DUST Search - HAV turrets

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

0 Try Harder wrote:

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

I'm not saying to ruin the game for tanks- I'm saying to make it consistent in the idea that no vehicle with multiple seats should be possible to be a one man army in.

I can understand that position, but any tank that tries to be a one man army will get demolished.

Tanks do seem like a one man army, and I thought they were too before I started driving and skilling one. There is so much strategy and teamwork that is required to successfully use a tank. I'm not talking about stuff like railgun sniping, because tanks that do that are most likely not supporting infantry.

Tanks are very easy to kill. For instance, a proto forge gun deals more damage than a proto railgun on a tank. AV nades and swarms are no-skill weapons that can easily kill armor HAVs. HAVs can actually be solod in a large number of situations.

Tanks are also a formidable weapon on the field. When used correctly, tanks need at least one other person supporting them, or even the whole team. What you are asking for will not make a good tank into a two-man vehicle, it will make a good tank into a three to four man vehicle. Requiring even more people than are already needed to operate a tank is not a buff.

I know you probably won't believe me about tanks not being a one man army, but if CCP is seriously considering this, could CCP please listen to the comms of a skilled tank during a corp battle or hard pub game? Big smile

(I'm sure they'd give it the ok!) Tankers don't want to give out their strategy to everyone who reads forums.

I guess another example is what happened to me. I started using tanks a week or two ago, and I sucked. It was bad. I got blown up by everything. Slap gave me lots of help ^^ and now I can kill some tanks. I'm obviously not the best tanker in the game, but I'm no longer the worst! Cool

ME! Yes, Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
I'm editing your edit while I edit your edit!

The biggest change I made to stay alive long enough to kill something was: strategy and teamwork.

edit: made my post before Breaking Stuff made his, but I also agree with what he said.

Didn't know that was possible...


