DUST Search - HAVs are Overpowered

Sev Alcatraz wrote:

Now these are not modern tanks there for amusing they weight upwards of 60 tons like modern tanks is redundant.
They have the option of nano fiber chassis, Do modern tanks like the C2A1 leopard have a nano fiber chassis? NO
Modern tanks are made of iron and steel, What are the tanks in dust made of? In all likelihood they are comprised of composite metals to make them stronger and lighter then conventional materials.
The power plants are in modern tanks and the tanks in dust car very very different in weight, Modern tanks use internal combustion, the tanks in dust MAY OR may not use a turbine engine or a form of cold fusion to generate power

Now onto the way we maneuver said armored Vehicle around the battlefield, In modern tanks they require a full crew for it to operate.

In dust like in eve alot of the work that would be done by a man is replaced by automated systems, I.E. an auto loaded for rail/missile turrets.

I own a World war 2 British centurion ask any of my corp mates (most the log time players in Tritan have seen the pics) The difference between a tank and a Semi are very very different, Tanks have no fixed steering point a semi truck does, A tank can turn on a dime a semi truck can't. you are trying to compare a helicopter to a fighter jet.

To have a 5 man crew in a tank (for arguments sake) would be completely redundant, If you go into a match be in a pub or a corp battle you loose 4 sets of boots that could be doing something important.

If you have the tech to have 1 man control a 30 km long ship why wouldn't you use the same tech to control a 30 ton tank?
If you can have 1 man control a power house why not use it? (<----do you have an answer for this?) You instantly gain 4 soldiers using Jove/sleeper tech to control vehicles.

