in those games it makes sense to have the gunner and driver as separate roles to promote teamwork. In Dust there are NO fixed spawn vehicles. None. Every vehicle was bought and paid for by a player. As such each one is a personal investment and the last thing they likely want is to lose it because they switched to the turret only to have some random player jump behind the wheel and drive it off into the sunset (forgegun fire/redline). The teamwork dynamic is still there as anyone can switch to AV without too much trouble forcing the tanker to maintain a support presence. If vehicles in Dust were a fixed spawn I'd be all for driver and gunners, but they aren't so having the roles be made distinct would be a detriment to those who want to drive tanks.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:17:00 - [45] - 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
Cotsy The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 17	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:05:00 - [46] - 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? Louis C.K. of course, of course. This has been suggested a few times before, it only makes sense. Although you fail to provide any other reasons only than it makes sense, the idea of 2 people in a tank to operate turret and to drive, it great. If it takes 3-4 people to take down a tank, why is only 1 person occupying their efforts? In a 16v16 match, 3 tanks could occupy a lot of people's effort. It creates a numbers unbalance, regardless of the strength of the tank being OP are not. Number wise, dealing with a tank should be reflective of the tanks strength, but any reasonable person can see a tank would require more than one individual to operate. You can also add modern day tanking, modern day aviation, etc... As examples of how these vehicles should be used and would naturally be used in the future.
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 2598	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:08:00 - [47] - Quote Cotsy wrote: Although you fail to provide any other reasons only than it makes sense, the idea of 2 people in a tank to operate turret and to drive, it great. If it takes 3-4 people to take down a tank, why is only 1 person occupying their efforts? In a 16v16 match, 3 tanks could occupy a lot of people's effort. It creates a numbers unbalance, regardless of the strength of the tank being OP are not. Number wise, dealing with a tank should be reflective of the tanks strength, but any reasonable person can see a tank would require more than one individual to operate. AV is not that linear. If 3 people are required to take down 1 tank, then 3 people would be required to take down 2 tanks. Sure... not simultaneously but it's not like that second tanker is just all of the sudden immune to the AV from those first 3 people. The numbers start to change a bit when you get up to 5-6 tanks though, by that point I would say you need at least 5-6 AV to be able to just alpha down that many tankers.
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 1234	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:13:00 - [48] - Quote Separate a heavies ability to move and fire, and you have a deal. This is one of the more ******** ideas the forums spit out from time to time. The problem has been that large blasters shouldn't have been made to kill infantry in the first place. Large turrets should be for killing vehicles, and small turrets should be for killing infantry. The only issue with making the large blaster an AV weapon is the lack of things for them to shoot. Other than blaster tanks and the occasional drop ship, there's really nothing else for AV to kill. Once they release all the types of vehicles (MAVs, heavy drop ships, etc.) then we need to rework large blasters into AV. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:14:00 - [49] - Quote 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. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:18:00 - [50] - 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

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:20:00 - [51] - Quote 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? EDIT: Also, True, I know that you are social enough to have at least a few people lined up that could help you form a crew. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:23:00 - [52] - 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
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:34:00 - [53] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. 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. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:38:00 - [54] - 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
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:47:00 - [55] - Quote 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"). Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9862	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:50:00 - [56] - 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
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:09:00 - [57] - Quote 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? Which is why IMHO, it is a better idea to separate the Driver and Main Gunner. It allows both functions to be performed at the same time though it requires more than just one puppykicking jackass with a mouse and keyboard to execute. Note, I am not saying that you are a puppykicking jackass, though we both know that there are more than a few in this community. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Lynn Beck Wake N' Bake Inc Top Men. 1577	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:19:00 - [58] - Quote Make large blasters have less range, and make them Anti-tank. Small blasters gain a Cone of fire, and a flat DPS buff. Small rails are pinpoint accurate, and are given a slight Damage buff. Missiles should have their splash radius increased, but damage decreased. Instead of missiles 'aiming' off center, they curve mid-flight. Large missiles should reload Cyclicly, like a shotgun. Large rails should have their RoF dropped significantly, in addition to a 10-15% damage nerf. Rebuff range to 400-450z General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 1235	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:23:00 - [59] - 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"). Large turrets shouldn't be incapable of AP. Small turrets should just be better at it. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 567	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:28:00 - [60] - Quote 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. YES And i would say the same for the ANTI vehicle roles! why should it take multiple AV players to counter 1 tank effectively? If you want to survive against a proto AV player of any type it should require good fittings on the tank AND smart driving. Right now it does not require either 1 AV player vs 1 tank = 1 laughing tanker.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9863	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:29:00 - [61] - 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
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:31:00 - [62] - 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. Ok, so poor choice in words on my part, but I do think it should be exceedingly easier to get AP kills with Small Turrets. EDIT: True summed it up nicely. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Doctor Day EoN Minmatar 151	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:31:00 - [63] - Quote **** this,we need a Assault Lav,300K (just like ADS) Obvious troll is Obvious TROLOLOLOLOL HEAR MY MIGHTY TROLOLOLOL
Clone D 330	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:37:00 - [64] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: ... Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. YES And i would say the same for the ANTI vehicle roles! why should it take multiple AV players to counter 1 tank effectively? If you want to survive against a proto AV player of any type it should require good fittings on the tank AND smart driving. Right now it does not require either 1 AV player vs 1 tank = 1 laughing tanker. Agreed. .
Rusty Shallows Caldari State 1703	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:40:00 - [65] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Tanks are clearly too strong at the moment; this is evident from the need to arbitrarily limit them in Ambush. At some point CCP will nerf them and they'll become too weak. Then the cycle will begin again. The HAV / AV balance will swing back and forth forever, as far as I can tell, because it is simply impossible for CCP to find a middle ground that both sides are happy with. snip Enjoy the merry-go-round Pretty much this. CCP painted themselves in a corner with the crazy political-nerfing last December. Any Infantry AV changes now would make it look like they admitted to being wrong which leaves them their last tool, nerfing. My hope is it is incremental and cautious until they are down to the current AV. I find the whole matter very depressing since CCP advertised Uprising 1.7 as a major update that was being carefully prepared. It was two updates late and didn't fix anything. Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
Atikali Havendoorr Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:47:00 - [66] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. Did they mention why they think so?
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 664	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:56:00 - [67] - Quote Clone D wrote: It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you. This is what the community thinks about tankers anyway so this would just reinforce that type of mind state . Tankers do not tank because of this but for the reason that is their love for vehicle usage and the support factor . I don't need to list the positives that tankers provide on the battlefield , seeing as how most of you play the same game and see how a good tanker would be a great benefit to any squad . No other role and I mean no other , has to deal with the crap and constant barrage of the community like tankers do . That's a dam shame because you just don't hear any CPM 's speaking up on behalf of tankers and it's part of the reason seeing as how they are suppose to be player rep's but in this case they are doing more harm than good . They can create threads defending scouts because most play that role , they can make little side comments to increase the flame of fire in this one sided event , the one side being the community for the most part against tankers but they are doing nothing for those who are operating vehicle's . They need to be replaced and a new set of CPM's who will fight for the right's of players to play and use whatever role that suits them and not just the one's that most play . We need CPM's who are not biased and who will jump up and quell matters like such , where it is clear that matters have been and are overblown and propagated in the forums on a daily basis . They can't tell others what to do but they can uphold the values that are suppose to be a part of the game that are not being done or enforced at the moment . They do nothing unless it effects them personally and they are trying to push their own agenda's like tiericide and others but never have I seen them come out to the defense of a role that they do not play and they read the forums and say and do nothing like they are in agreement and this is why it's so one sided . This game is so biased and it's beginning to wear on my patients . No real desire to address the real issues but increasing desire to create them out of thin air to disrupt and kill roles and ultimately the game . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Clone D 338	Posted - 2014.04.29 01:09:00 - [68] - Quote 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. .
