DUST Search - AV gunner's perspective on tanks

Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:

Make tanks stronger and less damage.

I'd rather have fun keeping a tank on the field longer but not be able to accurately shoot infantry with the large turret. That would be more consistent with RL. The large turrets are not for infantry. It's good for anti-vehicle and suppression fire/area of denial.

The damage can't be lowered and make any sense.

What can be done instead is

1. Make the large turrets less accurate. If you line the sites up on an infantry it doesn't mean you will hit it dead on. Give some variation like in EVE where the larger the turret the greater the spread.

2. Tracking can be lowered so as not to be able to lead on infantry as well.

3. Lower the sig detection even more. If the tank is stronger defensively this wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Therefore, you wouldn't have rail turrets that can shoot accurately from across the field from the redline. What you'd get is more like an artillery cannon that dumb fires at an area with general suppression fire/area of denial and could get kills.

Therefore, you get a tank with stronger defenses but not so lethal to infantry with the large turret. There would then be more need to have gunners on the small turrets.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1236	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:33:00 - [1] - Quote Point fire weapons on tanks while great in theory, are ass in practice. It works great for the forge gun, however on a tank turret... There's not enough boom and waaay to much "slap." By and large it's not the lack of defenses that are killing your average HAV. It is a sharp lack of applicable firepower. Tanks don't need more hitpoints, or better reps, really. would be nice. But it's not what they need. Tanks need killing power. they lack this. even militia turrets should be threatening to other tanks and infantry. Missiles: need faster travel time . Not instant, but faster, as well as consistently originating from the end of the turret on a straight line to the target. Rail Gun: Give this ***** some splash damage radius. not necessarily an increase to splash damage per se, but some splash radius, as it is a rapid-fire weapon and even in close it should be a lethal threat if a tank can track it's slow-ass turret over to start actually pinging infantry. Might actually be able to hit that goddamned forge gunner or swarm punk before he gets facerolled. Blaster: Needs as big a splash radius as the assault forge gun, and similar splash damage to it's impact damage. this would be the place where I'd make an exception to the splash being significantly less than a direct hit. Point-fire weapons on tanks require way too much precision to deal with screaming redberries (or blueberries if you're awoxing) and as it stands I feel largely unthreatened when an HAV takes the field because I'm a tank-killer specialist. I rely on surprise attacks from angles people would never expect on heavy vehicles. (Hint: don't look for me on the rooftops usually). As it stands HAVs are really only threatening to lemmings, and the occasional AV gunner who doesn't mind standing in the open with the giant Neon "I'm Gonna Kill Your Ass" sign and red cape yelling "Torro!" They're good at splashing murder taxis. But they lack the overt firepower that induces tank shock in lesser mercs than me. Giving them some splash and impact damage akin to a modern Tank's HE rounds would provide a reason for stupid newberries to want to think long and hard whether getting close enough to toss an AV nade is a good idea. No, before you start crying out that tanks would be OP and flavor of the month: I would love them to become flavor of the month, because I love executing tankers in their rolling coffins. I love doing it. I love it more when it is challenging. HAVs have the resilient defenses, I hope that soon we see them gain some actual power projection.
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES Eternal Syndicate 629	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:37:00 - [2] - Quote the tankers who stay and fight are the hardest to kill.
8213 Grade No.2 186	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:44:00 - [3] - Quote ... ... ...you know its funny that people forget DUST is a team initiative FPS... People forget that when a tank roles out, there is 16 of them, and 1-2 tanks... You can increase everything about a tank x10. If you work as a TEAM, no tank stands a chance on the battlefield for longer than 60 seconds. As a Veteran BAAVMF (Bad Ass AV Mother Fcker) I see a tank and will be the only player on my team to run right at it. Why? Because I live for the thrill of destroying Heavy Metal! Part of Grade No.2 is HAV destruction. We see tanks, and we gang up on it instantly. Its like a bear being attacked by a swarm of hornets... you hit the sweet spot and BOOM goes a tank with 3 sorry mother fckers inside of it. The playerbase in DUST is dumb and often behind in utilizing the tools that are in the game (look how long it took for people realize how useful the MD was w/ Flux or countless examples like that). People are afraid to engage tanks because they are afraid to lose their suit fit... they forget that the guy wielding the tank has A LOT more ISK to lose than you. ATTACK that mother f*cker and bankrupt him!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1237	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:52:00 - [4] - Quote 8213 basically summed up my opinion on tank hunting. Us fatty forge gunners don't fear tank buffs. We fear them getting overbuffed to where there is no reasonable chance to kill a tank unless we happen to catch you having to get up to take an emergency **. Most of us who really love wrecking your ** and trying to bankrupt you would much ratehr have a challenging fight while violating you and your special toy
