DUST Search - The proper way to balance tank vs AV

Charlotte O'Dell wrote:

I want tanks to completely dominate open battlefields with incredible tank, firepower, and range; their purpose should be anti-infantry support, the main AV method, and destruction of hard targets. However, we should allow tanks a major weakness in their design:

Tankers should be allowed to change where they want their resistance to be strongest over six faces: top, bottom, left, right, front, rear. Let's assume a tank at full proto level has 200dmg pts which equates to a total of 200% damage resistance that can be spread over the six surfaces. This way, a tank could never take damage from the top of front, but would take immediate hull (just like in eve) damage if hit anywhere else. This means that a single landmine could kill a tank, while a 5000 DPS railgun wouldn't scratch it from the front. This created a fun game of guessing what a tank's weak point is based on his behavior and also allows customization and proxy mines.would make a comeback.

That being said, a tank would need huge amounts of armor/ shields to evenly distribute evenly over his tank like a blanket. Even if a tank had 10000 shields, without resistance covering it, a forge gun could rip it off, quite easily, meaning that if a forge gun hits a part of the tank with 10% shield resistance, and tears it all off, then the shield buffer is lost EVERYWHERE, and getting jit by even a small grenade on a resistance-less face would result in a penetration of the hull and destruction.

This means that in an open environment where tanks can position themselves with their strong faces toward the enemy, they are invulnerable, but if they were to come into a city where they can be hit from all 6 angles, the would be almost instantly destroyed by a few guys with AV grenades BC they can't control the flow of battle in such a confined space.

This would also require removal of the redline, though.

I'd also appreciate a skill that allowed scout suits a 10% chance to hijack a vehicle of they got onto the turret so even in the open, infantry have a chance of hijacking vehicles if their own infantry doesn't support them.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 3289	Posted - 2013.08.24 19:46:00 - [1] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: I want tanks to completely dominate open battlefields with incredible tank, firepower, and range; their purpose should be anti-infantry support, the main AV method, and destruction of hard targets. However, we should allow tanks a major weakness in their design: Tankers should be allowed to change where they want their resistance to be strongest over six faces: top, bottom, left, right, front, rear. Let's assume a tank at full proto level has 200dmg pts which equates to a total of 200% damage resistance that can be spread over the six surfaces. This way, a tank could never take damage from the top of front, but would take immediate hull (just like in eve) damage if hit anywhere else. This means that a single landmine could kill a tank, while a 5000 DPS railgun wouldn't scratch it from the front. This created a fun game of guessing what a tank's weak point is based on his behavior and also allows customization and proxy mines.would make a comeback. That being said, a tank would need huge amounts of armor/ shields to evenly distribute evenly over his tank like a blanket. Even if a tank had 10000 shields, without resistance covering it, a forge gun could rip it off, quite easily, meaning that if a forge gun hits a part of the tank with 10% shield resistance, and tears it all off, then the shield buffer is lost EVERYWHERE, and getting jit by even a small grenade on a resistance-less face would result in a penetration of the hull and destruction. This means that in an open environment where tanks can position themselves with their strong faces toward the enemy, they are invulnerable, but if they were to come into a city where they can be hit from all 6 angles, the would be almost instantly destroyed by a few guys with AV grenades BC they can't control the flow of battle in such a confined space. This would also require removal of the redline, though. I'd also appreciate a skill that allowed scout suits a 10% chance to hijack a vehicle of they got onto the turret so even in the open, infantry have a chance of hijacking vehicles if their own infantry doesn't support them. That's a little too much like Planetside 2 for my liking. In that game, it just resulted in every tank having to fit heavy frontal resistance, and they'd just get shredded from any other direction. I still like the idea of a vehicle capacitor that modules run from instead of having cooldowns. This way you could run modules like hardeners perpetually, but an Armor Repairer or Shield Booster would take large amounts of energy, and if you didn't keep an eye on it, it could drain your cap and shut down all your modules, leaving you vulnerable. If necessary, you could give infantry NON-SEEKING/HOMING grenades that drain energy from vehicles in the blast radius, allowing a skilled AV player to get close and attempt to bring down the vehicle's defenses to make it easier to destroy. However, this would still require the player to get close to the vehicle, and actually AIM their throw properly, which also means that HAVs would have additional incentive to use all three of their guns slots, and allow them additional AV defense. I think vehicle capacitors would drastically improve the game for vehicle operators across the board.
Mobius Wyvern Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 3291	Posted - 2013.08.24 19:57:00 - [2] - Quote Void Echo wrote: also, if you were to separate the main gunner from the pilot seat, you would remove all incentive and want to skill up into driving it That actually stabs directly at the issue I mentioned of this irrational perception of HAVs as a solo vehicle, but I gave up on that a LONG time ago. No force of man or nature in the known world can make anyone listen to reason on THAT topic.