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2425	Posted - 2014.04.29 01:12:00 - [69] - Quote just so you know the reason some of you don't experience tank spam in matches is not because tankers don't spam tanks, but because a few dedicated tankers like myself go out of our way to eliminate them before most of you even notice them. trust me I kill 10+ tanks a game every game. consistently without fail. tank spam is a thing but some of you are lucky enough to be able to ignore it.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9868	Posted - 2014.04.29 01:12:00 - [70] - 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

Clone D 338	Posted - 2014.04.29 01:15:00 - [71] - Quote calisk galern wrote: trust me I kill 10+ tanks a game every game. consistently without fail. I am a proud supporter of this behavior! My best regards to you. .
Thokk Nightshade Onuoto Uakan Huogaatsu Lokun Listamenn 97	Posted - 2014.04.29 04:11:00 - [72] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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. Ok, so poor choice in words on my part, but I do think it should be exceedingly easier to get AP kills with Small Turrets. EDIT: True summed it up nicely. 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.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9883	Posted - 2014.04.29 04:32:00 - [73] - 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
Thokk Nightshade Onuoto Uakan Huogaatsu Lokun Listamenn 97	Posted - 2014.04.29 04:58:00 - [74] - Quote 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.)
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 502	Posted - 2014.04.29 05:13:00 - [75] - Quote Why is it when I suggest the same thing I get all the hate and no likes and here you got all the likes.. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9884	Posted - 2014.04.29 05:23:00 - [76] - 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
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1943	Posted - 2014.04.29 06:13:00 - [77] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so poor choice in words on my part, but I do think it should be exceedingly easier to get AP kills with Small Turrets (than it is to get them with Large Turrets). EDIT: True summed it up nicely. 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. Fixed for Clarity (change above in parens). Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Void Echo Total Extinction 2475	Posted - 2014.04.29 07:28:00 - [78] - Quote If this were ever implemented, the Tanker class would literally go extinct because of several reasons. Most notably: 1. Nobody who invests SP in tanks wants to be driven around by some random idiot who will get them both killed by charging into the enemy because; Random Player- "OH LOOK I'M DRIVING A TANK, IM INVINCABLE!!!!!!" Vehicle Owner- "NO YOUR NOT YOU ******* IDIOT!!! STOP, STOP, YOUR DRIVING US STRAIGHT INTO THE ENEMY, WERE GOING TO DIE!!!". 5 seconds later....... Boom, Tank is destroyed and both players are killed, the vehicle owner loses the ISK while the random player loses nothing. 2. Nobody who invests SP in tanks wants to drive someone else around while the other person gets all the kills and points and the driver gets nothing; Random Player- "WEE THIS IS SO FUN, I"M KILLING THEM ALL AND I CAN'T BE HURT!!!" Vehicle Owner- "....omg this is so **** boring, I'm leaving this game and never coming back until my SP is refunded so I don't have to drive idiots around and get nothing while they take everything, this I'm out." 5 seconds later, the vehicle owner quits the game, uninstalls Dust514 and the random player dies because of nobody driving. 3. There is the issue of who pays for the price of the tank with both SP and ISK. Who pays for what? Who skills for what? Who gets their assets taken away when the vehicle is destroyed? And what gets taken away? The reason why you cannot compare LAVs to HAVs- is that with an HAV the point of owning one is having the main gun, you can hardly ever kill anyone by running them over because of their speed and infantry's ability to run out of the way. With LAVs the turret is rarely ever used by anyone that knows about them mainly because; A- They are inaccurate at high speeds on the ground. B- They can be removed from all vehicle types. C- They are not mandatory and are pretty much worthless on any vehicle that doesn't fly.; And you can run people over with LAV with much ease than you can with an HAV. LAVs are used mainly for ground transport when dropships cant survive and are quick enough to avoid tank fire if the driver is skilled or lucky enough. HAVs are used to fight everything in sight, you can use them for transport but there is nothing that encourages that. The main cannon of the HAV is what separates it from the other vehicles. The dropship can come with up to 2 Small Turrets or 3 if you go with the ADS only, there are no Main cannons on the dropship nor can there be (Yet), the LAV can come with only a single Small Turret that is now removable, thus making its use even more of a liability, there is also no room for a Main Cannon on an LAV (Yet), the HAV can have up to 2 Small turrets of the users choice and one Main Cannon, the Small Turrets can be removed now which makes them almost worthless yet we cannot remove the Main Cannon, the Main Cannon is the most power user weapon in Dust514 or it should be because of it's size and can be fitted ONLY on HAVs and nothing else. Conclusion:** To Separate the Main Cannon from the Driver seat of the HAV would be to completely kill off the HAV class, it would be extinct because it's practical use would be non existent and its worth would go down to nothing. Any Questions? Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1369	Posted - 2014.04.29 07:43:00 - [79] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Why wont a CPM make a post about the poison that is in the community and stop trying to push their agenda's ??? here is a tissue... for your whiny vag. why dont you finally git gud and stop posting useless scrub stuff? he has all right to express his feelings and post suggestions. if you do not like it, well, COD is that way =>>>>>>> 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. Godin Thekiller wrote: Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). actually ships in eve have crews, even frigates. you just dont have access to them and they are not relevant anyway because they are just disposable.
Athena Sentinel SOE Knights Templar 291	Posted - 2014.04.29 07:55:00 - [80] - 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? Good point.

