DUST Search - HAV turrets

Breakin Stuff wrote:

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.22 04:48:00 - [1] - Quote Nice to see someone else championing this lost cause. It'd be nice to see, but no one wants their toys taken away from them and can't see why they have a distinct, borderline unfair advantage, just because you stick a huge price tag on it. None of the other vehicles have a gunner/driver spot. Why should tanks be the special child? Don't ask why tanks shouldn't be different, ask why they should be the same. If a tank has separation of duties, not only does it undermine the arguments of people whining about tanks, but it makes it implicitly more fun to do cuz yer doin' it with yer buddy. Furthermore... what's that? You think you should be able to control both because reasons? You think Blue Dots will ruin it? You think you spend too much money on it? All you are is a scaled up LAV. An HAV. Two whole levels of scale. If you can't be bothered to partner with a gunner, then you deserve to have Blue Dots ruin your vehicular experience like everyone else, not just sit above because you think you are justified in the amount of ISK/AURUM you spent. A Capital Ship in EVE, as all ships are, is used by one person. However, it can't do squat without someone else to operate the warp cynos. Is that unfair? No. It may be expensive as crap, but here's the thing. What IDIOT expects someone to completely fund the expensive-as-this http://gothamist.com/2007/12/19/edible_gold_onc.php thing on their own? You are NOT. SUPPOSED. TO BUY. A TANK. FOR YOURSELF. It is meant for supporting people, and the mere idea that a tank should be better because tank is irrational. You buy a tank and lose it because you didn't have support and gunners, you are the one at fault for not recruiting them and thinking you can solo it, the same as any other vehicle user who deigns to resolve his/her fate to luck. It isn't supposed to be your cross to bear that it costs so damn much, it is a GROUP EXPENDITURE. You don't buy an Orca if you don't have miners to boost, you don't buy a command ship if you don't have fleets to boost, you don't buy a capital ship EVER. You don't contribute to buying a Capital if you don't have a cynoer. So, in that roundabout manner, what is wrong with forcing people to use 2 man teams for tanks, which aren't even truly 'solo' to begin with?
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.23 01:41:00 - [2] - Quote 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.
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.23 02:44:00 - [3] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. 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.
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.23 08:32:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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. But why are you to be partnered with a blue dot? You act as if it is impossible for people to join together in groups larger than one. Furthermore, yes, 2 people will suck. slaverhound. ARSE the first time they do a double tank setup. You always suck the first time you do something, and this wouldn't be likely to be the exception. Having real experience with a M1 Abrams, meanwhile, is about as accurate a gauge here as people with real RPG-7 experience using Forge Guns... which is to say none at all. What we are saying is that an HAV has a schematic that is different from every other vehicle. People seem to think we are asking to 'take away' something from them. How about instead, try to justify the different-ness of tanks, the thing in both speculative fiction and real life have always been known to be driven by a full crew, and the one vehicle in the game where the pilot is the gunner, should BE that. Why is it different?
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.23 09:11:00 - [5] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Zero Harpuia wrote: A strong, important post. 1.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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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? 6. 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. 7. 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. 1. All other vehicles need a pair of boots off the ground to use their gun. You seem to keep ignoring that tanks are the exception. 2. Tanks are meant to be a team support, not a single man multiplier, so durr. 3. You haven't given any reason why tanks should be different, the only support is that it is that way, and so it should stay. 4. So you assume that every tank driver will be a dumbshit? It will take time for people to get used to the new idea of tanks being normal vehicles. New is new because it is new, not because it is what you are used to. 5. So the driver (who wasted the ISK that the corp should have spent) is going to sit there in complete non-communication with the gunner? Are all your arguments based on the two people being random blue dots, or the corp mates they should be? 6. Give me a reason they shouldn't. Skills can be reworked. 7. Heavys are not vehicles. Was that a fat joke? :3 In all seriousness, HAVs are the odd man out, and shouldn't be different from other vehicles. But they are. It amkes no sense, especially when, of all the vehicles, they would benefit most from separation of duties and costs, being the most expensive thing planetside until installations hit. Spend two seconds thinking about a tank driven by corp mates who have practiced and have a plan, and not by Alice an Bob the Bluedot Blunders, and maybe you will come to understand.
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.23 17:43:00 - [6] - Quote Ya'know, those other two guns should be manned by corp mates too. The fact that they can be manned by Blue Dots and the tank still ROFLpwns is just further proof that the tanks need work. Everything you have said cuts the way of 'no, I don't want to change because ** you' so excuse my tittering. Also, as for being chased, tanks are way too fast to avoid if you aren't already out of reach (on a building or such) and are even faster if you use a keyboard. They also don't have to run you over. They have three huge **-off guns.
Zero Harpuia Maverick Conflict Solutions 422	Posted - 2013.01.24 08:51:00 - [7] - Quote 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...