DUST Search - if a tank should only be killed by a tank.....

All Channels

General Discussions

if a tank should only be killed by a tank.....

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1621	Posted - 2013.12.17 16:55:00 - [1] - Quote then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
Talryn Vilneram SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 62	Posted - 2013.12.17 17:07:00 - [2] - Quote I was actually thinking the same thing. I think tanks are spammed because they are difficult to kill, they have a fairly low ISK investment and can kill ANYTHING. I think the main turrets should only be able to kill a suit standing still. You want to kill infantry? You have to fit 20GJ blasters or whatever and either switch seats and be immobile, or get your buddies to man the smaller turrets. Just like in EVE where the larger ships have a hard time hitting smaller ships that are moving fast. It makes that game very balanced.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 330	Posted - 2013.12.17 17:09:00 - [3] - Quote I'm down for this. However, we would need for their to be more vehicles for them to shoot at. As of now, tanks have LAVs, the occasional drop ship, and each other.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1628	Posted - 2013.12.17 17:11:00 - [4] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I'm down for this. However, we would need for their to be more vehicles for them to shoot at. As of now, tanks have LAVs, the occasional drop ship, and each other. don't forget turrets and other installations....with that, now they have all they need to shoot at. problem solved. CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 853	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:18:00 - [5] - Quote From a game balance perspective I'd support this, but it would look a bit strange. You're strolling along and an enemy tank rolls round the corner. You yawn and continue sauntering past. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 159	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:25:00 - [6] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I'm down for this. However, we would need for their to be more vehicles for them to shoot at. As of now, tanks have LAVs, the occasional drop ship, and each other. don't forget turrets and other installations....with that, now they have all they need to shoot at. problem solved. Not every game mode has turrets and other installations... ntm, once they go boom.... no more things to make go boom. :( care to retry those excellent problem solving skills again?
TheBLAZZED VENGEANCE FOR HIRE 159	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:28:00 - [7] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. I like the idea.... few issues. What would stop a red dot from nonchalantly strolling up and slapping a bunch of remote explosives on you? I'd like the option of replacing my large turret with a small or remove it so I could be a logi tank (once remote reps come back)
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1640	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:50:00 - [8] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I'm down for this. However, we would need for their to be more vehicles for them to shoot at. As of now, tanks have LAVs, the occasional drop ship, and each other. don't forget turrets and other installations....with that, now they have all they need to shoot at. problem solved. Not every game mode has turrets and other installations... ntm, once they go boom.... no more things to make go boom. :( care to retry those excellent problem solving skills again? no, not really I still think that solves the problem.... after all its not all about the tanks... they have enough to shoot w/out murdering infantry. CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1640	Posted - 2013.12.17 18:52:00 - [9] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. I like the idea.... few issues. What would stop a red dot from nonchalantly strolling up and slapping a bunch of remote explosives on you? I'd like the option of replacing my large turret with a small or remove it so I could be a logi tank (once remote reps come back) well you have 2 other people in the tank... they could get out or use small turrets... or the rest of the team can protect the tank...everything needs a weakness... if a tank's is a merc on foot with re's... well, why not? CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
Yelhsa Jin-Mao PROTO RETRIBUTION 215	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:00:00 - [10] - Quote Talryn Vilneram wrote: I was actually thinking the same thing. I think tanks are spammed because they are difficult to kill, they have a fairly low ISK investment and can kill ANYTHING. I think the main turrets should only be able to kill a suit standing still. You want to kill infantry? You have to fit 20GJ blasters or whatever and either switch seats and be immobile, or get your buddies to man the smaller turrets. Just like in EVE where the larger ships have a hard time hitting smaller ships that are moving fast. It makes that game very balanced. Remove the Main Blaster Turret and make it so only a missile or rail gun is equipable as a main turret. Have the blaster turrets reserved for passenger turrets. Simples. I can has ISK