R F Gyro Clones 4u 1337	Posted - 2014.04.29 09:25:00 - [81] - Quote 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. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9890	Posted - 2014.04.29 09:32:00 - [82] - 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 - [83] - 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
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 942	Posted - 2014.04.29 09:46:00 - [84] - Quote 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...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9891	Posted - 2014.04.29 10:03:00 - [85] - 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
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1337	Posted - 2014.04.29 10:37:00 - [86] - Quote 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 :-) RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9892	Posted - 2014.04.29 11:10:00 - [87] - 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
BDiD HEAVY LOGISTIC OPERATIONS 0	Posted - 2014.04.29 11:48:00 - [88] - Quote Holyyy, I've seen everything since beta. Ill be honest. Before there was a milkman. Noob tankers are easy to blow up. The only people that qq are the ones who can't figure out what the crazy builds that won't die are... Or someone who has proto swarms and they won't work... Proto forge and crazzzzyyy good scouts can one man tanks. Im not fully tanker, but when i have over 5,000,000 sp into tanks, turrets, passive reps, allll the good stuff... NO you should not be able to kill me or anyone else easily. It should take coordinated effort. Forge, remotes, and swarms. That's the way it is and has been for 15 + months. That's why there called tanks and take millions of SP to be half decent. If you get killed my Milita gear tanks, then well. You suck. An yes i know milt tanks can kill almost as well. BESIDES that.... Possibly solution... Just cut damage in half 50% to infantry Only 100% damage to other vehicles. I'm ok with that. I have more fun killing other tanks not infantry. This will cut down on tank spam in Amb. If a mil tank only did 52.5 hp a shot with mil turrets, (no dmg mods at milt level need to be put in) people would feel safer trying to kill them while on the ground.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1337	Posted - 2014.04.29 11:50:00 - [89] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Not sure I understand this, could you clarify? Are you worried about dropships? Quote: 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. I'd probably be willing to support this, but I'd be worried that it would lead to largely independent infantry and tank battles, with infantry and tanks each fighting their own battles (on the same map) and largely ignoring each other. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3505	Posted - 2014.04.29 12:10:00 - [90] - Quote This bad idea once again pops up In comparision to a LAV lolfail the turret is at the back of the LAV Also who skills up what? who pays for what? who fits up the vehicle? who calls it in? do i have to use 2ppl for my playstyle all the time? do our skills stacking together? do we get a stronger vehicle since it takes 2 to operate it? will it require 2 AV to kill a 2man vehicle? This idea doesnt allow soloing as a vehicle pilot, you are punished and are forced to always have to work with someone Maybe we should do this to infantry, 2 ppl to a dropsuit, 1 person controls the legs and the other controls the gun

Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 93	Posted - 2014.04.29 12:33:00 - [91] - Quote BDiD wrote: Holyyy, I've seen everything since beta. Ill be honest. Before there was a milkman. Noob tankers are easy to blow up. The only people that qq are the ones who can't figure out what the crazy builds that won't die are... Or someone who has proto swarms and they won't work... Proto forge and crazzzzyyy good scouts can one man tanks. Im not fully tanker, but when i have over 5,000,000 sp into tanks, turrets, passive reps, allll the good stuff... NO you should not be able to kill me or anyone else easily. It should take coordinated effort. Forge, remotes, and swarms. That's the way it is and has been for 15 + months. That's why there called tanks and take millions of SP to be half decent. If you get killed my Milita gear tanks, then well. You suck. An yes i know milt tanks can kill almost as well. BESIDES that.... Possibly solution... Just cut damage in half 50% to infantry Only 100% damage to other vehicles. I'm ok with that. I have more fun killing other tanks not infantry. This will cut down on tank spam in Amb. If a mil tank only did 52.5 hp a shot with mil turrets, (no dmg mods at milt level need to be put in) people would feel safer trying to kill them while on the ground. Why shouldn't I be at least CAPABLE of killing you solo, if I've spent the equivalent (or more) SP in a particular AV weapon, and other appropriate skills to enhance it's effectiveness? I'm not saying it should be easy but, with a COMPARABLE SP expenditure, the deciding factor should come down to player skill above all else. Personally, if it should take a coordinated effort for Infantry AV to take out a tank, then it should take an equally coordinated effort to operate a tank. Personally, I'd be okay with with that if the driver were limited to AV weapons ONLY and, if he wants to kill or protect himself from infantry, then he should have to equip an additional AI turret and bring a friend along to operate it.
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 942	Posted - 2014.04.29 12:39:00 - [92] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. I guess CCP somehow planned this, but I simply don't see this happen any time soon :(. This would require quite some changes to the current game not only content wise (currently there isn't much to fight for HAVs apart from Infantry) but also balancing and map design has to change rather drastically. I sure would love that i can just imagine how it would feel to attack an fortified position with Havs on my side or to have large infantry supported vehicle battles. But I really doubt CCP is able or willing do the necessary changes to achieve this.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 667	Posted - 2014.04.29 12:56:00 - [93] - Quote Jack McReady wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Why wont a CPM make a post about the poison that is in the community and stop trying to push their agenda's ??? here is a tissue... for your whiny vag. why dont you finally git gud and stop posting useless scrub stuff? he has all right to express his feelings and post suggestions. if you do not like it, well, COD is that way =>>>>>>> My KDR is almost 4 with over 12,000 kills and less than 4,000 deaths ( playing for seven months ) and I didn't get that from just sniping and tanking either , I know for a fact that I'm not a scrub , now elite I'm not but I'm getting there but a scrub , nope sure not ... I'm sure I can out infantry , snipe and tank you also prob out fly you too so I will see you on the battlefield , don't have to comment on this one I will let my actions back me up on this case . Don't worry , I excepted your challenge . A CPM is suppose to be the rep for the community , like in a union or government if a rep sees something wrong being done it's their obligation from taking up that post to confront that wrong doing and correct those who are participating . Why do I have to read about their thoughts on tiericide or see comments about scouts when that issue comes up with them in defense of scouts ??? They should speak about the propaganda spam in concerns of tanks , they should speak in defense of tankers and vehicle users because that is their job . I know a lot of you doesn't know or understand what that mean , even though you work you still might not understand what dedication means , responsibility of and in upholding values that are suppose to be a part of this game and it's environment . That should be a priority not pushing their own personal agenda , the actions of keeping the calm among members of the community , putting those who exaggerate in their place by confronting them on the forums and exposing their lies , they can do it for the roles that they play and in their pushing of their beliefs in what they feel would make the game better , why not make the game better by exposing the lies and correcting those who are trying to spam propaganda in the forums in an attempt to have players roles changed for the worst . If I played COD then you wouldn't see me here but you will see me sir and you might regret it when you do . I will show you what happens when you call certain players out , you might not like what you have to deal with because I know for a fact that I'm not a scrub . This is why The Horned Wolf should be a CPM , he sees problems in the forums and he speaks up about it and addresses it . He at least makes an attempt to show players the error of their ways by stating facts and showing flaws in their propaganda . People like that command respect and not coddling to your friends or those who you seek acceptance from . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 667	Posted - 2014.04.29 13:03:00 - [94] - Quote Clone D wrote: Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? This is not true as well because I operate my LAV alone and perform quite well in killing infantry . Maybe I should do this all day so as to show those who I happen to play with in the community that this can be done . Some of you players are a joke in your comments and statements that you make . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 943	Posted - 2014.04.29 13:37:00 - [95] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Clone D wrote: Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? This is not true as well because I operate my LAV alone and perform quite well in killing infantry . Maybe I should do this all day so as to show those who I happen to play with in the community that this can be done . Some of you players are a joke in your comments and statements that you make . You could do this as a HAV Pilot as well...so there you have not really a point here... Even though I still believe that is not the answer to the underlying problem...
Poonmunch Sanguis Defense Syndicate 870	Posted - 2014.04.29 14:10:00 - [96] - 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? This is a common sense, excellent idea. They should be separate. If a guy wants to tank he needs a crew. Please implement this CCP. Munch Minmatar Patriot (Level 7) Dedicated Sniper
Clone D 349	Posted - 2014.04.29 16:06:00 - [97] - Quote If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind. Dropsuit Class: Demigod Armor: 2500 Shield: 2500 Movement Speed: 80 km/h Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon Damage: 1250 Splash Damage: 250 Rate of Fire: 3 per second However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank. A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power. Typically, they gang up now to cover each other which only magnifies the problem. .
da GAND L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 811	Posted - 2014.04.29 16:10:00 - [98] - Quote 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 maybe people with a pilot suit can man a tank by themselves but without a pilot suit it requires a few people to man a tank. How about that? Rage at Fanfest??