Void Echo Echo Galactic Industries 1052	Posted - 2013.08.25 03:52:00 - [5] - Quote 8213 wrote: ... ... ...you know its funny that people forget DUST is a team initiative FPS... People forget that when a tank roles out, there is 16 of them, and 1-2 tanks... You can increase everything about a tank x10. If you work as a TEAM, no tank stands a chance on the battlefield for longer than 60 seconds. As a Veteran BAAVMF (Bad Ass AV Mother Fcker) I see a tank and will be the only player on my team to run right at it. Why? Because I live for the thrill of destroying Heavy Metal! Part of Grade No.2 is HAV destruction. We see tanks, and we gang up on it instantly. Its like a bear being attacked by a swarm of hornets... you hit the sweet spot and BOOM goes a tank with 3 sorry mother fckers inside of it. The playerbase in DUST is dumb and often behind in utilizing the tools that are in the game (look how long it took for people realize how useful the MD was w/ Flux or countless examples like that). People are afraid to engage tanks because they are afraid to lose their suit fit... they forget that the guy wielding the tank has A LOT more ISK to lose than you. ATTACK that mother f*cker and bankrupt him! basically yep
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 165	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:13:00 - [6] - Quote Make tanks stronger and less damage. I'd rather have fun keeping a tank on the field longer but not be able to accrately shoot infantry with the large turret. That would be more consistent with RL. The large turrets are not for infantry. It's good for anti-vehicle and suppression fire/area of denial. The damage can't be lowered and make any sense. What can be done instead is 1. Make the large turrets less accurate. If you line the sites up on an infantry it doesn't mean you will hit it dead on. Give some variation like in EVE where the larger the turret the greater the spread. 2. Tracking can be lowered so as not to be able to lead on infantry as well. 3. Lower the sig detection even more. If the tank is stronger defensively this wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Therefore, you wouldn't have rail turrets that can shoot accurately from across the field from the redline. What you'd get is more like an artillery cannon that dumb fires at an area with general suppression fire/area of denial and could get kills. Therefore, you get a tank with stronger defenses but not so lethal to infantry with the large turret. There would then be more need to have gunners on the small turrets.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1237	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:16:00 - [7] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Make tanks stronger and less damage. I'd rather have fun keeping a tank on the field longer but not be able to accurately shoot infantry with the large turret. That would be more consistent with RL. The large turrets are not for infantry. It's good for anti-vehicle and suppression fire/area of denial. The damage can't be lowered and make any sense. What can be done instead is 1. Make the large turrets less accurate. If you line the sites up on an infantry it doesn't mean you will hit it dead on. Give some variation like in EVE where the larger the turret the greater the spread. 2. Tracking can be lowered so as not to be able to lead on infantry as well. 3. Lower the sig detection even more. If the tank is stronger defensively this wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Therefore, you wouldn't have rail turrets that can shoot accurately from across the field from the redline. What you'd get is more like an artillery cannon that dumb fires at an area with general suppression fire/area of denial and could get kills. Therefore, you get a tank with stronger defenses but not so lethal to infantry with the large turret. There would then be more need to have gunners on the small turrets. this only works if tanks get BIG splash hits
Charlotte O'Dell 0uter.Heaven 1098	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:21:00 - [8] - Quote I've stopped calling tanks except in PC because AV is.too strong and I refuse to give av easy wp. I'd rather just use a MD with 900 HP
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 524	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:31:00 - [9] - Quote As a pilot, I'd rather have staying power over damage output. I do like some of these ideas however, other than the Railgun one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1237	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:38:00 - [10] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: As a pilot, I'd rather have staying power over damage output. I do like some of these ideas however, other than the Railgun one. I'm more interested in making tanks more viable. Of course doing this means Zitro may come back. If he does, you will all suffer. carefully consider the consequences of your desires.

Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 49	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:39:00 - [11] - Quote The easiest people to kill in infantry vs infantry combat are usually the ones who dive straight for AV weaponry whenever they see a vehicle. Doesn't matter if they change their suits to proto with proto guns... they usually fall faster even then. It seems to be that "If you can't play the infantry game go AV for free warpoints!" is quite a popular mentality now. I went 12/0 with a militia forge and militia heavy (with a single armor rep, no grenades) a few times... Makes me wonder how the hell I killed the Proto Heavy with Proto Forge on the field so easily...
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 525	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:39:00 - [12] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: As a pilot, I'd rather have staying power over damage output. I do like some of these ideas however, other than the Railgun one. I'm more interested in making tanks more viable. Of course doing this means Zitro may come back. If he does, you will all suffer. carefully consider the consequences of your desires. Well, I guess we're on the same page then. Anyways, Zitro is ****, so let him come back.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1239	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:40:00 - [13] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: The easiest people to kill in infantry vs infantry combat are usually the ones who dive straight for AV weaponry whenever they see a vehicle. Doesn't matter if they change their suits to proto with proto guns... they usually fall faster even then. It seems to be that "If you can't play the infantry game go AV for free warpoints!" is quite a popular mentality now. I went 12/0 with a militia forge and militia heavy (with a single armor rep, no grenades) a few times... Makes me wonder how the hell I killed the Proto Heavy with Proto Forge on the field so easily... they were not paying attention to anything but the tank they were chasing.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Top Men. 1239	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:41:00 - [14] - Quote Aizen Intiki wrote: Well, I guess we're on the same page then. Anyways, Zitro is ****, so let him come back. It has less to do with him being skilled and more to do with him being annoying.
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 525	Posted - 2013.08.25 04:43:00 - [15] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Well, I guess we're on the same page then. Anyways, Zitro is **, so let him come back. It has less to do with him being skilled and more to do with him being annoying. Annoying, as in bring in the best , then running like a *** when he gets owned, and dies.
Void Echo Echo Galactic Industries 1054	Posted - 2013.08.25 05:02:00 - [16] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Aizen Intiki wrote: Well, I guess we're on the same page then. Anyways, Zitro is **, so let him come back. It has less to do with him being skilled and more to do with him being annoying. ** that troll, he was annoying, if he comes back who the hell cares
Spkr4theDead International-Fleet 470	Posted - 2013.08.25 05:24:00 - [17] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: 1. Make the large turrets less accurate. If you line the sites up on an infantry it doesn't mean you will hit it dead on. LOL I'll accept that if you accept random bullet spread a la 1.03 patch on MAG that Scott Rudi put in to ruin the game. You don't take that, then no deal.
Aizen Intiki Ghost Wolf Industries Alpha Wolf Pack 525	Posted - 2013.08.25 05:26:00 - [18] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: 1. Make the large turrets less accurate. If you line the sites up on an infantry it doesn't mean you will hit it dead on. LOL I'll accept that if you accept random bullet spread a la 1.03 patch on MAG that Scott Rudi put in to ruin the game. You don't take that, then no deal. I must have missed that part. lolno.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page