|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
780
   |
Posted - 2013.09.21 01:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:1)driver drives and operates front turret and tanking modules
2)main gunner operates main turret and turret modules.
3)top gunner is exposed out of the top turret like on an lav.
double tank ehp due to complexity of new tank controls. no more solo tanking.
add in complete lock out on tanks by the owner. when he/she calls it in it is locked completely until he/she unlocks it for crew or it is hacked by the enemy. this allows them to select the position in the tank they want. they can also unlock for squad only or free for all.
add in climbing in and out of vehicles to commit people to the tank crew and not just instant hitch a ride or hide.
vehicle views would have to be tweaked slightly.
driver would get a front view screen only which incorporates his /hers forward turret.
main gunner would have full allround view as the tank driver currently gets while not in turret view. this comes at the expense of having your head out the top of the turret. when in turret mode you are no longer exposed but have only the turret zoom view.
the top gunner is always exposed but has an extended view of the area around the tank. his turret would have a forward shield for shield tanks and an arm shield for arm tanks. he is completely protected from the direction his turret is facing..
the full crew makes the tank very effective when they work together. if 1 is taken out then this effectiveness is reduced. when the tank is in full combat mode then the top gunner is the general allround eyes. if he is taken out then its doen to the main gunner who is now at a reduced visual effectiveness.
this basicly allows players to disable tanks without actually needing to destroy them
No, because you're infantry, don't tank, and don't have a clue what it's like to drive a tank.
If you want that, then all your equipment gets carried in a pack and someone else has to take it out for it to be used. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 01:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:so much hostility. even mention "change" and "tank" in the same sentence and tank drivers lose it lol.
there is a reason why there will always be issues with tanks and its nothing to do with the tanks themselves
Every issue we have is because of infantry like you trying to say how tanks should work, and that we should adapt to the changes you decide on, without giving pilots any real say in the matter. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 03:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Funny how all the tankers say they work as part of their team but any suggestions making their vehicle most effective with team work get shot down isnt it
Anyway I bet you a dollar they would lock everyone out and just jump around every seat if your suggestions were ever implemented 1: The only way for us to survive (blasters mostly) is to have the scrubs back us up, and in return, we give you little buggers a lot of covering fire. Teamwork. 2: We shoot it down because half of the time, you ******* would make us useless. 3: Most pilots who main tanking would just quit if this were to happen, and everyone else would just not use them. It's bad enough that a less experienced person would use the gun, but that's another player taken off the board to make a vehicle actually useful. 1. Honestly I would call that team work if your attitude is the way it is now, generally theres at least a shred of mutual respect between teammates 2. How do you know that? Are you using just any random joe schmoe to prove your point or are you using experience with squaddies you know as your example 3. To me giving up one pair of boots on the ground so a tank can have both greater mobility and more accurate firepower on the move seems like a fair trade off
Again, Delta, I'll offer you a planetary conquest-grade tank in blaster, railgun or missile configuration for you to show me how you drive a tank. Yes they're expensive, but I have over 200mil ISK so price isn't a problem for me.
Why won't you accept my offer? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:1)driver drives and operates front turret and tanking modules
2)main gunner operates main turret and turret modules.
3)top gunner is exposed out of the top turret like on an lav.
double tank ehp due to complexity of new tank controls. no more solo tanking.
add in complete lock out on tanks by the owner. when he/she calls it in it is locked completely until he/she unlocks it for crew or it is hacked by the enemy. this allows them to select the position in the tank they want. they can also unlock for squad only or free for all.
add in climbing in and out of vehicles to commit people to the tank crew and not just instant hitch a ride or hide.
vehicle views would have to be tweaked slightly.
driver would get a front view screen only which incorporates his /hers forward turret.
main gunner would have full allround view as the tank driver currently gets while not in turret view. this comes at the expense of having your head out the top of the turret. when in turret mode you are no longer exposed but have only the turret zoom view.
the top gunner is always exposed but has an extended view of the area around the tank. his turret would have a forward shield for shield tanks and an arm shield for arm tanks. he is completely protected from the direction his turret is facing..
the full crew makes the tank very effective when they work together. if 1 is taken out then this effectiveness is reduced. when the tank is in full combat mode then the top gunner is the general allround eyes. if he is taken out then its doen to the main gunner who is now at a reduced visual effectiveness.
this basicly allows players to disable tanks without actually needing to destroy them You are going to get **** on. I tried to propose this myself many times, and got **** on. You're not going to get any traction with this. I mean, most of the people here want to be able to take the Small Turrets off because it OFFENDS them that there might be someone else using their vehicle while they are.