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1341	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:34:00 - [99] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: This bad idea once again pops up In comparision to a LAV lolfail the turret is at the back of the LAV Also who skills up what? who pays for what? who fits up the vehicle? who calls it in? do i have to use 2ppl for my playstyle all the time? do our skills stacking together? do we get a stronger vehicle since it takes 2 to operate it? will it require 2 AV to kill a 2man vehicle? This idea doesnt allow soloing as a vehicle pilot, you are punished and are forced to always have to work with someone Any of the crew can train the fitting skills and then call in the tank. Fitting skills and operations skills would be independent, so a driver would have driving skills, the gunner would have skills to increase DPS. Whoever calls it in pays for it; the rest of the crew can donate ISK if necessary. No, you don't have to have a crew all the time. Drive a MAV solo if you want, just don't expect it to have several thousand HP and a large turret. Yes, HAVs would get stronger if they require a crew (preferably of 3) to operate. But most AV players wouldn't object because balance would be maintained. 3 v 3 is fair. Quote: Maybe we should do this to infantry, 2 ppl to a dropsuit, 1 person controls the legs and the other controls the gun Probably best that I ignore this RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 375	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:39:00 - [100] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Minmatar & Gallente A.R.C. Program Instructor / Do you even lift?

R F Gyro Clones 4u 1342	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:40:00 - [101] - Quote Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Is there a link to that CCP statement, out of interest? RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1949	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:40:00 - [102] - Quote Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 375	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:41:00 - [103] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Is there a link to that CCP statement, out of interest? You could probably find it somewhere, though I'm at school and haven't the time at this moment. Minmatar & Gallente A.R.C. Program Instructor / Do you even lift?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3511	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:45:00 - [104] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: This bad idea once again pops up In comparision to a LAV lolfail the turret is at the back of the LAV Also who skills up what? who pays for what? who fits up the vehicle? who calls it in? do i have to use 2ppl for my playstyle all the time? do our skills stacking together? do we get a stronger vehicle since it takes 2 to operate it? will it require 2 AV to kill a 2man vehicle? This idea doesnt allow soloing as a vehicle pilot, you are punished and are forced to always have to work with someone Any of the crew can train the fitting skills and then call in the tank. Fitting skills and operations skills would be independent, so a driver would have driving skills, the gunner would have skills to increase DPS. Whoever calls it in pays for it; the rest of the crew can donate ISK if necessary. No, you don't have to have a crew all the time. Drive a MAV solo if you want, just don't expect it to have several thousand HP and a large turret. Yes, HAVs would get stronger if they require a crew (preferably of 3) to operate. But most AV players wouldn't object because balance would be maintained. 3 v 3 is fair. Quote: Maybe we should do this to infantry, 2 ppl to a dropsuit, 1 person controls the legs and the other controls the gun Probably best that I ignore this No we cant If i stay as a driver and dont fit up any gunnary skills i cannot fit on any guns to it, how can i fit guns to it if i dont have the skills for it? The fit would be invalid and i wouldnt be able to call it in Also MAV doesnt exist yet Why should you ignore it? that is what your are asking is to do, 2 for our playstyle but only 1 for yours
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1342	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:52:00 - [105] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No we cant If i stay as a driver and dont fit up any gunnary skills i cannot fit on any guns to it, how can i fit guns to it if i dont have the skills for it? The fit would be invalid and i wouldnt be able to call it in If you only train driving skills then, no, you won't be able to run solo. But that would be daft, and you wouldn't do it. As a driver, you'd probably train fairly balanced vehicle fitting and operations skills, but with extra emphasis on the driving ones. Quote: Also MAV doesnt exist yet We're talking about the future state of the game, remember. As many tankers have rightly pointed out, completely preventing you from running solo is a terrible idea, and introducing MAVs is the solution to that. You can play solo in a MAV and go 1v1 against AV. Or you can play as a crew in a HAV and go 3v3 against AV. Quote: Why should you ignore it? that is what your are asking is to do, 2 for our playstyle but only 1 for yours I should ignore it because if I didn't I'd think you were being petulant and foolish. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1949	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:54:00 - [106] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: This bad idea once again pops up In comparision to a LAV lolfail the turret is at the back of the LAV Also who skills up what? who pays for what? who fits up the vehicle? who calls it in? do i have to use 2ppl for my playstyle all the time? do our skills stacking together? do we get a stronger vehicle since it takes 2 to operate it? will it require 2 AV to kill a 2man vehicle? This idea doesnt allow soloing as a vehicle pilot, you are punished and are forced to always have to work with someone Any of the crew can train the fitting skills and then call in the tank. Fitting skills and operations skills would be independent, so a driver would have driving skills, the gunner would have skills to increase DPS. Whoever calls it in pays for it; the rest of the crew can donate ISK if necessary. No, you don't have to have a crew all the time. Drive a MAV solo if you want, just don't expect it to have several thousand HP and a large turret. Yes, HAVs would get stronger if they require a crew (preferably of 3) to operate. But most AV players wouldn't object because balance would be maintained. 3 v 3 is fair. Quote: Maybe we should do this to infantry, 2 ppl to a dropsuit, 1 person controls the legs and the other controls the gun Probably best that I ignore this No we cant If i stay as a driver and dont fit up any gunnary skills i cannot fit on any guns to it, how can i fit guns to it if i dont have the skills for it? The fit would be invalid and i wouldnt be able to call it in Also MAV doesnt exist yet Why should you ignore it? that is what your are asking is to do, 2 for our playstyle but only 1 for yours Here you go again, decrying something because the mechanics for it aren't in game yet, though when it suits, you don't hesitate to bring up the Pilot suit (which, surprise, surprise, the mechanics for it aren't in game yet) Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1342	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:56:00 - [107] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Here you go again, decrying something because the mechanics for it aren't in game yet, though when it suits, you don't hesitate to bring up the Pilot suit (which, surprise, surprise, the mechanics for it aren't in game yet) Not sure what you mean. I'm saying I agree with the OP that HAVs should require a crew to operate effectively, but that I think that would be conditional on introducing MAVs to support solo tanking. I thought I was being reasonable. And I don't recall ever mentioning pilot suits, though I do happen to believe they would be a good idea. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1949	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:58:00 - [108] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Here you go again, decrying something because the mechanics for it aren't in game yet, though when it suits, you don't hesitate to bring up the Pilot suit (which, surprise, surprise, the mechanics for it aren't in game yet) Not sure what you mean. I'm saying I agree with the OP that HAVs should require a crew to operate effectively, but that I think that would be conditional on introducing MAVs to support solo tanking. I thought I was being reasonable. And I don't recall ever mentioning pilot suits, though I do happen to believe they would be a good idea. This was directed at English, not you my lovely Faction fitting. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Ander Thedas Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 585	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:59:00 - [109] - Quote Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. False. Every EVE ship is manned, even the smallest ones. In addition to the Capsuleer there are crews (sometimes of thousands) keeping a ship operational. Omnia mutantur nihil interit FW lvl10 reward
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3511	Posted - 2014.04.29 18:08:00 - [110] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: No we cant If i stay as a driver and dont fit up any gunnary skills i cannot fit on any guns to it, how can i fit guns to it if i dont have the skills for it? The fit would be invalid and i wouldnt be able to call it in If you only train driving skills then, no, you won't be able to run solo. But that would be daft, and you wouldn't do it. As a driver, you'd probably train fairly balanced vehicle fitting and operations skills, but with extra emphasis on the driving ones. Quote: Also MAV doesnt exist yet We're talking about the future state of the game, remember. As many tankers have rightly pointed out, completely preventing you from running solo is a terrible idea, and introducing MAVs is the solution to that. You can play solo in a MAV and go 1v1 against AV. Or you can play as a crew in a HAV and go 3v3 against AV. Quote: Why should you ignore it? that is what your are asking is to do, 2 for our playstyle but only 1 for yours I should ignore it because if I didn't I'd think you were being petulant and foolish. If i drive i focus on driving, i wouldnt train up useless skills in the hope that i actually have 1 person willing to go gunner but if i cant even fit up the vehicle or even deploy it then the idea is useless Currently we cant use anything if we dont have the required skills for it so having a 2nd person with the skills for it wont be able to make the 1st person use it because they dont have the skills MAV doesnt exist