THIS IS NOT WORLD OF TANKS! YOU DO NOT NEED A CREW TO OPERATE THE TANK.
THIS IS NOT BATTLE FIELD THIS IS DUST

DUST IS APART OF EVE
EVE IS NOT YOUR EVERYDAY MMORPG


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 121	Posted - 2013.03.20 23:31:00 - [1] - Quote I'm a tanker, and I love tanks. Unfortunately, there is a storm brewing regarding the Heavy Assault Vehicle. HAVs are tanks, and therefore should be overpowered if seen as a singular entity. However, all too often I hear complaints about how a single person can run around in a HAV and murder everyone without a care. Unfortunately, this is true. A HAV has multiple objectives: draw enemy fire away from infantry; pin down enemy infantry; take out enemy vehicles. It performs all these tasks admirably in most situations, and I don't think that should change. However, the fact that it can operate with such a small crew is not a good thing, either. It isn't realistic and it isn't balanced. Small Turrets Currently, Small Turrets are pathetically weak. Traditionally, the small-caliber machine guns on an Armored Vehicle were the used the most and were the most useful, with Armor battles being the only situation in which they were not used. Small Turrets should become more powerful, so that they actually matter. They should exceed the capability of hand-held weapons easily. LAVs are pathetic at combat and HAVs are only decent because of their main gun and massive amounts of durability. The Driver The Driver is in control of the HAV's movement. This role is basically what tankers do now. The Driver is also in control of the frontal machine gun, and can switch to it at any time using the scope button while still driving, though this is somewhat difficult and shouldn't be used when you need to see around your environment, as you have tunnel vision. The Gunner The Gunner is in control of the HAV's main gun. What this means is that the HAV is no longer a one-man show. The Driver can switch roles with The Gunner in case of the Gunner's absence, but this requires a total stop of the HAV and a restriction of vision. This also means that the person wielding the big guns does not have 360-degree vision at all times and thus infantry is less vulnerable to the overpoweringly wide field of vision that we currently have. On the plus side, this lets the Gunner shoot without having to do things like drive. Further more, the restriction of peripheral vision means it is less overpowered to give the Large Turret a decent turning speed, which is currently frustratingly slow. In the old system where you could see your target on all sides, this was required, but with this system it isn't. The Commander The Commander is very similar to the current role of the main tanker. They have peripheral vision, have command over modules, and have control of a turret. This turret, however, is a small one on top of the main gun turret. Currently, one person is both forced and allowed to do all thee roles: driving, gunning and operating modules. The Commander can fire his turret without being scoped, or he can go into scope for greater vision range and accuracy. The Support and the Equipment Slot The Support is just that. Support. How The Support actually supports depends on what, if anything, was placed in the Equipment Slot. This can range from an improved TacNet system which lets you observe the area around the HAV from an aerial perspective, call in vehicles, installations, orbital strikes, and mark objectives for your crew to see to a repair tool that allows them to repair the HAV from the inside. Other equipment might include grenade launchers (smoke or otherwise) that let you clear the area around the tank, an anti-missile point defense system, and a capacitor injector system that allows them to recharge the capacitor when it really needs it. Certain modules (mostly turret upgrades) might have an Equipment version that only works when The Support is operating it. This is as effective as a passive module, but uses up less resources. The Support can also choose to optimize it by playing a little mini-game, which ups the equivalent effect to something resembling an active module, as well as gives them something to do while on the HAV. This also lets a full squad occupy a HAV, all of them working towards a common goal, none of them being dead weight. With this system, not only is the HAV no longer a one-man show, it is now more efficient at what it does. Further more, it allows HAVs to be more powerful than anything else on the battlefield without actually being overpowered. Further more, the owner should be able to restrict access to certain people (or lock it down entirely) and be able to kick others out, regardless of role, because otherwise some random blueberry would jump in and cause havok. If this system is implemented, I suggest that HAVs overall have more firepower (deadlier small turrets) and more mobility (better top speed and acceleration) to continue with the realism train.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 121	Posted - 2013.03.21 00:14:00 - [2] - Quote Theoretically you can still go solo, but at a cost. Honestly, I like HAVs, but they need to be nerfed, one way or another. I'd rather they require a few more people than make them weaker, because I love them too much to see them devolve into a fragile, slow, petty vehicle.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 121	Posted - 2013.03.21 00:22:00 - [3] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: This will only really be worthwhile once we have larger teams, also the commander position is pretty much redundant considering that the driver would always be able to best gauge when to turn mods on and the same for the equipment slot however the support role is pretty much around now since either gunner can pull a mad up, all the passengers need to be able to do now is add the ability to drop OMS from them. Adding redundant roles only leads to wasteful changes I disagree, adding redundant roles will allow you to still use the HAV without four people, but having four people will be more beneficial.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 121	Posted - 2013.03.21 00:28:00 - [4] - Quote BOZ MR wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Theoretically you can still go solo, but at a cost. Honestly, I like HAVs, but they need to be nerfed, one way or another. I'd rather they require a few more people than make them weaker, because I love them too much to see them devolve into a fragile, slow, petty vehicle. I think you have not met a dedicated AV guy yet. Take 2 of them and there is not much that can be done to save your tank. For gunners I want to drive and gun myself and can with no problem. Why did I spend 5 mil SP? To drive blueberry on top and letting him getting all the kills? Nope! And what would you have done? Make HAVs even weaker so you can't even take on one dedicated AV guy? So you can't even take on a guy with a Militia Forge Gun who obviously doesn't know how to use it? No, I refuse. HAVs are overpowered against a disorderly foe. Against an ordered foe, no, not nearly as much, so I am suggesting that HAVs require cooperation so that you cannot just own the match in Instant Battle mode. Hell, a single squad can call down four fully functional HAVs fitted with the best gear and completely deny the opposing team of any sort of gains. It's not right.