No, we don't want people with the IQ of a banana to screw us over and get us to show up on the map because they just have to fire our small turrets. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:problem is tanks should have always been squad assets from the get go. biggest mistake CCP made was letting any tom,**** and harry with delusions of grandeur buy and use them. this only made everyone who used them feel they should be able to kill everything solo because they spent all the sp and isk on them.
until tankers get it out of their heads that a tank is for soloing then nothing ccp does is going to fix tanks and your only hurting your own profession by not accepting suggestions even offering constructive criticism on the bad suggestions. it all adds to the bigger picture. simply asking for hp buffs or av nerfs is not going to fix nothing because the core of the tank role is so messed up to start with
You don't tank, so who the hell are you to tell us how tanks are supposed to work? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:sixteensixty4 wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:problem is tanks should have always been squad assets from the get go. biggest mistake CCP made was letting any tom,**** and harry with delusions of grandeur buy and use them. this only made everyone who used them feel they should be able to kill everything solo because they spent all the sp and isk on them.
until tankers get it out of their heads that a tank is for soloing then nothing ccp does is going to fix tanks and your only hurting your own profession by not accepting suggestions even offering constructive criticism on the bad suggestions. it all adds to the bigger picture. simply asking for hp buffs or av nerfs is not going to fix nothing because the core of the tank role is so messed up to start with If a fecking titan in eve uses all his own weapons and modules, then im pretty fecking sure my piddily little tank can also The support for a tank, is either, good gunners in the aux turrets, or YOU the ******* infantry, preferably both and regarding offering constructive criticism on your idea, maybe you would have got some, if you had just thought about it, come on, your idea is fecking stupid for reasons already mentioned you basicly just sh!t on anyone that doesnt role in a corp, or as i said already, maybe you wont have friends online when you are and as my post above this, you cant trust random blues to main the turrets when 90% of them just want troll you you are the perfect example of why tanks will never be fixed. me,me,me,me,me. and hostility towards any change that is not a buff a pod pilot is nothing like a dust merc. a pod pilot is wired directly into his craft. a merc just drives it with his arms and legs. absolutely no comparison there. also you have it wrong. the tank is there to support the troops on the ground who actually capture stuff to win the fight. not the other way round. another delusion of the tank driver you gave no reasons until now why it was bad, oh yes you did, what was it, i cant solo tank with your idea. more me,me,me as for people not being online to man your vehicle. well congratulations you found a flaw and gave constructive criticism on it. gold star to this guy. we are making progress.
How do you know the pilot isn't directly wired into the tank? There's no view of the cockpit so how can you speak with any certainty? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Void Echo wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:[tanks for WP
how about ISK, you still cant buy anything with WP, all they are good for are orbital strikes. but still your post is flawed in so many ways... and to top that you even admitted that you want tanks removed from the game (you may have not meant it (no you meant it)), and now your one of the biggest enemies we face as we are trying to achieve balance. after I make this post, this thread will probably be locked for trolling or il just stop posting on this nonsense and let you non-tankers decide the fate of tankers for the 92nd time. you buy an orbital with wp so why not a squad based tank if you have the squad members to use it. you state my suggestion is flawed in many ways but none of you have stated why, plenty of no's and zero reasons why. no i dont want tanks removed but if tank users are unwilling to compromise then they have no purpose in dust you are asking that tank users have the only say on balance to tanks when any buff to tanks is a nerf to all infantry to which there are more of us than you. as for trolling. i made a legitimate suggestion. it is you few unwilling to take any suggestions or work on them to come up with a better idea who are trolling.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find=unread
So because there's more infantry, CCP should listen to you over us? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Sgt Buttscratch wrote:So let me get this straight... Build a tank for 800k-3kk, then drive it and operate a turret with only 180 degree's POV, then allow some absolute scrub to get all the fun using the main turret that costs anyhere from 100k-1kk...NO [font size=******* HUGE]NO[/font]
Thats as bad as the idea tank pilots should only get to drive, all turrets have additional gunners. Absurd. Tanker skills in ISK's in, everyone else reaps benefit, tank owner has to restock when fail gunners get ya killed.