Void Echo Total Extinction 2477	Posted - 2014.04.29 18:37:00 - [111] - Quote Ander Thedas wrote: Stupid Blueberry 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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. False. Every EVE ship is manned, even the smallest ones. In addition to the Capsuleer there are crews (sometimes of thousands) keeping a ship operational. those little guys don't really exist, they don't do anything, they do not help in battle nor in any practical way, there was a dev post somewhere that says that a single capsuler controls the whole ship with his mind thus the immortal capsuler. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Poonmunch Sanguis Defense Syndicate 871	Posted - 2014.04.29 18:53:00 - [112] - Quote Clone D wrote: If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind. Dropsuit Class: Demigod Armor: 2500 Shield: 2500 Movement Speed: 80 km/h Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon Damage: 1250 Splash Damage: 250 Rate of Fire: 3 per second However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank. A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power. Typically, they gang up now to cover each other which only magnifies the problem. This. Munch Minmatar Patriot (Level 7) Dedicated Sniper
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1343	Posted - 2014.04.29 18:55:00 - [113] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: This was directed at English, not you my lovely Faction fitting. Doh! My reading comprehension is as good as my gun game RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1343	Posted - 2014.04.29 19:07:00 - [114] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If i drive i focus on driving, i wouldnt train up useless skills in the hope that i actually have 1 person willing to go gunner but if i cant even fit up the vehicle or even deploy it then the idea is useless Currently we cant use anything if we dont have the required skills for it so having a 2nd person with the skills for it wont be able to make the 1st person use it because they dont have the skills Sorry, I'm really struggling to follow you here. If you are saying that you don't have any corpmates or friends that you could team up with then you'll clearly need to run solo. I have absolutely no problem with that, and have suggested implementing an entire class of vehicles to support your play style. Just don't expect me to support you having way more DPS, EHP and speed than any infantry player. My advice though, in the unlikely event that this is implemented, would be to train a basic level of vehicle fitting and operations skills so that you can handle any role reasonably well, then decide on one of the 3 tank crew roles (driver, gunner, commander) and skill up even further in those. Quote: MAV doesnt exist Minmatar Heavy didn't exist until recently. Didn't stop people wanting them. Didn't stop CCP from implementing them. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Void Echo Total Extinction 2477	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:19:00 - [115] - Quote If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1351	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:21:00 - [116] - Quote Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1951	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:27:00 - [117] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. Gyro, it is the only argument they can come up with, at least that doesn't include faeries and magical HAV bunnies. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Big Burns Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dirt Nap Squad. 143	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:31:00 - [118] - 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? Because HAV take a lot more isk and SP to use. Possibly the best around.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1037	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:33:00 - [119] - 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? This is a very old topic. Usually the discussion has ended in majority siding with solo-tanks, with some okay reasons. Still I would prefer HAVs having separate main gunner. Why? Because I would like to leave the vehicular solo slaugher to frigin' MTACs!!!! Came back to Dust from a break and what did I find? Cloakies with physical invisibility which works in all situations.=(
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2333	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:35:00 - [120] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. Nerdier than thou

Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 637	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:36:00 - [121] - Quote Big Burns 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? Because HAV take a lot more isk and SP to use. The same could have been said for pre-Uprising Dropships (before the ADS variant was introduced) which required at least 2 people to operate effectively and had cost about the same as current tanks do now. Ultimately it comes down to tankers not wanting to engage in teamwork in order to effectively operate their vehicles. I'm not suggesting that this is an inherently good or bad thing but it is what it is. Saga v. Methana Balance
Smooth Assassin Stardust Incorporation IMMORTAL REGIME 1385	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:41:00 - [122] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. Look above, theres already tanker rage. *Assassination is my thing.*
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2335	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:45:00 - [123] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. Pushing this post so that it's on the last page of the thread instead of the last post of the second-to-last page, for relevance. Super /thread Nerdier than thou
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1951	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:50:00 - [124] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. Yes, because "in the short term" means never, ever, ever. lol Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Clone D 368	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:50:00 - [125] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. The link above is considering the LAV Analogy Argument ... ... but now we have the Dropsuit Analogy Argument: Clone D wrote: If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind. Dropsuit Class: Demigod Armor: 2500 Shield: 2500 Movement Speed: 80 km/h Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon Damage: 1250 Splash Damage: 250 Rate of Fire: 3 per second However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank. A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power. .
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2337	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:55:00 - [126] - Quote Clone D wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. The link above is considering the LAV Analogy Argument ... ... but now we have the Dropsuit Analogy Argument: Clone D wrote: If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind. Dropsuit Class: Demigod Armor: 2500 Shield: 2500 Movement Speed: 80 km/h Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon Damage: 1250 Splash Damage: 250 Rate of Fire: 3 per second However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank. A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a shtload of power. ............................................________ ....................................,.-'"...................``~., .............................,.-"..................................."-., .........................,/...............................................":, .....................,?......................................................, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:"........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ .............`~.*-,.....................................\|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................\|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,__......`,................................. ...................`=~-,,.,............................... ................................`:,,...........................`..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_..........._,-%.......` ..................................., ULTRA FACEPALM. The analogy DOES NOT MATTER. The result, the change that you're asking for, has been REJECTED. EXPLICITLY. Regardless of how I, and they, feel about balance, CCP has already said that this is not the balancing route that they're going to take. Nerdier than thou
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2337	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:57:00 - [127] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Yes, because "in the short term" means never, ever, ever. lol It doesn't mean never ever, but it means that this thread is nothing but pointless drivel. Further discussions are useless- CCP is aware of this option, and is "intrigued" by it. Nerdier than thou
Clone D 368	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:00:00 - [128] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: ULTRA FACEPALM. Understood, it does not matter. But do we all agree that the dropsuit analogy argument is valid though, in terms of platos forms. The topology of the matter is that a single person is moving around the environment with vast power and that is the problem. How do you propose that we solve this problem? .