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 00:02:00 - [1] - Quote While I firmly believe this change would make it easier for me to murder you in your shiny sagaris marauders, with a militia forge gun (I will kill one of you buttheads one of these days) I must say that this thread's premise is dumb. By requiring a turret gunner you render the OWNER of the tank largely impotent to defend his very expensive piece of gear. and while I frequently say ISK paid should not translate to niche protection, a 2 million ISK tank should equate to 2 million ISK of tank shock and require another tank or a Heavy who plays like me (for teh trollz) in a proto fit to easily demolish your toys. this would, in fact, remove a lot of the difficulty because the drivers do not usually consider optimal firing positions for their gunners when engaging. thusly making them easy meat for me to pick off. so while Heavies need a buff... this in not the buff you are looking for. this is taking away any fun factor for the drivers of tanks and punishing them for cranking oodles of skills into turret improvements. besides, it's the future. The driver plugs himself in and controls the main functions of the tank with his mind. he's a mini-capsuleer. Bad idea is bad and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 00:50:00 - [2] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: 0 Try Harder wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I'm not saying to ruin the game for tanks- I'm saying to make it consistent in the idea that no vehicle with multiple seats should be possible to be a one man army in. I can understand that position, but any tank that tries to be a one man army will get demolished. Tanks do seem like a one man army, and I thought they were too before I started driving and skilling one. There is so much strategy and teamwork that is required to successfully use a tank. I'm not talking about stuff like railgun sniping, because tanks that do that are most likely not supporting infantry. Tanks are very easy to kill. For instance, a proto forge gun deals more damage than a proto railgun on a tank. AV nades and swarms are no-skill weapons that can easily kill armor HAVs. HAVs can actually be solod in a large number of situations. Tanks are also a formidable weapon on the field. When used correctly, tanks need at least one other person supporting them, or even the whole team. What you are asking for will not make a good tank into a two-man vehicle, it will make a good tank into a three to four man vehicle. Requiring even more people than are already needed to operate a tank is not a buff. I know you probably won't believe me about tanks not being a one man army, but if CCP is seriously considering this, could CCP please listen to the comms of a skilled tank during a corp battle or hard pub game? (I'm sure they'd give it the ok!) Tankers don't want to give out their strategy to everyone who reads forums. I guess another example is what happened to me. I started using tanks a week or two ago, and I sucked. It was bad. I got blown up by everything. Slap gave me lots of help ^^ and now I can kill some tanks. I'm obviously not the best tanker in the game, but I'm no longer the worst! ME! Yes, Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I'm editing your edit while I edit your edit! The biggest change I made to stay alive long enough to kill something was: strategy and teamwork. edit: made my post before Breaking Stuff made his, but I also agree with what he said. Didn't know that was possible...
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 01:01:00 - [3] - Quote Ok now that the childish streak is over with... back on topic, punks. Edit: Dammit wrong thread. I blame my parents for my short attention span. Commence flaming. I've earned it today.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 01:02:00 - [4] - Quote 0 Try Harder wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I like cats. They taste great. Quit translating my posts damn you. My hidden messages are not for the scrubs.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 01:26:00 - [5] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I sortof understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what this has to do with the thread. i was posting in the wrong window. So I suggest you edit what i was saying to sound as Derp as possible. have fun with it. I do. Edit: TL;DR version of the OP: tanks suck because they are efficient, they need the driver and gunner separate. TL;DR response: You are a freaking moron, OP.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 01:49:00 - [6] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I sortof understand what you're saying, but I don't understand what this has to do with the thread. i was posting in the wrong window. So I suggest you edit what i was saying to sound as Derp as possible. have fun with it. I do. Edit: TL;DR version of the OP: tanks suck because they are efficient, they need the driver and gunner separate. TL;DR response: You are a freaking moron, OP. They aren't 'efficient' they are different. They aren't tanks either, no matter how often we call them such. They are, for all intents and purposes, an LAV after a binge. Why they are different is what the OP is attempting to answer, and all the HAV drivers jumped him for trying to make them equal to everyone else. A tank is expensive. If you field one out of your own singular pocket, then you are missing the point of a corporation. Even if you intend to fund it from an EVE profile, that's still two different 'you's with a massive difference in pay grades. HAVs are a squad support vehicle, not a single man power-up. Will the driver lose his ability to fire and move? Yes. Will that make him any different from any other driver? No. nobody wants to be a driver that cannot accrue warpoints. In fact this is a primary reason people don't fly dropships. They're a surefire way of losing 300k ISK and little else. CRU dropships get parked on an impossible-to-reach roof and left there as an impromptu droplink and left for the duration. And screw you, no, if you can afford a tank and willing to risk it you are ENTIRELY justified in expecting to be able to rock out and party with a blaster like it's the night before the apocalypse. if you hate tanks do what I'm doing. train forge guns to 5 and forge gun proficiency to 5 and go hunt them mercilessly with an Ishukone Assault Forge Gun. they die in rapid order to those. Tanks are not OP. There's a distinct shortage of people who know how to fight them without the zerg rush, or half a dozen militia forges or swarms. If you're not going to try to do that wait till there's more people like me who get a woody making them go pop.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 08:09:00 - [7] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: Fine, but if you are JUSTIFIED in bringing in a tank on your lonesome, the lone AV specialist who kills you is equally just, deal? Also, if HAVs are meant to be your little solo 'rock out' then why do so many HAV users pussyfoot their red line for fear of loss? Because their lone tailpipe can't afford it. If you can afford to buy a Titan for yourself, congrats at your opulence, but it doesn't make it any less badly suited to 1 v 1. Also, I did do what you are doing. I spent an entire build doing nothing but that. I spent another build tanking, and another using the HMG, and still one more being a Logi Bro. I've seen a tank from all sides. Blowing up other peoples' expensive investments is kinda my hobby. But I'm not advocating making tanks invulnerable. far from it. Don't take away the driver's turret control. That's it. it's a ****** idea because unless you and Johnny B. Shotmyself over there tagteaming a tank have spent real world time driving and gunning in an M-1 Abrams YOU DO NOT know how to set up an optimal shot. I've seen tank drivers having a hard time setting up shots to take things ddown. i have less problems because I'm a cheapass that uses blasters and consider my own tanks to be expendable LOLroll machines that someone gets to brag about smashing. They have my blessing, because my average ISK payout is enough for a militia soma each battle. I cheer when they pop my LOLroll hull and end my murderous rampages. Then I go rampage in a dropsuit and do even more damage. However. there is no reason to believe that your average blueberry is more than a lukewarm IQ moron who thinks he's slick sh and fails to prioritize threats. Second sometimes when the tank is moving drivers hit **** that botches your aim. Finally, you bought a tank. Who am I to tell you that it's not your perogative to hose down your enemies with cannon fire? Just understand I won't apologize when I kill you. And i will chase you like an angry bloodhound who wants nothing more than to make you cry. Because you took away his treats.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 08:43:00 - [8] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: There's a lot of Derp in that thar post. because the HAV has a critical weakness if you force it to use a gunner. that's one less set of boots on the ground looking to intercept me before I put a shot through it's glacis plate. I don't normally die to the tanks when i'm tank hunting. it's the infantry the tank is supporting that usually nail me. Plus you have not made any point that convinces me that tank drivers need to lose gun control. Your arguments are anecdotal and quite frankly misinformed. A driver parking on a slight incline is quite capable of putting the tank at enough of an angle that a gunner cannot depress the cannon enough to shoot me as I stand nearby merrily chucking AV grenades from the center of a nanohive. the driver also using the main cannon can correct this very quickly. Also. If the driver (who has ISK invested in not having his tank pop like a zit) spots a threat and the gunner doesn't? or ignores the driver who;s screaming on comms that there's a madrugar sighting down on them? or worse? An Immobile Infantry forgegun execution line preparing a twenty-one gun salute? Until you give me a compelling reason why tanks should require a four man crew, I'm not going to agree. Because it nerfs the effectiveness of tanks by slowing down the reaction time. And It punishes the HAV driver who spent a lot of SP pumping up not only the tank and relevant module skills, but the turret control skills to be able to shoot effectively. You're talking about the equivalent of taking a heavy and making it so he can;t fire the HMG unless a scout spoons with him and helps pull the trigger.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 09:31:00 - [9] - Quote You are aware that tanks utilize two bluedots to man secondary turrets, for support roles, right? You're basically demanding a third gunner. it's not necessary You have a coaxial gun (sort of) on the turret controlled by another gunner, and there's a sponson turret on the front of the tank controlled by yet another blueberry. Why the hell do tanks need another gunner to be good? Why the hell does the tank need to change, except to fit into your bizarre need to have some sort of crackheaded mental symmetry. Not one of your arguments for separating driver from main gun have been anything more coherent than "It should be this way and you are a **** for disagreeing with me." You provide no compelling argument that shows tanks need to be changed. Quite bluntly, tank drivers and heavies eat the highest amount of sh on this forum, nonstop, with little more than anecdotal evidence unbacked by anything resembling facts. So provide a compelling reason for this moronic demand instead of "Well, hurr Durr, they need to be the same as every other vehicle in the game." No they don't have to be. there's this thing called "variety." it's right up there with "Hygeine" and "Social Life" to most of us gamer nerds with nothing better to do than pewpew internet spaceships and firearms. But things can be interesting when you add little variations like that. So if you want your idea to be considered by all means show us a little more than "LAVs have a separate driver and gunner" LAVs and Dropship pilots can drive over red dots like it's going out of style and rack up warpoints... At least in the dropships' case, style points for a combat drop/smash. Tanks don't have that advantage. It's like being chased by a fat kid. he don't change directions too quick so it's easy to get out of the way.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.23 19:19:00 - [10] - Quote how are tanks Overpowered? a forge gun equivalent to the tank pretty much 2-4 shot kills it. Oh wait, are U mad your AV grenades don't instapop the caldari tanks? Swap to Flux nades, they strip shields like a boss. The HAVs have been nerfed to hell. they don't need another nerf. And when I say my LOLroll tank? I mean the cheapseat thing i have the skills for that me and my family make bets on how long it takes someone to pop me. It's a bucket of laughs. I think I lost like eight of them in a row over the course of three battles. It was a blast.

Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.24 00:23:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Who said tanks are OP? And you've spent too much of this thread assuming that drivers are never blueberries, but gunners always are. Have I ever told you about the time I hopped into the small blaster of a random blueberry's HAV? The driver (using a large blaster) got 1 or 2 kills before an AVer took it out. I got at least 5, and they didn't even fire a shot by the time I got most of the kills. yet you still have not explained why thiss change should happen beyond it fits your mental model of symmetry somehow. Not good enough
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.24 08:42:00 - [12] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Then perhaps it could be a completely different variation altogether. The current ones could be light tanks; a variant with a separately controlled main turret could be a heavy tank- as the name suggests, it would be tougher to encourage the use of them. This is a much better idea. Especially if CCP makes it so the turret gunners aren't affected as badly by the bounce on terrain, after all, a modern M-1 Abrams has some serious cannon stabilization. making a class of Juggernaut HAV or something, or a command vehicle of some kind? That could very well take your initial idea and make it better, especially if such things were built to be corp assets like MCCs rather than personal assets.
Breakin Stuff Immobile Infantry 680	Posted - 2013.01.24 09:25:00 - [13] - Quote Zero Harpuia wrote: Sir Meode wrote: Instead of asking CCP to change what already exists why not ask for a variation? If you want a HAV that needs a seperate gunner to driver why not request that aswell as having a solo HAV? If you were to put it to the community I would put money on people wanting it to stay as it is but im sure they wouldnt say no to having the option to have a two man HAV. The more of a variety the better It's a decent idea, and it has been proposed before, but there was a roadblock that killed it then that I shall divulge now. If you make what we dubbed the Super Heavy Attack Vehicle(SHAV) stronger than the HAV by the same degree that the HAV is two steps above the LAV, then it's too damn strong. The HAV would need to be weakened, becoming less damaging, less durable, maybe even physically smaller, and faster so that the SHAV would still be stronger and slower by comparison, but not as strong as it would have to be otherwise, ROFLstomping instillation and such. And I'm sure you see exactly what happened from there... Variant HAV, one that has the standard tank, but more firepower. or the tech 2 equivalent of a marauder. bit faster, bit tougher, hits a bit harder. Requires a slightly larger crew and more coordination.