How about this: Tank owner(the guy who skilled in purchased and built tank) drives the tank with full operation of top turret, small turrets are not only optional but are lockable to no-one/team/squad. my idea is a complete revamp of tanks so nothing that we have currently has any relevance to it, isk price, who owns it and what seat they get, what skills they have spent all their sp on. it has no relevance at this moment in time. its a basic idea so the argument i bought it and skilled into it so its all mine is irrelevent. its not just yours in my idea. its a squad asset. the owner could be the top gunner if that was his/ her prefered position although its unlikely but its still a choice. as for who buys it. you, corp,squad,team, a friend, borrow or steal it. as for sp well you no longer need 20-30 mil sp to be any good. you only need sp for the seat you prefer to take.
It's not a revamp, it's destruction of tanking as we know it. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:The Attorney General wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:
my idea is a complete revamp of tanks so nothing that we have currently has any relevance to it, isk price, who owns it and what seat they get, what skills they have spent all their sp on. it has no relevance at this moment in time. its a basic idea so the argument i bought it and skilled into it so its all mine is irrelevent. its not just yours in my idea. its a squad asset.
the owner could be the top gunner if that was his/ her prefered position although its unlikely but its still a choice. as for who buys it. you, corp,squad,team, a friend, borrow or steal it.
as for sp well you no longer need 20-30 mil sp to be any good. you only need sp for the seat you prefer to take.
Someone needs to skill into the chassis. Someone needs to skill into the main turret. If the person who skills into the chassis is the driver, he would never skill into turrets that he won't be using. If the person who skills into the chassis also has to skill into the turret, he is investing SP for someone else to use something, which is ridiculous. And yes, whomever is calling it in has to skill into the whole vehicle, which he can't use, because that is how the fitting system works. Your idea is bad, but instead of giving it up you are going to try and keep acting like it is a good idea. Also, you don't need 20 million SP to be good in tanks. You cna make very servicable fits for less than 6, can roll PC if you choose your skills wisely at 7, and be fit maxxed for one type of tank at around 8.5-9.5. So I'll support this type of BS as long as: Heavies need a Logi to spawn in their HMG for them. Only Logis can equip nanohives. All infantry must get their grenades from a nanaohive, as they spawn with zero. All infantry spawn with half of their current ammo, to promote teamwork. All infantry are limited by the meta level of what their squad leader spawns in. He goes MLT, you do to. Because if you want to promote teamwork, lets do it with infantry as well. Because as long as an Assault troop with a Duvolle and AV nades is an omni threat, then we can't be trying to force teamwork on other parts of the game. All of this is completely irrelevant because tanking is already highly team oriented if you want to survive. You can't ignore the infantry with you, because if they pull back and you decide to hang out and try and get more kills, you are getting blown up pretty fast. did i say someone had to skill into the chassis, did i say someone had to skill into the turrets, i did say they are only responsible for their own space in the tank. specialise or jack of all trades it thats upto the individual crew member. calling in the vehicle. why would anyone have to be skilled into it. on the current system they would have too but this is not in the current system its an idea and things could be changed so it could be implemented. like i said use it as a squad asset. orbitals are squad assets so they could easy be called in via a system like that. also who is to say ccp couldn't come up with an option to fit your own part of the tank in vehicle fittings so just a chassis or just a turret with their own pq/cpu etc. the chassis pilot could call in the vehicle and it then is asked by the system which gunner he is using. he selects the main gunner and the main gunner gets a message to accept. once accepted the vehicle comes in with the completed vehicle with one persons chassis and the others turret
LOL Can't use a PRO suit without skilling into it. Can't use a Duvolle without skilling into it. Can't use officer weapons without proficiency 3. How the hell do you expect us to use good tanks without skilling into them?