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 121	Posted - 2013.03.21 00:33:00 - [5] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Not really, the added roles would simply be better in the hands of the driver, since they'd undoubtedly have the most intuition of when to use certain mods since they're the ones actually dumping sp into it. You shouldn't assume that the driver is always the actual owner. Regardless, I changed it to allow the owner to have full control over the modules regardless of his actual position.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 02:38:00 - [6] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: HAV's use the same Jove/sleeper tech capsules use allowing 1 man to control the entire vehicle, no separating the driver from the main gun that's just stupid, get some dumb blue dot in here and you have become useless I already said the owner would have the option to kick people out as well as lock them out. Sev Alcatraz wrote: No your an idiot, HAV's are made of glass as it is if you can't kill them now your doing it wrong >_> Tanks need amassive PG CPU armor and shield buff to make them into tanks again not wet cardboard boxes When did I say that HAVs were unkillable? When? When you can answer that, I'll listen to you.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 04:14:00 - [7] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: Ulysses Knapse wrote: Sev Alcatraz wrote: HAV's use the same Jove/sleeper tech capsules use allowing 1 man to control the entire vehicle, no separating the driver from the main gun that's just stupid, get some dumb blue dot in here and you have become useless I already said the owner would have the option to kick people out as well as lock them out. Sev Alcatraz wrote: No your an idiot, HAV's are made of glass as it is if you can't kill them now your doing it wrong >_> Tanks need amassive PG CPU armor and shield buff to make them into tanks again not wet cardboard boxes When did I say that HAVs were unkillable? When? When you can answer that, I'll listen to you. Right in the title "HAV's are Overpowerd" implying that you have trouble killig them. use common sense, 1 guy controlling an entire tank only way that is possible = sleeper/Jove tech eliminating the need for extra crew keeping more bots on the ground, Welcome to the future son, no need for a five man crew when everything is automated You need to learn how to use grammar, because what you are doing right now isn't working. Anyway, plenty of things can be overpowered yet be easy to kill. HAVs are overpowered against the standard, non-AV equipped enemy. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the fact that such a tremendous and powerful role can easily be manned by a single individual, partially because it limits how powerful a HAV can be without people whining about how overpowered it is, and partially because it allows a single person to troll a disorganized team (we don't need anymore of those kinds of things). Without AV or Large Turrets, you cannot hope to fight against a HAV. Like I said, I'm fine with that, but it shouldn't be a one-man show. This is a better alternative to nerfing HAVs outright. And no, I did not imply that I had trouble killing them, you simply inferred it. For me to imply it, it must be intentional.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 04:24:00 - [8] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: Sloth9230 wrote: Sev Alcatraz wrote: Mithridates VI wrote: Sev Alcatraz wrote: HAV's use the same Jove/sleeper tech capsules use allowing 1 man to control the entire vehicle Source? Commons sense, you have a large 10 ton vehicle, it is operated by one man/women. The only logical explanation is that it uses the same tech as the capsules made by the Jove/sleepers That makes no damn sense and you know it. Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch. A big rig can easily weight ten tons. Are modern truckers secretly space mercenaries? Modern tanks can weigh over 60 tons.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 04:43:00 - [9] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: So is a capital ship in eve op because it rolled up on an in-organized group and murders them single handedly is that op? Or is it a faulted on the enemy's side? if I invest 4.6 million sp into an Hav I expect to murder face single handedly (I'm typing this on my phone that's why the gremmer is utter **** useless iPhone and there rubbish pell check) Bad analogy. Really bad analogy. A fleet in EVE that is disorganized is going to die in combat unless they have a major advantage. HAVs are the equivalent of battleships, not capital ships. Capital ships are not capable of going solo in a real battle. 4.6 million skillpoints? Capital ships require far, far more, and you can't actively skill. Capital ships require days or weeks to manufacture and require support just to move properly. [*] Capital ships at the least expensive cost 2 billion, HAVs at the most expensive cost a thousand times less.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 04:56:00 - [10] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: Now these are not modern tanks there for amusing they weight upwards of 60 tons like modern tanks is redundant. They have the option of nano fiber chassis, Do modern tanks like the C2A1 leopard have a nano fiber chassis? NO Modern tanks are made of iron and steel, What are the tanks in dust made of? In all likelihood they are comprised of composite metals to make them stronger and lighter then conventional materials. The power plants are in modern tanks and the tanks in dust car very very different in weight, Modern tanks use internal combustion, the tanks in dust MAY OR may not use a turbine engine or a form of cold fusion to generate power Now onto the way we maneuver said armored Vehicle around the battlefield, In modern tanks they require a full crew for it to operate. In dust like in eve alot of the work that would be done by a man is replaced by automated systems, I.E. an auto loaded for rail/missile turrets. I own a World war 2 British centurion ask any of my corp mates (most the log time players in Tritan have seen the pics) The difference between a tank and a Semi are very very different, Tanks have no fixed steering point a semi truck does, A tank can turn on a dime a semi truck can't. you are trying to compare a helicopter to a fighter jet. To have a 5 man crew in a tank (for arguments sake) would be completely redundant, If you go into a match be in a pub or a corp battle you loose 4 sets of boots that could be doing something important. If you have the tech to have 1 man control a 30 km long ship why wouldn't you use the same tech to control a 30 ton tank? If you can have 1 man control a power house why not use it? (<----do you have an answer for this?) You instantly gain 4 soldiers using Jove/sleeper tech to control vehicles. THIS IS NOT WORLD OF TANKS! YOU DO NOT NEED A CREW TO OPERATE THE TANK. THIS IS NOT BATTLE FIELD THIS IS DUST DUST IS APART OF EVE EVE IS NOT YOUR EVERYDAY MMORPG Capsules are too large to fit inside a HAV, and they aren't just something you can pop into on a whim. Also, World of Tanks doesn't actually have a player crew, it has an NPC crew. Also, I never said you would need five or four or even three. For standard operation, you just need two, or you could switch from driver to gunner at the cost of mobility. The other two would help, but they wouldn't be required. Honestly, I had exactly four because that is how many people are in a squad. Oh, and starships have crews, we just don't see them. Frigates have at least a dozen people in them, even with a capsuleer. Without a capsuleer, the necessary crew is multiplied many times.

Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 122	Posted - 2013.03.21 05:18:00 - [11] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: I didn't sate an entire capsule...(my god why are you so stupid?) I said "same tech" as in a more compact less refined version of it simple enough to let one person control a land/air vehicle (<--this is not hard to comprehend) A capsule is capable of space flight, the basic equipment that allows a capsuleer to command a cruiser could easily be striped down to the basic components and jammed into a tank. (please keep in mine a capsule has to contain fuel, life support, systems for navigation, etc etc) rolls eyes Your words mean nothing. The lore does not support it, and calling me stupid isn't making me change my mind. If you happen to die while connected, does your consciousness get corrupted? Think about that. Capsules have all sorts of failsafes. Further more, why would you need a capsule? If the inside of the HAV has a controller similar to the PS3 controller and the rest of the piloting is done automatically, like how we ourselves control it, why would you need it? Is it too far fetched to say that tankers are controlling the tank the same way we are? I mean, we are controlling it with a single controller, right? (Well, some of us...)
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 123	Posted - 2013.03.21 06:26:00 - [12] - Quote Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote: Word of advice - If you want to tell CCP that something is broke, tell them what is broke, and why do you think like that. You are strongly attacking tanks in general it this treat and it is very harmful. You act like you only read my title. I explained why HAVs were overpowered, and how to fix it without actually making them inferior. I agree, HAVs are not overpowered against AV, but a disorganized foe likely won't have powerful enough of AV. That's why I am suggesting this. Why should HAVs require less cooperation than AV? That's my main point, and I thought I made it quite clear in my wall of text.
Ulysses Knapse Nuevo Atlas Corporation 127	Posted - 2013.03.21 18:25:00 - [13] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Every time I see a title that has "HAV" and "Overpowered" in the same sentence I think to myself "the poor tanks have been nerfed enough as it is". Bad enough the missiles got nerfed to oblivion, now people are asking to nerf the blaster/railgun tanks. If you read my thread you would realize I don't want to nerf the HAV, I just want to make it require some cooperation to use. If it required some cooperation, CCP would likely buff its durability and mobility to make up for it.