DUST Search - The Real Problem with Tanks...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

The Real Problem with Tanks...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 21	Posted - 2013.12.14 05:11:00 - [1] - Quote Turrets. CCP seems to have this idea that Blasters should be AP and Railguns should be AV, with missiles being the middle ground between the two. This is misguided and hurts balance. Large Turrets should be primarily AV, Small Turrets should be primarily AP. Medium Turrets (once they arrive) should be midway. How does one accomplish this? For one, make it harder for Large Turrets to hit infantry. My good friend Ulysses came up with an idea of improving turret tracking by linking it to inaccuracy at fast turn rates, as illustrated here. The basic idea is that when a turret tracks too quickly, it becomes less accurate. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if you're trying to hit, say, an enemy HAV, but would significantly reduce your ability to hit a small moving target, like infantry. Additionally, I personally believe this inaccuracy should also apply when the vehicle is in motion (for Large Turrets mostly, Small Turrets wouldn't be affected by this at all). That's a good start, but it's not enough. So, I propose that turrets must charge prior to use (the larger they are, the more they must charge). Projectiles and Missiles have the lowest charge time, Hybrids have a moderate amount, and Lasers have the most. This is conversely related to Ulysses's tracking inaccuracy penalties, where Lasers are the least affected by tracking speed, and Projectiles the most. That's the gist of it. If those changes are implemented, I think vehicle balance will dramatically improve. The amount of tanks running around all willy nilly will lower quite a bit, as they won't be able to solo infantry as well as they can now. There's more balancing necessary, of course, but I think this is as decent of a start as any.
Otavio Martins The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 189	Posted - 2013.12.14 05:50:00 - [2] - Quote Nope. I play games with my laptop while i'm in the toilet making orbital bombardments. Star Wars Fan. Please gimme some ISK.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 274	Posted - 2013.12.14 06:26:00 - [3] - Quote An interesting idea, but blasters are meant to be AP, and rails are AV, with missiles in the middle. small railguns surely aren't for AP, that's for sure. I think they should have blasters do reduced damage to vehicles at all sizes, to emphasize the difference between the two. Also, have large railguns have a 1m blast radius, and small rails have a .5m blast radius. Make you need to bullseye a small moving target to get your kills.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 259	Posted - 2013.12.14 06:32:00 - [4] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: An interesting idea, but blasters are meant to be AP, and rails are AV, with missiles in the middle. small railguns surely aren't for AP, that's for sure. I think they should have blasters do reduced damage to vehicles at all sizes, to emphasize the difference between the two. Also, have large railguns have a 1m blast radius, and small rails have a .5m blast radius. Make you need to bullseye a small moving target to get your kills. Small rail guns are for giggles. And no OP. Make all these active modules last half as long with twice the cooldown. That way 1 AV person can make a tank ineffective just like 1 tank turns one infantry into an AV (ineffective). Then balance would be closer and vehicles don't have to die.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 634	Posted - 2013.12.14 06:40:00 - [5] - Quote they will never accept that idea because that would require them to use teamwork...a concept most tankers are unfamiliar with https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:31:00 - [6] - Quote Otavio Martins wrote: Nope. Great argument there, bub. Alena Ventrallis wrote: An interesting idea, but blasters are meant to be AP, and rails are AV, with missiles in the middle. I already acknowledged the current system in the OP, but I also stated that I disagree with it. Text Grant wrote: And no OP. Make all these active modules last half as long with twice the cooldown. That way 1 AV person can make a tank ineffective just like 1 tank turns one infantry into an AV (ineffective). Then balance would be closer and vehicles don't have to die. What? What's wrong with my idea?
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 263	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:51:00 - [7] - Quote Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed.
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 727	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:54:00 - [8] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Infantry still can't kill tanks. That's nice logic. You don't want this nerf, you want a DIFFERENT nerf. You can't have both, amirite? Humanity is the personification of change.
General Erick Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 178	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:55:00 - [9] - Quote Nope My Big Brother is watching you.
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:55:00 - [10] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed. I never said that I only wanted this change. I want other changes, too, but I think this is a decent idea.

Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:56:00 - [11] - Quote General Erick wrote: Nope Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion?
ALT2 acc The dyst0pian Corporation Zero-Day 24	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:02:00 - [12] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: An interesting idea, but blasters are meant to be AP, and rails are AV, with missiles in the middle. small railguns surely aren't for AP, that's for sure. I think they should have blasters do reduced damage to vehicles at all sizes, to emphasize the difference between the two. Also, have large railguns have a 1m blast radius, and small rails have a .5m blast radius. Make you need to bullseye a small moving target to get your kills. Small rail guns are for giggles. And no OP. Make all these active modules last half as long with twice the cooldown. That way 1 AV person can make a tank ineffective just like 1 tank turns one infantry into an AV (ineffective). Then balance would be closer and vehicles don't have to die. then no one would use tanks, EVER, or hide in redline most of the time and redline snipe and then av gets slower fire rate and half the damage and infrantry regen rate cut in half
ALT2 acc The dyst0pian Corporation Zero-Day 24	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:05:00 - [13] - Quote Samael Artico wrote: General Erick wrote: Nope Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 264	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:18:00 - [14] - Quote Samael Artico wrote: Text Grant wrote: Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed. I never said that I only wanted this change. I want other changes, too, but I think this is a decent idea. Add all your ideas to your OP maybe? I'm just afraid if they get tanks "close to right" they may just leave them OP
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:20:00 - [15] - Quote ALT2 acc wrote: Samael Artico wrote: General Erick wrote: Nope Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid I think someone's forgetting that all HAVs have two Small Turret slots. Don't like teamwork? That's fine. You'll lose efficiency, but you can still pull it off. Also, they would still be useful against installations and other vehicles.
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:23:00 - [16] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Samael Artico wrote: Text Grant wrote: Infantry still can't kill tanks. I don't want a bandaid. I want surgery. This is a broken game and it needs fixed. I never said that I only wanted this change. I want other changes, too, but I think this is a decent idea. Add all your ideas to your OP maybe? One suggestion per thread, right? Well, I suppose I could add more, but most of my other ideas have already been suggested ad nauseum, or are fairly obvious, or I have yet to articulate.
ALT2 acc The dyst0pian Corporation Zero-Day 24	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:26:00 - [17] - Quote Samael Artico wrote: ALT2 acc wrote: Samael Artico wrote: General Erick wrote: Nope Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid I think someone's forgetting that all HAVs have two Small Turret slots. Don't like teamwork? That's fine. You'll lose efficiency, but you can still pull it off. Also, they would still be useful against installations and other vehicles. using a tank, that can only(basicly)hurt other tanks which can only hurt other tanks is stupid my infrantry need piloting if i need guners to kill
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 23	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:36:00 - [18] - Quote ALT2 acc wrote: Samael Artico wrote: ALT2 acc wrote: Samael Artico wrote: General Erick wrote: Nope Two "nopes" in a row. When will you people start giving your reasoning instead of just your opinion? because small turrets are for small vehicles and no one would bring in a tank if only they can hurt another tank, which would be stupid I think someone's forgetting that all HAVs have two Small Turret slots. Don't like teamwork? That's fine. You'll lose efficiency, but you can still pull it off. Also, they would still be useful against installations and other vehicles. using a tank, that can only(basicly)hurt other tanks which can only hurt other tanks is stupid my infrantry need piloting if i need guners to kill I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. This wouldn't make them useless against infantry, it would just make Large Turrets harder to use against infantry. Additionally, they would still work pretty well against Dropships, LAVs and Installations. Small Turrets would still be perfectly viable, too. I'm not suggesting this because I dislike HAVs. In fact, I love HAVs. If I disliked HAVs, I would just ask for a flat-out nerf. With this, HAVs are still effective against enemy materiel, but not overpowered against infantry (at least, not without assistance from some gunners in the crew... heheh).
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 2215	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:50:00 - [19] - Quote I am inclined to agree with the OP. The most fun games I've had is when there are so many vehicles on each side that the tanks on both sides are busy fighting each other and hardly worry about the infantry. Becomes two layers of battle, the upper vehicle level and the infantry battle 'below' the vehicles. Running around tanks and using them as mobile cover as they pound away at other tanks is insanely fun, and AV takes on the role of supporting tanks, because now only tanks can easily destroy other tanks. "When nothing is going your way, go out of your way to do nothing."
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 727	Posted - 2013.12.14 09:51:00 - [20] - Quote Here's an idea. What if all turret groups had three variants? One better for AP, one better for AV, and one in between. So for each turret type, you basically have: AP Small Turret Omni Small Turret AV Small Turret AP Medium Turret Omni Medium Turret AV Medium Turret AP Large Turret Omni Large Turret AV Large Turret Small Turrets would still be more for AP, and Large Turrets more for AV, but you would have some leeway. In exchange for better tracking, AP Turrets would lose some damage potential against vehicles. If you want to specialize in Anti-Infantry, you could do that, but you would do so knowing that you probably wouldn't be able to take on an equivalent vehicle with an Anti-Vehicle turret. Alternatively, you could fit some tracking enhancers (or tracking computers, for the active module equivalent) or spool reducers, reducing some of the drawbacks of a larger turret at the cost of some module slots. Humanity is the personification of change.

Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 286	Posted - 2013.12.30 05:19:00 - [21] - Quote Why hasn't CCP fixed this obvious problem yet?
Samael Artico Company of Marcher Lords Amarr Empire 41	Posted - 2014.01.01 17:14:00 - [22] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Why hasn't CCP fixed this obvious problem yet? No one really knows, Doctor Grant. No one really knows.
Divu Aakmin Crimson Saints 36	Posted - 2014.01.01 21:37:00 - [23] - Quote Yea... it's positively annoying to dodge tanks all the time. Excluding lopsided ambush, then look forward to easy money or becoming merc paste over and over as scotty smartly deploys you with your back turned to a blaster turret 20m away. At least you'll die with company as everyone gets murdered off the spawn. Wtf CCP? Do something please.


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.