Not a single one of your ideas is worth the keyboard it was typed on. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Sgt Buttscratch wrote:So let me get this straight... Build a tank for 800k-3kk, then drive it and operate a turret with only 180 degree's POV, then allow some absolute scrub to get all the fun using the main turret that costs anyhere from 100k-1kk...NO [font size=******* HUGE]NO[/font]
Thats as bad as the idea tank pilots should only get to drive, all turrets have additional gunners. Absurd. Tanker skills in ISK's in, everyone else reaps benefit, tank owner has to restock when fail gunners get ya killed.
How about this: Tank owner(the guy who skilled in purchased and built tank) drives the tank with full operation of top turret, small turrets are not only optional but are lockable to no-one/team/squad. Perhaps don't bring tank in pubs then. Look something else for solo pwn suit.
Why does anybody need PRO gear in pubs to win? |
|
|
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Well perhaps solo operated tanks could be smaller ones, like scout tanks?
And multi operated be the toughest heavy tanks?
No |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Support.
Unfortunately, I knew how the community would react to this, since I suggested it several times in the past.
No matter how much sense it makes, they think that a high price tag justifies being able to go solo.
It doesn't. Price = potential effectiveness; not base effectiveness.
It doesn't make sense at all. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 06:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Funny how all the tankers say they work as part of their team but any suggestions making their vehicle most effective with team work get shot down isnt it
Anyway I bet you a dollar they would lock everyone out and just jump around every seat if your suggestions were ever implemented
You're still ignoring my offer, Delta.
Put up or shut up. You know nothing of tanking. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
781
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 07:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Funny how all the tankers say they work as part of their team but any suggestions making their vehicle most effective with team work get shot down isnt it
Anyway I bet you a dollar they would lock everyone out and just jump around every seat if your suggestions were ever implemented Funny how none of the infantry scrubs respond to any of the ideas the pilots put up, or call them stupid, and when we ask them why, they just keep calling it stupid. And as I have, and all the other pilots here has said, this makes us literally dependent on getting someone to hop in, and pray to god that they are not ******* stupid, or always have a squad mate. You really think that's okay?
Of course he thinks it's okay, because it's not going to directly affect him. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
785
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:new suggestion to bring tankers in line with all other suits in game seeing as that is what they want to use them like.
nerf ehp to just slightly more than a heavy,
nerf dps to slightly more than a hmg for blasters and slightly more than a fg for rails,
remove the 2 spare seats,
remove the 2 spare weapons,
slow the speed down to slightly more than a heavy
reduece the cost to slightly more than a heavy
remove the lock on of swarms
now your still more powerful than everyone else but more on equal terms.
LOL That's not a tank, that's a joke. Heavies aren't more powerful than anything. You can still easily be outgunned by anything as well.
Before the TAR nerf, it was already proven that one of those was on par with a large ADV blaster. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
785
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
I really can't understand how you, as a non-tanker, can believe that you should tell us how tanks are supposed to operate, when you don't tank yourself. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
785
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:misconceptions of most tank drivers
"we provide cover"
no you don't, we jump inside to hide and you moan, we hide down the side and you drive away because you think we are going to jump inside,you don't go anywhere near the enemy because all you care about is protecting your own hide so we are left exposed or cant advance without taking losses.
I sometimes wait minutes in the redline after getting in my tank, because idiots just won't get out. What do they do when they jump in? Fire a couple of salvos of missiles. They never even join the squad to see what's going on. When we're rolling around, they don't kill AV. We don't go near enemies because they don't kill them. They expect us to do everything. I don't know how many times I've advanced on something, only to find myself alone against a squad because the rest of my team is nowhere to be found.
