DUST Search - AV weapons should be in the Vehicles Skilltree

Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Dear God in heaven, this is the WORST proposal for balance ever.

In order to AV you must drive Vehicles... WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Put the crackpipe down while I educate you about antitank infantry. they do not go and spend time learning to drive the machines they blow up. they learn to identify the enemy vehicles by silhouette and shape, and where to shoot them to blow holes in the side that cause overpressure to squirt the crew out through a hole the size of a quarter, like a fast-pour frostee machine.

Most antitank infantry know **** all about using turrets. They know where to hit the tank to make that turret pop off and fly fifty feet into the air though.

and more to the point, exactly how is being forcedg to learn turrets to use heavy weapons FUN? Is there fun factor for the AV player?

Here's what an AV player needs to know:

What is that?
Is it hostile?
do I have a weapon that can kill it?

If you correctly answer all three questions, you shoot it in the butt (weakspot) and watch it burn!

A wonderous example of why my suggestion would be great just stuck his head out folks!

As it is the community is so polarized that some people are outright expressing their fear of such an idea. The largest argument points regarding this rift are the number of SP needed to run both options and the price. With this option in place the SP required would be a bit more balanced.

Where does the fear come in you ask? It comes from that AV er who might want that extra damage so they skill into tanks... Only to get curious and try to fit a tank, and field it. Currently most of the arguments stem from absolute denial of the use of vehicles-- the mentality only holds as long as they can keep their illusions of vehicles as being disastrous on the field... But if they were to use the vehicles themselves and find otherwise... Their entire line of argument would be invalidated by their experience.

Thus they fear the possibility of being wrong... And claw tooth and nail to the concepts they have created.

My suggestion of the hybridized trees would help to shatter some irrational mindsets-- by making the possibility of seeing from both AV and vehicular sides possible.
It would likewise bring the vehicular side closer to the AV side so that discussions could become more balanced.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Duran Lex Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 139	Posted - 2013.08.18 11:53:00 - [1] - Quote Billi Gene wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CuuCH Crusher wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Aria Gomes wrote: Only reason I've 3 shot a tank with AV is becUse the player didn't build their tank right. Tanks are jst fine, it depends on the player to fit them right. With a breach forge I can deal over 3000 damage per shot, I 3 shot tanks with AV even if they do fit their tank right :) There is no "right" way to fit a tank, when you consider the normal Shield Tank will have about 5400 Shields and 1250 Armor or an Armor Tank with 1250 Shields and 6700 Armor, due to the ** resists a HAV has it will die quickly to its dedicated type of AV (Forge for Shields, Swarms for Armor) King of the Forums // Seraphim <3 Comment and like this thread about PvE, Here! Also, check out the Indirect Fire ability, Here! I think you're blowing the whole breach forge gun thing out of proportion. To get a 3 shot with a breach, a tank has to sit in the same spot for at least 18 seconds. A forge gunner can't move while charging a breach forge gun. If you die to a solo breach forge gun just stop tanking. You obviously haven't been on here long. Of course you can move while charging the breach forge. if thats the case then the breach FG has changed :P.. you never could move whilst charging or charged. /awk Actually you always could. He's referring to the ability to jump while charging the Breach. You can** realign your aim by doing such, but obviously its not a very efficient method.
Duran Lex Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 140	Posted - 2013.08.18 12:41:00 - [2] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Dear God in heaven, this is the WORST proposal for balance ever. In order to AV you must drive Vehicles... WHAT?!?!?!?!?! Put the crackpipe down while I educate you about antitank infantry. they do not go and spend time learning to drive the machines they blow up. they learn to identify the enemy vehicles by silhouette and shape, and where to shoot them to blow holes in the side that cause overpressure to squirt the crew out through a hole the size of a quarter, like a fast-pour frostee machine. Most antitank infantry know ** all about using turrets. They know where to hit the tank to make that turret pop off and fly fifty feet into the air though. and more to the point, exactly how is being forcedg to learn turrets to use heavy weapons FUN? Is there fun factor for the AV player? Here's what an AV player needs to know: What is that? Is it hostile? do I have a weapon that can kill it? If you correctly answer all three questions, you shoot it in the butt (weakspot) and watch it burn! A wonderous example of why my suggestion would be great just stuck his head out folks! As it is the community is so polarized that some people are outright expressing their fear of such an idea. The largest argument points regarding this rift are the number of SP needed to run both options and the price. With this option in place the SP required would be a bit more balanced. Where does the fear come in you ask? It comes from that AV er who might want that extra damage so they skill into tanks... Only to get curious and try to fit a tank, and field it. Currently most of the arguments stem from absolute denial of the use of vehicles-- the mentality only holds as long as they can keep their illusions of vehicles as being disastrous on the field... But if they were to use the vehicles themselves and find otherwise... Their entire line of argument would be invalidated by their experience. Thus they fear the possibility of being wrong... And claw tooth and nail to the concepts they have created. My suggestion of the hybridized trees would help to shatter some irrational mindsets-- by making the possibility of seeing from both AV and vehicular sides possible. It would likewise bring the vehicular side closer to the AV side so that discussions could become more balanced. You have said some strange things here. Had to re-read the OP to make sure 1 - The premise of your theory that the AV / Vehicle arguments are solely based on AV's not knowing the skill trees of a vehicle is flawed from the get go. Me shooting missiles, orbs and medicine balls at a target won't be affected by knowing the vehicle has the options of skilling into different areas of their vehicle. 2 - Your suggestions makes absolutely no sense. refer to the 2nd sentence of the above paragraph. 3 - Being forced to spec into skill trees people don't want just to be effective at a specialization they DO want is silly. 4 - This is a game of rock/paper/scissors. Your suggestion means the entirety of the skill tree needs to be worked in to fit balance this one idea. Every aspect of the skill tree would have to follow this "hybrid" style. In order to be effective at killing infantry, you'd have to spec into the races respective dropsuit. You can't be biased and choose AV/Vehicle as the only skills to receive these changes, for it unbalances the rest of the game. 5 - You are creating ideas out of false conclusions. No, the reason tankers complain about AV isn't because AV doesn't know how weak they are, its because noob tankers don't realize how weak they themselves are. The problem currently with tanks is they are water balloons ready to pop until you get at least 7mil SP invested into resistance skills. So that means 3 months of boosters, and capping out each week just to stop from being destroyed when a forge gun sneezes at you. Then its more time maxing out those skills to take more heat. But once you have the SP and properly fit your tank, you end up with 7k eHP (shield tankers have more, obviously) with approaching 50% resistance, which takes at the least of 6 Assault Forge gun hits to pop it, assuming he's not moving or using reppers. 6 - The huge gap between starting tankers, and large SP accrued tankers ( and isk price of tanks VS AV for many, but that's a different argument) is the reason for these ridiculous arguments that stem from ignorance on both sides of the coin. The same ignorance caused you to create this idea for an unbalance that you don't even fully understand yet, which is why some people are scoffing at you. Wait for the 1.5 Vehicle patch, where they are rebalancing the whole** of vehicles and AV. Also, i didn't mention DS and LAV's because we all know the DS is UP atm, and most hate the LLAV.