DUST Search - HAV: The Gunner Dilemma

Mavado V Noriega wrote:

Zero Harpuia wrote:

I feel the seperation idea is the most sound of them. Doesn't change the numbers side of the debate, and it gives the driver more control over modules, which will be very important if cap comes in.

Plus it brings it into line with like, every other vehicle in the game. Until a one-man fighter comes out, there doesn't seem to be much planned for single-man vehicles, unless you call an MTAC one.

fighters, gunships and mtac all one manned
ppl need to stop ******* comparing a tank to a transport vehicle like a derpship
this is why we get a bunch of dumb changes to the game then CCP has to go and undo said dumb changes wasting time.

as i told my good friend mobius what ppl gonna do when MTACs and Fighters and gunships come into play? QQ about making them need more than 1?
make 1 person use the legs of the MTAC and walk while another fires?

and an FYI to the ppl out there ever thought that maybe.....JUST MAYBE tankin takes some decent skill to hav to operate the movment, main turret and module management?

ppl think its sooo easy with these glass tanks to just wtfpwn ppl........no its not , not unless u have...guess what....infantry support or gunners in ur tank backin u up.

Solo tanks almost always go down if faced with DECENT AV players , either that or hes forced back to being a non factor in the game.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 02:37:00 - [1] - Quote Look, a lot of people have been throwing out a lot of ideas for balancing the current one-man tanks against AV weapons. I've been a proponent of separate seats for driver and gunner for a while, and rather than insist on a 4-man tank, I even conceded to the idea of giving the driver the front turret. Obviously people have really strong opinion on this, and I'd just like to say that I think the separate positions should be tested. We've already had changes to game mechanics that were reverted based on negative feedback, and I'm sure this would follow the same path if it was found to be more detrimental than helpful. I'm not trying to say that our (the separation proponents) way is the best or only way. I just think we should give it a shot, see if it works or not.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 02:43:00 - [2] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: lol Huh, that was faster than I expected. Anything more constructive to add?
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 03:42:00 - [3] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Zero Harpuia wrote: I feel the seperation idea is the most sound of them. Doesn't change the numbers side of the debate, and it gives the driver more control over modules, which will be very important if cap comes in. Plus it brings it into line with like, every other vehicle in the game. Until a one-man fighter comes out, there doesn't seem to be much planned for single-man vehicles, unless you call an MTAC one. fighters, gunships and mtac all one manned ppl need to stop ******* comparing a tank to a transport vehicle like a derpship this is why we get a bunch of dumb changes to the game then CCP has to go and undo said dumb changes wasting time. as i told my good friend mobius what ppl gonna do when MTACs and Fighters and gunships come into play? QQ about making them need more than 1? make 1 person use the legs of the MTAC and walk while another fires? and an FYI to the ppl out there ever thought that maybe.....JUST MAYBE tankin takes some decent skill to hav to operate the movment, main turret and module management? ppl think its sooo easy with these glass tanks to just wtfpwn ppl........no its not , not unless u have...guess what....infantry support or gunners in ur tank backin u up. Solo tanks almost always go down if faced with DECENT AV players , either that or hes forced back to being a non factor in the game. I haven't once compared the HAV to the Dropship. One is a transport and the other is an attack vehicle. Despite what you might think, the necessity of a gunner is the only disadvantage of this system, and it has a very significant advantage of giving the HAV even greater ability to control the battlefield, while eliminating the main source of anti-tank complaints, that being that it takes several people to kill a vehicle that can be operated by only one. With all the player-made Corps we have cropping up all over the place, it shouldn't be too hard to find competent gunners. I had another idea, though: a Vehicle Commander position that inherits module control no matter what seat you choose. Thus, the owner of the tank could control the modules and gun, while leaving someone else to focus on the driving. I mean, in reality the tank commander has backup systems that allow him to operate the main gun from his position if the gunner is killed, for instance. Why not have a similar system for tanks in Dust?
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 06:03:00 - [4] - Quote Aighun wrote: Mavado V Noriega wrote: make 1 person use the legs of the MTAC and walk while another fires? Someone is going to make this game and it will be awesome. Unless they **** it up. Chicken fights at the local swimming pool in August when you were a kid? Kibasen on sports day? People say they want fun, what more could you ask for? I still don't understand why he keeps using that as an example of why HAVs should stay the way they are when an MTAC will likely on prove a threat to one if it manages to get behind it or something. Something with legs isn't going to be nearly as armored as an HAV. Again, though, I'm not trying to say to nerf tanks. I've started using them almost exclusively again in this build, and I love operating such a powerful asset. However, I know from plenty of experience over the years that it would be a far more powerful asset with the ability to delegate functions between multiple crew members. If they actually implement capacitors, wouldn't you consider it unfair to force anyone that uses HAVs to have to drive, gun, operate the modules, and balance the capacitor all at once? One little mis-select of a module and your 4 million ISK asset goes up in smoke. Yes, you can go on and on about "skill" all you want, but at a certain point if a capacitor was implemented while still requiring the driver to balance all the functions of the vehicle, the result would be a far more nerfed asset than we have right now. As a tank driver that loves using the things, I want to be able to delegate shooting to another member of my crew so that I can focus on keeping us moving and alive. I'd like to at least be able to test that at least once rather than the idea being summarily thrown out.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 06:32:00 - [5] - Quote Sarra Jardox wrote: Mobius testing this is a bad idea because of the limited timeline this game is on to launch. Obviously we don't know for sure wat the timeline is but so far all evidence tht I have seen points to December 4th (this is just my speculation) this would coincide with Eve's winter update. Two months thts not a lot of time, we haven't even really tested the eve/dust link yet which is supposed to be a highlight of the game. So it comes down to do you want the limited developer resources working on new tank mechanics or do u want them fixing bugs on current and future PLANNED content so tht we don't have a broken game on launch? I for one would like a not broken game. I would like the same, but the last we heard of anything timeline related was a Dev at GC in Germany mentioning a possible December Open Beta date. We've had not a word at all on the subject since then. I'm pretty sure we've still got quite a bit of time before this game is "feature complete".
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.10.28 15:54:00 - [6] - Quote Waruiko DUST wrote: I've got a thread on turrets and AV and damage types and how they interact in feedback that covers my opinions nicely. Not sure how to link that thread as I get yelled at by the board every time I try to do so. Are you trying to use the hyperlink function, or just pasting it?