"we provide covering fire"
no you don't, you are only out there to get kills. any shooting you do is because it might get you a kill. your not covering open ground or suppressing the enemy. your purely kill whoring.
You make it sound like a tanker getting a kill is an accident. A tanker on open ground = easy pickings for AV.
" we are team players"
biggest misconception of them all. your in a 3 seater tank and all you want to do is solo in it, if you had a choice you would lock the vehicle and remove the turrets so you could fit more dps and tank. i would hardly call that team oriented behaviour. you complain when someone is in your vehicle who might actually help you spot swarmers or fg before they hit you. instead you still prefer to solo and blame av for your issues or the team on the ground for not killing them before they get to you.
We're more team players than infantry are. Removing the small turrets is a great way to keep costs down, as well as so far, the only way to not broadcast your position to enemy AV, as well as the entire galaxy, because if we don't give blue dots things to shoot at, then we're apparently doing it wrong. It's just removing the turrets, not a lock. They could still get a ride if we choose to give them one. They never join the squad, so how are they going to spot threats for us?
" we spent all the isk and sp to use them so we should be able to do what we want"
Why do you think other people, especially you, should dictate how we put our SP and ISK to use?
a FG user spends alot of sp and isk to do his job dedicated to kill you
I'll grant that forge guns require more SP in general, because only the heavy suit can wield them.
a swarm user spends alot of sp and isk to do his job dedicated to kill you
LOL NO It only requires 273,600 SP to unlock Haywire Wiyrkomi swarms.
only difference your weapons kill everyone the same regardless of what everyone else has fit. also you might die once in 5 games losing a mil isk. mercs on the ground might die alot more times in that same amount and lose alot more isk than you.
...... Dropsuits don't cost a million ISK. They don't cost 500,000 ISK. Very rarely will they cost 200,000 ISK. The blaster I use for PC costs 1.5mil ISK. Infantry running all PRO gear has to die 7 times to equal the cost of that specific tank. The ISK Wiyrkomi costs 28,845 ISK. A heavy IG-L repair module costs 46,320 ISK. Infantry cost =/= vehicle cost
people are treating tanks like suits and expect to solo in them the same as a merc solo's in his suit but your wrong. you are a merc first then a tank driver. the tank is an asset same as a piece of equipment thrown on the ground for support or tactical situations. they need to be look at in the same way and not treated and compared to other suits and weapons.
No, because our SP is in vehicles. If we don't have above 20mil SP, we're terrible on foot. A tank =/= nanohive or nanite injector. I pray that CCP doesn't consider your opinion.
|
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
786
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 15:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:I really can't understand how you, as a non-tanker, can believe that you should tell us how tanks are supposed to operate, when you don't tank yourself. anymore, i prefer teamwork and tanks in their current state offer none of that. you look at tanks as a solo weapons and direct all your griefs about them and what buffs you want based on that where as i see them for what they should be, as support weapons with a 3 man crew and they should be balanced accordingly.
You're not even countering my points. You're repeating the same vomit you've been spewing on this thread. Why don't you reply to any of my points? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
786
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 16:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:I really can't understand how you, as a non-tanker, can believe that you should tell us how tanks are supposed to operate, when you don't tank yourself. anymore, i prefer teamwork and tanks in their current state offer none of that. you look at tanks as a solo weapons and direct all your griefs about them and what buffs you want based on that where as i see them for what they should be, as support weapons with a 3 man crew and they should be balanced accordingly. You're not even countering my points. You're repeating the same vomit you've been spewing on this thread. Why don't you reply to any of my points? i did. i don't drive them anymore. because they are not fit for purpose. and no. death dealing killing machines is not what i mean by fit for purpose
There's no way you're an ex-tanker if you're so hostile to them with your terrible, game-destroying ideas. CCP is giving us the option of offensive or defensive tanks. Some will try to fit the best of them.
Nowhere in their plans for vehicle balancing does it include your absolutely terrible ideas. How could it possibly benefit a tanker if it requires 2 to operate a vehicle? There would be no reason at all to skill into them, ever.