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1355	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:25:00 - [129] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. 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. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:48:00 - [130] - 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

Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2345	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:57:00 - [131] - Quote 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), 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. Nerdier than thou
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:44:00 - [132] - 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
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2698	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:53:00 - [133] - Quote 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. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:55:00 - [134] - 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
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2354	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:00:00 - [135] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. I suppose I agree that my suggestion for AV grenades would be too much. Perhaps carrying capacity should be returned to 3? In any case, their one useful role IMO was dealing with BPO LAV spam, and they are currently useless for that. I'd like them returned to that role. As for the PLC, I like it working as a one-shot-at-a-time high-alpha weapon. It currently just doesn't have the damage to back up that role. Though, really I'd like to see assault and breach PLC variants, with the assault having lower damage but multiple rounds per clip, and the breach having an even longer reload time but even higher alpha. Either way, some sort of change needs to be made to the PLC to provide some reward to offset how hard it is to hit anything other than a stationary tank at point-blank range. Nerdier than thou
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2699	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:04:00 - [136] - Quote 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. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:08:00 - [137] - 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
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1359	Posted - 2014.04.30 09:03:00 - [138] - Quote 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. Sorry, should have been more explicit there - I was responding to one specific person, not saying that tankers in general aren't discussing sensible options. Quote: 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..... I agree that rebalancing is required, but I'm still seriously concerned that balance isn't possible because there is no consensus on what "balanced" means. The best that CCP can do with the current approach is make sure that both sides of the debate are equally unhappy. I'm also not going to accept an unsubstantiated "we don't need nerfs" on this. Of course tankers tend believe tanks shouldn't be nerfed. That's basic human nature. But CCP did feel the need to apply a sledgehammer nerf to tanks in Ambush by limiting the number to 2. Quote: 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. I'm personally not arguing against any of those suggestion, I just don't think it will be sufficient. I think we (tankers, infantry and CCP) need to address the fundamental issue that the most limited resource in Dust battles isn't ISK or SP, it is number of players: there is a hard cap of 16 on that for each side. Any solution that allows one of those 16 to be fundamentally better than the others isn't going to be balanced. Most tank/AV discussions I've seen seem to be largely about how much better than an infantry suit a tank should be. If the tank-AV game is balanced on number of players, then that means that a single AV player, who's job is to kill vehicles, should generally be expected to kill a single HAV. That means that tanks (HAVs) don't work as "awesome masters of the battlefield", which I think is a loss to the game. That's why I'm suggesting MAVs take on the solo role, so that HAVs can retain their awesomeness, while remaining balanced in terms of player count. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2706	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:03:00 - [139] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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.. Fair enough, although I would like to point out its much the same for some infantry players, killing is a means to an end, the problem more so with tanks is death. At least the gratuitous amount of death a tank so often symbolises. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Orin the Freak The Solecism of Limitation 817	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:06:00 - [140] - Quote I support this idea, for the simple fact that, currently, tanks are basically giant dropsuits you call in. One man controlling a giant gun, with thousands of eHP, and the fastest run speed in the game. huge hitbox, and poor non-linear movement, but i'd say thats a fair tradeoff for the best DPS in the game. If your argument is "but in all the other games, tank turrets are one-man!", then my counter argument is, those games don't have maps where 85% is flat/open terrain, and the tanks in those games don't typically wield fully-automatic blaster turrets that spin almost as fast as a dropsuit.

Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4252	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:30:00 - [141] - Quote So am I getting my SP back because of you mugs or what? King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!
Ceadda Sai Legions of Infinite Dominion Zero-Day 12	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:44:00 - [142] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: i want infantry to be multi maned as well separate legs from arms and head Start9. Let's wait and see who gets it first. Forge Gunners: Now this is a gun for going out and and making people miserable with.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2482	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:02:00 - [143] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. Gyro, it is the only argument they can come up with, at least that doesn't include faeries and magical HAV bunnies. keep telling yourself that bub, I'm coming back into tanking when I log back into the game, so watch out. I still have all of my experience of tanking before 1.7 hit so my awareness and reaction times have not been lost. To separate the seats would cause a very bad outrage and cause tanks to disappear because the lack of an incentive to use them anymore. everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. I'm actually advocating now that AV be returned to pre 1.7 effectiveness so that the scrubs can be eliminated and those of us veteran tankers can stand out away from that crowd. that was it will take skill to be a tanker again. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Clone D 379	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:12:00 - [144] - Quote Void Echo wrote: everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. The tank could be used fully, but you'd have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive. Just as the LAV is used fully, but you have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive. .
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 509	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:12:00 - [145] - Quote Idiot idea since it would basically require players who wanna use tanks to also buy headsets to coordinate the driver with the gunner and vice versa. Creating a game mechanic that pretty much negates a particular playstyle unless the player buys third party hardware is a textbook definition of bad business.
Alex-P-Keaton Kramer Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 147	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:15:00 - [146] - Quote the mtac's should be like megazord's from mighty morphin power rangers that take five people to operate, one for each leg, one for each arm, then a fifth person who im not sure what they do EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM9liWZMfPk i like to go to craigslist and look at the personal ad's transexuals put up
Void Echo Total Extinction 2483	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:17:00 - [147] - Quote Clone D wrote: Void Echo wrote: everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. The tank could be used fully, but you'd have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive. Just as the LAV is used fully, but you have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive. that makes no sense whatsoever for it to be implemented in the first place. for ADS you have a gun to use, it isn't a large turret because one wont fit. LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, they were made for transportation purposes which is why they only have a single small turret and nothing else. Tanks were made to fight and anyone in them wants to fight. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1266	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:32:00 - [148] - Quote Clone D wrote: --- snip of non-tanker QQ and the whining chorus of LAV drivers --- We just got rid of you useless Blue Berries. No sense in putting more dead weight back in. WoT has a crew, virtual BTW just computer bits. That is all we need. Too many Blues stealing tanks because CCP/Shanghai won't implement a squad lock or the EVE based you cannot drive what you are not skilled in to. Now they waste ammo, overheat guns and have no concept of not giving away your position. Blue berries are 99.999% useless, so look in the mirror and realize we do not want You in our tank. I have asked for a switch to kill all the Blues in my tank. Then I can recall it and swap it out. There is no other way to keep random Blues from losing the tanker his ride. The reason the LAV has a separate gunner is because the LAV needs to haul three people. Now imagine CCP/Shanghai's control schemes being used to control the wildly flipping gyrating LAV, aiming the weapon and firing at the same time. That would never happen. What would work would be to slow the LAV down to 1/3 the speed of a HAV. They are only 1/4 the size of the tank, that should work and the driver could aim the weapon. Or use his own FG like they have been doing since Dust began. Why don't you share what you like to use for weapons, suit and vehicles? Then we could give suggestions and feedback about how to change your game so you suffer, spend tons of ISK and have less fun. Because that would be fun - for us. And so it goes.
Clone D 379	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:42:00 - [149] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: ... we could give suggestions and feedback about how to change your game so you suffer, spend tons of ISK and have less fun. Because that would be fun - for us. I use a variety of dropsuits and vehicles during play. I play multiple roles, each based on the context of the battle. The dynamic nature of my style ensures copious amounts of creative stimulation. I don' think there's anything that you could do to disrupt my enjoyment of the game. CCP, yes. You, no Also, I have so much ISK that I frequently give it away so that people can enjoy the game more. Do you need any to buy some tanks? .
BDiD HEAVY LOGISTIC OPERATIONS 0	Posted - 2014.05.01 02:36:00 - [150] - Quote I have proto av, except swarms. Know why.... There broken. Since i can remember. Only true av is jihad jeeps. Sad but true.

