DUST Search - Tankers: Pick two of three poll

True Adamance wrote:

Garrett Blacknova wrote:

Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed.

Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon.

So Blasters:

ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one.

All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline).

Nah they shouldn't, that **** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree.

Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational.

No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could ***** about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths.

I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4477	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:02:00 - [1] - Quote Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline).
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4478	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:18:00 - [2] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Nah they shouldn't, that ** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree. Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational. No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could *** about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths. I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced. If a tank could be anti-infantry by sacrificing its anti-vehicle role, I wouldn't object. Making Blasters as effective against other vehicles as ARs would actually balance them, because then people would only use them when supported by AC weaponry to hold off enemy tanks, and if you saw someone running Blasters and brought even your Missile-armed LAV out, you could take them down (especially if the LAV can move faster than the tank).
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4479	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:48:00 - [3] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: I think 90% is excessive - 50% is more reasonable; it still allows the potential for ganking another HAV, rather than whT we have now where a competent blaster user is king of CQC. Missile should have that role, IMO. The point was massive damage reduction against vehicles with the logic that they're an anti-infantry weapon. The specific value isn't as important. And as for making them CQC kings, that would be fine too, IF they were limited to an actual CQC range (and if tanks were slow enough for limited range to actually be a significant factor in a fight). Slow HAVs down to less than LAV speed, leave Blaster damage alone, but cut their range back far enough that they don't outrange ARs, and that would fix them just as well as making them weaker agaisnt vehicles. Either solution is viable.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4481	Posted - 2014.02.15 15:06:00 - [4] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Funny, I play with a tank like everything else in the game. I play to enjoy things. Really, many of you players need to reevaluate why you play a video game. You keep wanting to assume others play this game with the same dire attitude that you do. You could play a tank too; but, choose not to and then show an unreasoned hatred for it. If you are playing for any other reason than fun then please quit the game. You are ruining it for everyone else. Console kiddies. Whatcha gonna do. The problem is that not everyone plays the game to be a tank. Funnily enough, contrary to what you appear to believe, different people enjoy playing different roles in games. Even if you're playing to have fun, tanks make the game not fun for a lot of people who DON'T run tanks because at the moment, they have just a few too many advantages and not enough disadvantages. For the most part, they ARE balanced as vehicles, but 2 out of 3 turrets are better than they should be, and they're WAAAY too fast for their role. You might enjoy having a cool toy, but if YOUR fun ruins someone else's, the game isn't doing its job. There's a reason this game is called "DUST 514" and not "World of Tanks" - not everyone belongs in a tank here, we have other options FOR A REASON. If those other roles are being invalidated, THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4487	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:00:00 - [5] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: HAV's aren't fast without fuel injectors. Once again; it's the active mods that make them OP. Wrong. Tanks can't ACCELERATE fast without fuel injectors. They still have a higher top speed than LAVs without any mods. Even with stacked armour on a Sica or Gunnlogi (lower speed than Madrugar) they can move faster than Onikumas and Sagas. They take a while to get up to speed without injectors, but they CAN reach those speeds, and it's ridiculous.