You're still not replying to any of my points. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
787
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 16:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Whatever |
|
|
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
787
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 16:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:misconceptions of most tank drivers
"we provide cover"
no you don't, we jump inside to hide and you moan, we hide down the side and you drive away because you think we are going to jump inside,you don't go anywhere near the enemy because all you care about is protecting your own hide so we are left exposed or cant advance without taking losses.
I sometimes wait minutes in the redline after getting in my tank, because idiots just won't get out. What do they do when they jump in? Fire a couple of salvos of missiles. They never even join the squad to see what's going on. When we're rolling around, they don't kill AV. We don't go near enemies because they don't kill them. They expect us to do everything. I don't know how many times I've advanced on something, only to find myself alone against a squad because the rest of my team is nowhere to be found.
"we provide covering fire"
no you don't, you are only out there to get kills. any shooting you do is because it might get you a kill. your not covering open ground or suppressing the enemy. your purely kill whoring.
You make it sound like a tanker getting a kill is an accident. A tanker on open ground = easy pickings for AV.
" we are team players"
biggest misconception of them all. your in a 3 seater tank and all you want to do is solo in it, if you had a choice you would lock the vehicle and remove the turrets so you could fit more dps and tank. i would hardly call that team oriented behaviour. you complain when someone is in your vehicle who might actually help you spot swarmers or fg before they hit you. instead you still prefer to solo and blame av for your issues or the team on the ground for not killing them before they get to you.
We're more team players than infantry are. Removing the small turrets is a great way to keep costs down, as well as so far, the only way to not broadcast your position to enemy AV, as well as the entire galaxy, because if we don't give blue dots things to shoot at, then we're apparently doing it wrong. It's just removing the turrets, not a lock. They could still get a ride if we choose to give them one. They never join the squad, so how are they going to spot threats for us?
" we spent all the isk and sp to use them so we should be able to do what we want"
Why do you think other people, especially you, should dictate how we put our SP and ISK to use?
a FG user spends alot of sp and isk to do his job dedicated to kill you
I'll grant that forge guns require more SP in general, because only the heavy suit can wield them.
a swarm user spends alot of sp and isk to do his job dedicated to kill you
LOL NO It only requires 273,600 SP to unlock Haywire Wiyrkomi swarms.
only difference your weapons kill everyone the same regardless of what everyone else has fit. also you might die once in 5 games losing a mil isk. mercs on the ground might die alot more times in that same amount and lose alot more isk than you.
...... Dropsuits don't cost a million ISK. They don't cost 500,000 ISK. Very rarely will they cost 200,000 ISK. The blaster I use for PC costs 1.5mil ISK. Infantry running all PRO gear has to die 7 times to equal the cost of that specific tank. The ISK Wiyrkomi costs 28,845 ISK. A heavy IG-L repair module costs 46,320 ISK. Infantry cost =/= vehicle cost
people are treating tanks like suits and expect to solo in them the same as a merc solo's in his suit but your wrong. you are a merc first then a tank driver. the tank is an asset same as a piece of equipment thrown on the ground for support or tactical situations. they need to be look at in the same way and not treated and compared to other suits and weapons.
No, because our SP is in vehicles. If we don't have above 20mil SP, we're terrible on foot. A tank =/= nanohive or nanite injector. I pray that CCP doesn't consider your opinion.
Is it really not reasonable for you to reply to this? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
789
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 16:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:1)driver drives and operates front turret and tanking modules
2)main gunner operates main turret and turret modules.
