Maybe see the actual implementation instead of criticizing the design philosophy behind it before you get a chance to see what the implementation will be?

Dunno, just seems short-sighted to complain now. Feedback = good, whinage = bad.

This is a high and mighty request but:

With the ability to remove small turrets, can we make them asymmetric?
Basically I want two blasters on my right side but none on my left. It would obviously take some work but you know you are going to see some cool fittings.

Dropships, armed to the teeth on one half, bare on the other, would lead to some really interesting AV teamwork scenarios. Given that one side could be outputting quantities of damage and information (by eyesight - mic), AV would try and attack from the bare side. Either way you look at it, it's balanced.

Here is my deal and I want to just make sure I put it out here, even if it is a repeat.

ONLY AV Weapons doing damage to tanks. If you have to allow infantry weapons to damage tanks, my suggestion would be creating an infantry v infantry / infantry v armor / armor v armor damage system. Using these tables you could create and balance quickly and effectively. But seeing a laser rifle cut a shield tank down or a noob tube (aka Mass Driver) take out an armor tank is ridiculous.

I am even ok with your current crap level hit detection for our main turrets.

Ammo I think is going to make the job a little more complicated, but I am always up for a challenge.

In the end I will say that tanking requires capitol and money. ItGÇÖs like making really expensive awesome toys that only a few people can afford, but it turns out its nothing special. When I get into a tank I should feel that my millions of ISK and SP makes me a force on the battlefield. It should take the same amount of commitment to kill a tank, but right now it just takes a little SP and even less money. My turret cost 500k-1 Million and cost 1 Million SP to level into (THAT IS JUST MY MAIN TURRET!), and for infantry just 150,000 ISK and about 1 Million SP you have yourself something that can totally decimate it.

As the system currently stands, there is no endgame. This is what kills games, and if you want reference look at most every MMO/RPG that fails. ItGÇÖs due to lack of content for higher levels and poor game mechanics frustrating players. The endgame for tanks is nothing special EXCEPT how much you spend to be a tanker.

I am pissed because I care but you serious need to evaluate the role of tanks.

PS this same logic can be applied to my brothers in the air DS Pilots.

So everybody wants invulnerability from the little armored soldiers running around, lol, get a clue! You are all taking parts of the game you like and saying "make me special because I spent isk to get this" lol, this game comes from CCP.

In Eve players blow up trillions of isk worth of ships and stations and stuff daily.

Even the biggest ship worth trillions of isk can be captured by a warp bubble from a ship a fraction of the cost. Stop whining and man up! Your HAV and your dropship are not going to ever be invulnerable, this is a kill and be killed game that is part of the kill and be killed sandbox created by CCP. Do not deploy any vehicle you don't want to see blown up, keep it shiny, nice, and safe in your assets and bring stuff to the battlefield you can afford to lose.

So you are saying that the higher level vehicles should be as weak as a cheap suit and a cheap gun? And you comparing it to Eve is completely off, because you don't see cheap fighters killing EVERYTHING if you did then everyone would be flying those and no one would invest in larger weaker ships.

Its simple logic lost on your even smaller mind.

Dust does not have the variety that Eve does and to be honest those ships are not always in harms way like the Dust Players.

Cute statements though, they were adorable. Keep up that logic and let me know how it works for ya.

Dust does not have the variety that Eve does and to be honest those ships are not always in harms way like the Dust Players.

Cute statements though, they were adorable. Keep up that logic and let me know how it works for ya."


__--Depends on where you hang out in EVE space. If you are Only in empire, ( which I'm NOT saying you are ), you could be right.

The absolute foolishness of this statement is laughable. No where in Eve is safe, let me repeat that for emphasis, NO WHERE IN EVE IS SAFE!

My corp specializes in high security ganking, and war decs, it's what we do.

If you undock in high or low secuirity space we can kill you, if you flee to your player owned station we can blow it and you up. If you are in Null security space everyone you meet not in your corp or alliance might blow you up.