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1267	Posted - 2014.05.01 03:52:00 - [151] - Quote Clone D wrote: KalOfTheRathi wrote: ... we could give suggestions and feedback about how to change your game so you suffer, spend tons of ISK and have less fun. Because that would be fun - for us. I use a variety of dropsuits and vehicles during play. I play multiple roles, each based on the context of the battle. The dynamic nature of my style ensures copious amounts of creative stimulation. I don' think there's anything that you could do to disrupt my enjoyment of the game. CCP, yes. You, no Also, I have so much ISK that I frequently give it away so that people can enjoy the game more. Do you need any to buy some tanks? I propose that any Merc with the name Clone D only be able to use One Fit. He must choose it on the first of the month and will not be able to change until the next month. His choices will be from three different fits. They will be a selection established by the QQ Kittens on the Forums. Each will have a wildly invalid possible solution and any WP generated from not using the fit Exactly as these selfsame QQ Kittens demand will be removed at server shut down each day. SP generated by such WP will be removed at the same time. If the SP goes negative then an SP interest fee will be charged for each 1/10 of a match played. Not playing matches will double the SP interest. Now we would be on level ground. The one you want to put tankers on. In the course of a day's play I find a few squads that are useful. Not many. True much of that could be improved by CCP/Shanghai logging into a clue server, a clue server - any clue server, and not spend their time trying to over react to their latest Gank. I don't need your ISK. I would like CCP/Shanghai to price the ADS to a more reasonable level. Since I have been learning to fly it has been expensive. And unjustly so. I don't mind the price of tanks and my suits but ADS pricing is just ridiculous. As such I have no expectations that they will do the right thing as they can rarely do anything - much less what is right. And so it goes.
Guiltless D667 30	Posted - 2014.05.01 04:16:00 - [152] - Quote 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 serve regarding anything relating to stats. 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 o fa match from calling in tank after tank,death after death with little consequence when have the ISK. A Strange Game.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10013	Posted - 2014.05.01 05:03:00 - [153] - 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!
Izlare Lenix Arrogance. Caps and Mercs 541	Posted - 2014.05.01 07:04:00 - [154] - Quote The main complaint tankers have with this idea is they don't want to have to rely on someone else, especially blue berries, to help operate their tank. Yet they think it is perfectly fine that random blueberries must work together and coordinate AV in order to kill a tank. Basically this proves tankers want to keep their ezmode a solo mode, yet force non-tank av to require comms, coordination and teamwork...The very thing tankers don't want. In a nutshell, most tankers are whiney bitches. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1956	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:15:00 - [155] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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....... So, True, you mean to tell me that when you get on Dust, you play solo and not in a squad with anyone you consider to be competent? Really? Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
BDiD HEAVY LOGISTIC OPERATIONS 1	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:20:00 - [156] - Quote I find the unorganized AV players whiners. Cause u can't solo a tank... That's the real joke. You put maddd sp into a weapon that doesn't kill 5200 hp in 5 seconds. Well good jihad jeeps and smart scouts solo tanks. 3 man sqd can take a maddy out before it drops. Forge, forge, wik swarms. 3 sec it done. When i play, my sqd puts attack orders on tanks as they spawn. Don't wait till he shoots at you or your team. Be aware and go for the thing as a sqd. Personally, I'll take two man tank operation, tight corps and players would still wreck.
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 339	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:44:00 - [157] - Quote as the merc clone is based upon capsuller tech. due to size restrictions this cannot be utilzed on the lavs small frame. dropships are bar;ey large enough to accomadte the tech. the HAV's size allows it to fully utizlie capsuller interface where cre requirments for operation is severley reduced and the pilot of the tank/dropship literally becomes the vehicles. so stop your qq. lore/gamemechanics beat logic and rl comparison. *Elite Gallenten Soldier*
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 652	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:52:00 - [158] - Quote Void Echo wrote: LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, they were made for transportation purposes which is why they only have a single small turret and nothing else. "LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, that's why they have this giant gun on the back." ??? They're extremely effective anti-infantry vehicles, fit a small railgun to the back and go to town on people. Just because the majority of people in the game use them for transportation doesn't mean that that is their sole intended design. Just as people can use cheaply fit tanks to navigate the map there are more than a few people using LAVs as a platform to attack the enemy. Saga v. Methana Balance
Clone D 383	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:53:00 - [159] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: lore/gamemechanics beat logic and rl comparison. Agreed, the company that creates the game may defy logic at will. This thread is only an attempt to rally proponents of the argument and bring a constant reminder to the whimsical game developers. Perhaps a constant beating of the waves against the shoreline will eventually erode their pachydermic stubbornness. Bringing light to the darkest recesses of the universe; that's what this thread is about. .
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1386	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:59:00 - [160] - Quote the scaling of the swarms is a big issue imho. it gets one extra missile each time you get up a tier which is a bad mechanic making, not to mention that tripple damage modded proto swarms can be absorbed by tanks just fine and move on. just give all swarm launchers 6 missiles per salvo and appropriate damage per tier.

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1271	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:23:00 - [161] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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 fulfill a fundamental role? I would be the final straw for me. One reason I went back into tanks at 1.7 was because I wasn't forced to deal with useless Blue Belles ding donging around in my tank. I was in squad today and another tanker dropped a three man tank. I gunned but we picked up a random in the squad. The zoid jumps in and before we have barely moved his turret is popping shots everywhere. I had nearly forgotten how much I hated having to suffer the ignorant actions of Random Blues directly. They come up with stupid ideas because they have suffered a failure of imagination. Restricting an armored vehicle design 20K centuries in the future to use modern methodologies is simply not understanding the environment we play in. And today we are having the military announce using autonomous piloting of many vehicles so a man on the ground can control it by him self. Not needing a crew at all. To believe they are bringing a desperately needed solution to a problem they obviously don't understand is typical of these forums. Welcome to Dust And so it goes.
Clone D 384	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:31:00 - [162] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Restricting an armored vehicle design 20K centuries in the future to use modern methodologies is simply not understanding the environment we play in. This game is completely contrived and arbitrarily regulated by capricious developers. It has been stated many times that the "In the future" argument does not hold any water around here. For instance, if soldiers could carry 12 grenades in a pouch in WWII, then I think we could at least match that in the future. But no, we are limited to 1 or 2. Restrictions are placed on the game under the guise of increasing balance and playablility. .