3)top gunner is exposed out of the top turret like on an lav.
double tank ehp due to complexity of new tank controls. no more solo tanking.
add in complete lock out on tanks by the owner. when he/she calls it in it is locked completely until he/she unlocks it for crew or it is hacked by the enemy. this allows them to select the position in the tank they want. they can also unlock for squad only or free for all.
add in climbing in and out of vehicles to commit people to the tank crew and not just instant hitch a ride or hide.
vehicle views would have to be tweaked slightly.
driver would get a front view screen only which incorporates his /hers forward turret.
main gunner would have full allround view as the tank driver currently gets while not in turret view. this comes at the expense of having your head out the top of the turret. when in turret mode you are no longer exposed but have only the turret zoom view.
the top gunner is always exposed but has an extended view of the area around the tank. his turret would have a forward shield for shield tanks and an arm shield for arm tanks. he is completely protected from the direction his turret is facing..
the full crew makes the tank very effective when they work together. if 1 is taken out then this effectiveness is reduced. when the tank is in full combat mode then the top gunner is the general allround eyes. if he is taken out then its doen to the main gunner who is now at a reduced visual effectiveness.
this basicly allows players to disable tanks without actually needing to destroy them This is an excellent idea, but the tanks drivers simply won't accept it (in my experience). The problem is, even though one player in a HAV is already significantly more powerful than one player not in a HAV, the tank drivers somehow think their HAVs need to be buffed "because its a tank". They have been able to lonewold pwn for so long they feel entitled.
Explain why you feel it's an excellent idea. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
789
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 17:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Explain why you feel it's an excellent idea. Because I really want tanks (HAVs) to be big, bad monsters of the battlefield. I want tanks and AV balanced so that it takes several players using good teamwork to kill them. I want proto tanks that can only be killed by a group of proto AV infantry. However, in order for tanks to be so strong it takes multiple players working as a team to kill them, and for the game to remain balanced, it must take multiple players working as a team to operate them. All the other HAV/AV balance suggestions I've seen so far are based around balancing on ISK, which is doomed to failure as we all get richer. We need to balance the game first and foremost on the most limited resource in Dust battles, which is the players. Balance on that first, and then tune the balance with ISK.
Lol you can't get infantry that visit the forums to use teamwork to take out tanks now.
It's a terrible idea. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
789
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 19:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:R F Gyro wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Explain why you feel it's an excellent idea. Because I really want tanks (HAVs) to be big, bad monsters of the battlefield. I want tanks and AV balanced so that it takes several players using good teamwork to kill them. I want proto tanks that can only be killed by a group of proto AV infantry. However, in order for tanks to be so strong it takes multiple players working as a team to kill them, and for the game to remain balanced, it must take multiple players working as a team to operate them. All the other HAV/AV balance suggestions I've seen so far are based around balancing on ISK, which is doomed to failure as we all get richer. We need to balance the game first and foremost on the most limited resource in Dust battles, which is the players. Balance on that first, and then tune the balance with ISK. Lol you can't get infantry that visit the forums to use teamwork to take out tanks now. It's a terrible idea. Ahh.... I see. I need to explain my reasoning, whereas you merely need to "lol" and state "its a terrible idea". I admit, you've soundly beaten me in this debate.
I'm just doing the same thing the OP is doing. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
809
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 15:12:00 -
[25] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
NO
I spend the money on the tank, I control it.
Nuff said.
Bad argument
It would be the same if someone else had to deploy your equipment. You put the SP and ISK into it, so you should control it.
You have bad ideas. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
809
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 15:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Lurchasaurus wrote:
In EVE a single capsuleer can manipulate a giant deathstar of galactic obliteration.
^ Debate Over ^
I think my combat engineered clone can handle driving a tracked vehicle while manning a single gun.
Sorry, bad argument. You're trying use lore but your point about lore is wrong. Eve ships have crews of thousands. And also the podpilots are using special interface, which merc clones don't have, to control ships.
How is it a bad argument? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
819
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 16:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Lurchasaurus wrote:
In EVE a single capsuleer can manipulate a giant deathstar of galactic obliteration.
^ Debate Over ^
I think my combat engineered clone can handle driving a tracked vehicle while manning a single gun.
Sorry, bad argument. You're trying use lore but your point about lore is wrong. Eve ships have crews of thousands. And also the podpilots are using special interface, which merc clones don't have, to control ships. How is it a bad argument? It is bad argument because saying lore is the reason, but lore itself points to other direction. A minor detail. BTW lore should not be taken into account in balancing the battlefield.
Your idea of "balance" is making tanks completely useless. |
|
|
| |
|