Do not speak of what you do not know.

So I believe no dropsuit, no vehicle in Dust514 will ever be invulnerable, remember it's kill and be killed!

So everybody wants invulnerability from the little armored soldiers running around, lol, get a clue! You are all taking parts of the game you like and saying "make me special because I spent isk to get this" lol, this game comes from CCP.

In Eve players blow up trillions of isk worth of ships and stations and stuff daily.

Even the biggest ship worth trillions of isk can be captured by a warp bubble from a ship a fraction of the cost. Stop whining and man up! Your HAV and your dropship are not going to ever be invulnerable, this is a kill and be killed game that is part of the kill and be killed sandbox created by CCP. Do not deploy any vehicle you don't want to see blown up, keep it shiny, nice, and safe in your assets and bring stuff to the battlefield you can afford to lose.

Has there been any word on vehicle locks?

Why should your AR or shotgun be a legitimate AV weapon?

Well I'm hoping that with this complete overhaul to vehicles, that not only will they introduce locks but also the ability for the enemy (or same team) to steal vehicles. Either as current setup where you can take it apart or as single use fits like with some of the AUR specials.
If they go for a single use fit though, it should be that they can be used even without the necessary skills.

Having hacked more then one HAV and LAV foolishly abandoned on the battlefield by it's driver I endorse the idea that a hacked vehicle should enter the inventory assets of the individual who successfully performed the hack!

I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but seeing an enemy hijacking one and my dropships then useing it agenst my own team is a burden on its own.

Would it even be useful to have a vehicle you're not even qualified to drive in your assets.

I do not know of any tank that would be impervious to a sustained barrage of .50 caliber armor piercing rounds fired into it, or an even lower tech level barrage of Molotov Cocktails tossed against it.

Show me video of tanks being destroyed by the M2 and Molotov cocktails. Then I could consider your reply a serious one.

Yes, I was being entirely serious. I remember destroying a LAV with a shotgun a long time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHX3JOGwJ8
the relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 05:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M57-gg_J1Jw
the relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 06:45

A wise man reflects on history as lessons already learned.

World War II =/= 20,000 - 50,000 years into the future. Better comparison would be today's tanks.

Try again

Ummm You asked for video proof, when it is shown, you then claim it's 20 to 50 thousand years out of date?

However a mere 75 more years of Earthly vehicle development would be better.

Okay, your logic is nonexistent but I'll indulge you. The guy in the baseball cap is going to destroy a tank in Syria by tossing a grenade down it's barrel. Is Syria current enough for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AevLyTR6lM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHX3JOGwJ8
the relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 05:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M57-gg_J1Jw
the relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 06:45

A wise man reflects on history as lessons already learned.

It's an interesting video Temba. I have a couple of points to make, however:

1. Modern tank armor is far more resilient. M1 Abrams deployed in the middle-east have survived ambush attacks relatively unscathed.

Example 1.
Example 2.
Example 3
Example 4

Which isn't to say that Abrams haven't been destroyed or disabled by rocket fire, they aren't indestructible. But it's been continuous fire from multiple attackers in a strong concerted effort that did the trick. Insurgent attackers were as obsessed with destroying tanks in real life, as blueberries in our silly game, only they didn't get the benefits of cloning technology to compensate them for their stupidity.

2. The molotov cocktail was dropped into the tiger tank through an open hatch from above, burning it from the inside out. It's doubtful it would have gotten through the armor.

You still think comparing WWII videos to the science in the EVE/Dust universe is valid?

There aren't any hatches to throw a Molotov in on the tanks in Dust. There are however, hatches on today's tanks because, well, we're human and don't have teleportation yet.

So no, a hypothetical Molotov can't destroy a Dust tank. Nor should an AR do anything at all to a Dust tank.

Was that tank American, or was it some rusted 50 year old POS?

Also, can't throw grenades down the barrel of Dust tanks.

Why are you still trying?