DUST Search - Tank Driver calling ALL Vehicle players and ALL AV players together

Poplo Furuya wrote:

Scheneighnay McBob wrote:

I've spent plenty of times doing both AV and driving all 3 vehicle types.

Right now, HAVs seem to be the main issue people are arguing about. Drivers say that it should take several AVers to down one, while AVers also argue that 1 person should able to be beaten by 1 person.

I personally think that the driver's seat of the HAV needs to be separate from the main turret, and they should get a buff to eHP. That way, HAVs and AVers will both need teamwork.

This is the way that makes most sense to me. I'm an AV guy but I want HAVs to be tough, to be a real presence on the field, it's just that having 1 person be the equivalent of 3 or 4 because he's in a tank presents problems. The most obvious solution as McBob says is to make a HAV require 3 operators to be at 100% effectiveness. Driver who controls movement and active modules, a primary gunner and a secondary gunner. Requires manpower and teamwork to take down, requires manpower and teamwork to operate.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eurydice Itzhak Militaires Sans Jeux 82	Posted - 2013.06.18 20:11:00 - [1] - Quote Cyrius Li-Moody wrote: I rarely see guys who consider themselves maining in AV that vehicles need nerfed. It's mostly infantrymen complaining about vehicles that have only spec'd into grenades. I believe proximity explosives are really the only under performing antivehicle weapon at the moment. I'd say most of us AV guys are happy with our tech currently. Well, most of the ones I see anyway. I'm unsure as to where the imbalance from remote explosives comes from. I run caldari and my LLAV will run over 6 proximity mines, no problem. However, when I was in my rail tank with 5k shields 15, 15, 10% resists I believe it was either two or three remote explosives dropped by some tricky chuckefudge nearly instagibbed my tank. Is there a vast difference between proximity mines and remote explosives? EDIT: To clarify, I believe my LLAV is too strong when it comes to proximity mines but the other extreme feels a bit much aswell.
Eurydice Itzhak Militaires Sans Jeux 82	Posted - 2013.06.18 20:45:00 - [2] - Quote Poplo Furuya wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I've spent plenty of times doing both AV and driving all 3 vehicle types. Right now, HAVs seem to be the main issue people are arguing about. Drivers say that it should take several AVers to down one, while AVers also argue that 1 person should able to be beaten by 1 person. I personally think that the driver's seat of the HAV needs to be separate from the main turret, and they should get a buff to eHP. That way, HAVs and AVers will both need teamwork. This is the way that makes most sense to me. I'm an AV guy but I want HAVs to be tough, to be a real presence on the field, it's just that having 1 person be the equivalent of 3 or 4 because he's in a tank presents problems. The most obvious solution as McBob says is to make a HAV require 3 operators to be at 100% effectiveness. Driver who controls movement and active modules, a primary gunner and a secondary gunner. Requires manpower and teamwork to take down, requires manpower and teamwork to operate. I disagree with the notion that 1 tank is equal to 3 blueberries. He has the killing potential of 3 blueberries, maybe. But he lacks the vision, hacking capabilities, spawning capabilities, etc of a dropsuit. There is a reason that tanks see little to no PC time. It's because they can't fulfill the roles that infantry can. The pressure that dropsuits can put on a point via dropuplinks and respawning is insane. A tank can't put that same pressure when they need to retreat or lose all the time of dropping another tank.
Eurydice Itzhak Militaires Sans Jeux 82	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:15:00 - [3] - Quote To whoever replied to my remote mine thought, you are correct. Remote mines aren't triggering on time and thus I take next to no damage from them. Remote mines however do insane damage even with my resistance to explosives being that I run Caldari. I imagine they shred through armor tanks in 2 or 3 hits. To the people wanting to separate the gunner from the driver seat, tanking would disappear completely except in PC, except that tanks are weak in PC... (catch the drift? they would just be gone) No one ever tries to comment or argue with the fact that tanks don't have much of a role at all in PC due to them being ineffective in the meta and ineffective because their counter being so readily available. EDIT: @Goric I kinda like the idea of the current tanks only having the main turret. Maybe have 2 slots in the tank for "passengers" or maybe not. I know you weren't really suggesting it, moreso the opposite really, but you put that idea in my mind.
Eurydice Itzhak Militaires Sans Jeux 82	Posted - 2013.06.19 00:00:00 - [4] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Can someone fill me in to why people thing armor HAVs are way better than shield HAVs? The way I see it, when used correctly (armor tanks with blasters at short range, shield tanks at long range) shield tanks are more effective. Armor tanks get hit by lots of explosive AV in close quarters, while shield tanks can just see the AV coming, duck behind corners and have their shields regen (much more quickly than shields on armor tanks) I've had more luck with a shield HAV (everything militia except for a STD missile turret) than an armor HAV (mostly STD mods mixed with militia, and a standard blaster) It's because armor out classes shield in every aspect of tanking. eHP, Repair, Resistances, etc. What make shield suited to "long range" ? I assume you mean railgun? No tanks get bonuses to rail turrets and neither Gallente nor Caldari have issue fitting it onto their tank. Thus making Gallente the better sniping choice aswell. Your issue with armor/shield MLT tanks flips the otherway very quickly when you introduce STD modules and vehicles.