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 5100	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:43:00 - [163] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Cue the tanker QQ As a tanker, I actually supported this idea. I was shouted down. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3536	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:43:00 - [164] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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 fulfill a fundamental role? For more than a year we had to use small turrets We didnt have locks and no ability to boot anyone out either So dumbass blueberry jumps in and fire at everything in sight which mostly was the enemy MCC and consistantly gives your position away To tank effectively and on the quiet you had to be grouped up with another 2ppl who were willing to gun for you whenever you wanted to tank Now we can get shut of small turrets for the better but now its OP Infantry yet again wants us to use a crew but yet we have no way of locking the vehicle or booting anyone out and it means to use the HAV you always have to group up with someone willing to be the gunner or driver and that puts a restriction on the playstyle where every playstyle in the game can be done solo but not if you want to be a pilot. Not too mention 1 person has to put all the SP/ISK to use the damn vehicle while the gunner doesnt have to put anything into it at all. Yet the reason we didnt want to fit small turrets on was because of infantry, because infantry are ***** ****, infantry brought this on themselves by being **** Lets just say it happens, if these 2man tanks dominate the ** out of infantry again will you all cry? yes you will and you will want to restrict pilots yet again with some other BS method Its amazing pilots dont ever tell infantry that they cant stack 4 shield extenders on it, or 3 armor reps but for a vehicle its OP and infantry consistantly tell us how to fit our vehicles which we put our SP into and ISK to use
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 115	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:48:00 - [165] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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 fulfill a fundamental role? I would be the final straw for me. One reason I went back into tanks at 1.7 was because I wasn't forced to deal with useless Blue Belles ding donging around in my tank. I was in squad today and another tanker dropped a three man tank. I gunned but we picked up a random in the squad. The zoid jumps in and before we have barely moved his turret is popping shots everywhere. I had nearly forgotten how much I hated having to suffer the ignorant actions of Random Blues directly. They come up with stupid ideas because they have suffered a failure of imagination. Restricting an armored vehicle design 20K centuries in the future to use modern methodologies is simply not understanding the environment we play in. And today we are having the military announce using autonomous piloting of many vehicles so a man on the ground can control it by him self. Not needing a crew at all. To believe they are bringing a desperately needed solution to a problem they obviously don't understand is typical of these forums. Welcome to Dust This "environment we play in" is a video game. Everything else is simply make believe. It's not a real war, it's not really 20k centuries in the future, it's not a training sim, and none of these weapons or vehicles are real. It's just a game. A properly balanced game and the enjoyment of ALL players >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lore OR realism
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2252	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:46:00 - [166] - Quote This is one of many possible solutions to tanks. I am not sure it is the best, but it would make the most sense. Tanks are currently more powerful than any single player not in a tank, and can control all those functions himself. In a team strategy game, it seems wrong that the most powerful abilities in the game require 0 teamwork. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death Final Resolution. 3167	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:50:00 - [167] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: This is one of many possible solutions to tanks. I am not sure it is the best, but it would make the most sense. Tanks are currently more powerful than any single player not in a tank, and can control all those functions himself. In a team strategy game, it seems wrong that the most powerful abilities in the game require 0 teamwork. This is evidence more of the lack of useful tasks in the game; were slaying not the be-all and end-all of DUST, that tanks are best at it would not be an issue, considering their inability to do anything but slay . I think a pilot suit that is required to use a vehicle would be a good step; if you want to use a tank, you don't get to hop out with a rifle. ak.0 // 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak // I speak for the trees. Jason Person for CMP!
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 2463	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:51:00 - [168] - Quote Features and Ideas Discussion.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1956	Posted - 2014.05.01 14:51:00 - [169] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. Gyro, it is the only argument they can come up with, at least that doesn't include faeries and magical HAV bunnies. keep telling yourself that bub, I'm coming back into tanking when I log back into the game, so watch out. I still have all of my experience of tanking before 1.7 hit so my awareness and reaction times have not been lost. To separate the seats would cause a very bad outrage and cause tanks to disappear because the lack of an incentive to use them anymore. everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. I'm actually advocating now that AV be returned to pre 1.7 effectiveness so that the scrubs can be eliminated and those of us veteran tankers can stand out away from that crowd. that was it will take skill to be a tanker again. Why then can't I use my Core Rep Leash on myself? What about needles? Not everything is designed for 100% solo functionality. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2050	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:37:00 - [170] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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 fulfill a fundamental role? For more than a year we had to use small turrets We didnt have locks and no ability to boot anyone out either So dumbass blueberry jumps in and fire at everything in sight which mostly was the enemy MCC and consistantly gives your position away To tank effectively and on the quiet you had to be grouped up with another 2ppl who were willing to gun for you whenever you wanted to tank Now we can get shut of small turrets for the better but now its OP Infantry yet again wants us to use a crew but yet we have no way of locking the vehicle or booting anyone out and it means to use the HAV you always have to group up with someone willing to be the gunner or driver and that puts a restriction on the playstyle where every playstyle in the game can be done solo but not if you want to be a pilot. Not too mention 1 person has to put all the SP/ISK to use the damn vehicle while the gunner doesnt have to put anything into it at all. Yet the reason we didnt want to fit small turrets on was because of infantry, because infantry are ***** ****, infantry brought this on themselves by being **** Lets just say it happens, if these 2man tanks dominate the ** out of infantry again will you all cry? yes you will and you will want to restrict pilots yet again with some other BS method Its amazing pilots dont ever tell infantry that they cant stack 4 shield extenders on it, or 3 armor reps but for a vehicle its OP and infantry consistantly tell us how to fit our vehicles which we put our SP into and ISK to use Because they fully believe it to be fair. Infantry = following the status quo. Tanker = oddball that sat in the corner in class and never talked to anyone. And because they can't destroy a tank with their AR, they feel they have the absolute right, more than vehicle users do, to dictate how vehicles will work. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1273	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:10:00 - [171] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: --- snip BS --- A properly balanced game and the enjoyment of ALL players >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lore OR realism Oddly enough Mojo, that was what I was part of what I saying. I want to enjoy the game. And we finally have the stupidest, most worthless gamers no longer sitting in my tank and I am enjoying the holy Kitten out of that. There is no need to force realism into a science fiction video game about Immortal Mercenaries in Spaaace. So why do it? Just to appease a bunch of worthless fools? Thank you no. I do not want to go back to having useless sacks of meat in my tank that I paid for. How about we agree that any Blue Belle that gets in a tank must pay a 1M ISK fee up front? That would be enjoyable to me and I would put turrets in my tank, run a free suit and drive those idiots deep into the Red Line. And I would enjoy doing it time and again. When I got tired of it, I would drop a tank without turrets and play this silly game with just as much realism as I currently enjoy. Are my enjoyment parameters clear to you now? And so it goes.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1273	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:17:00 - [172] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Because they fully believe it to be fair. Infantry = following the status quo. Tanker = oddball that sat in the corner in class and never talked to anyone. And because they can't destroy a tank with their AR, they feel they have the absolute right, more than vehicle users do, to dictate how vehicles will work. I don't know if you have children but as a parent this is the teenagers view of the world. In parent speak that is because many teenagers have a strong sense of entitlement. Which means nothing more than they want everything to be about them because they think of nothing else besides themselves and their enjoyment. It is confusing when others don't agree with their spewing. Poor things. Patience is the key if they are your own as the human brain is not finished being wired up until they are ~25. Don't forget these same self obsessed twits are the one that got their own AR nerfed so it won't harm an LAV anymore. And so it goes.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2492	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:33:00 - [173] - Quote Foundation Seldon wrote: Void Echo wrote: LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, they were made for transportation purposes which is why they only have a single small turret and nothing else. "LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, that's why they have this giant gun on the back." ??? They're extremely effective anti-infantry vehicles, fit a small railgun to the back and go to town on people. Just because the majority of people in the game use them for transportation doesn't mean that that is their sole intended design. Just as people can use cheaply fit tanks to navigate the map there are more than a few people using LAVs as a platform to attack the enemy. If you look at the design youl see that LAVs are weak and fast, they arent made for extreem firepower. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Void Echo Total Extinction 2492	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:34:00 - [174] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Void Echo wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. Gyro, it is the only argument they can come up with, at least that doesn't include faeries and magical HAV bunnies. keep telling yourself that bub, I'm coming back into tanking when I log back into the game, so watch out. I still have all of my experience of tanking before 1.7 hit so my awareness and reaction times have not been lost. To separate the seats would cause a very bad outrage and cause tanks to disappear because the lack of an incentive to use them anymore. everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. I'm actually advocating now that AV be returned to pre 1.7 effectiveness so that the scrubs can be eliminated and those of us veteran tankers can stand out away from that crowd. that was it will take skill to be a tanker again. Why then can't I use my Core Rep Leash on myself? What about needles? Not everything is designed for 100% solo functionality. Idiot, you miss understand, everything is meant to be used by a single in this game for that person or for others. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

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.