Cyzad4 Blackfish Corp. 64	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:06:00 - [11] - Quote TheBLAZZED wrote: I like the idea.... few issues. What would stop a red dot from nonchalantly strolling up and slapping a bunch of remote explosives on you? I'd like the option of replacing my large turret with a small or remove it so I could be a logi tank (once remote reps come back) nothing, that's why you would need infantry support. I totally like this idea, you would at least need to be able to squash people tho (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ "fuck this I'm out"... ... ..."I'm back"
Onesimus Tarsus 723	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:11:00 - [12] - Quote I think we're on to something here, but let's go the whole nine: You can only kill or be killed by a fit that exactly matches yours. Hide n Seek 514 Big red button that respecs your SP on demand. Protos only get points from killing protos.
Onesimus Tarsus 723	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:11:00 - [13] - Quote Onesimus Tarsus wrote: I think we're on to something here, but let's go the whole nine: You can only kill or be killed by a fit that exactly matches yours. Hide n Seek 514 Or, Go Fish 514 Big red button that respecs your SP on demand. Protos only get points from killing protos.
stlcarlos989 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 563	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:20:00 - [14] - Quote Yelhsa Jin-Mao wrote: Remove the Main Blaster Turret and make it so only a missile or rail gun is equipable as a main turret. Have the blaster turrets reserved for passenger turrets. Simples. This would be ideal.
Abron Garr Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 684	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:33:00 - [15] - Quote Buff small rails and blasters so there is actually a reason to fit them on tanks.
The Attorney General 1686	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:37:00 - [16] - Quote Flawed premise. Only stupid tankers are arguing that the only way to take out a tank is with another tank. The most common argument made by tankers is one of efficiency. Namely, that it is better to attack a hardened tank with another tank than it is with AV weapons. You could try and have that debate, but no one does. There is far too much drama. Why should infantry based AV be the best option? What about balancing for (hopefully) soon to come aircraft? Is there a third tier we are awaiting? There are tons of places to take discussion on this matter, but you reach for the ridiculous. Thumbs down. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1653	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:45:00 - [17] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Flawed premise. Only stupid tankers are arguing that the only way to take out a tank is with another tank. The most common argument made by tankers is one of efficiency. Namely, that it is better to attack a hardened tank with another tank than it is with AV weapons. You could try and have that debate, but no one does. There is far too much drama. Why should infantry based AV be the best option? What about balancing for (hopefully) soon to come aircraft? Is there a third tier we are awaiting? There are tons of places to take discussion on this matter, but you reach for the ridiculous. Thumbs down. ok well if infantry based AV shouldn't be an answer than swarms should be able to target infantry, after all forge guns can, and if swarms lose their place as the answer to vehicle kills, having them only be able to target vehicles makes no sense. stop the lol bans in FW.... instead make teamkillers purple! https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=129910&fi
True Adamance Scions of Athra 4984	Posted - 2013.12.17 19:48:00 - [18] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Flawed premise. Only stupid tankers are arguing that the only way to take out a tank is with another tank. The most common argument made by tankers is one of efficiency. Namely, that it is better to attack a hardened tank with another tank than it is with AV weapons. You could try and have that debate, but no one does. There is far too much drama. Why should infantry based AV be the best option? What about balancing for (hopefully) soon to come aircraft? Is there a third tier we are awaiting? There are tons of places to take discussion on this matter, but you reach for the ridiculous. Thumbs down. That's not a bad way of looking at it. On my Soma I have 36 seconds where I might consider fighting...but if I get even two swarmers on me I need to think about backing off a little fit. Once that 36 seconds is up Tanks are still pretty flimsy trust me I have AVed, Tank rushed, remote explosive enough enemy HAV to know how to take them down this build with relative ease. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK
cranium79 ZionTCD Public Disorder. 76	Posted - 2013.12.17 20:13:00 - [19] - Quote i think the problem ccp is having with this balance issue is that they are not looking at it logically. look at the history of the tank. look at it's role. look at the history of av and it's role. tanks were designed to break the enemy line and take out hardened emplacements. they were not designed to hold the line. see the Mark I from WWI through the M1 Abrams and the battle of 73 Easting. av has always been cheaper, more portable, and devastating. see the bazooka, panzerschreck, and panzerfaust. even av cannons like the german 88. in dust, there is really no "line to break". not yet anyway. so tanks hover around objectives. like a domination game i was in over the weekend. there were 3 tanks sitting in front of "A". the blues could not break in. av could not scare them away effectively enough. tanks need to be expensive. the balance is determining how expensive. i think any base militia tank should cost more than a full protosuit fit. tanks cheaper than suits are what's causing the tank spam. this does need to stop. av needs to be effective. not OHK effective (although a proto AV vs a militia tank seems reasonable for a OHK, at least a 2 hit kill), but effective enough to drive the tank off or kill it with a reasonable amount of hits. there needs to be a balance of reality (1 shot from a railgun emplacement killing a tank as it would in real life) vs making the game fun to play and not having tanks invincible (such as a tank taking 5 hits from a railgun emplacement and running away). another thing we need is larger matches. 16 vs 16 is too small. you need more players to give each role its opportunity to do what it was designed to do. there are times when it seems like there are only 10 vs 10 (or less) and the rest are in vehicles or sniping. leaving 10 people per side to hack (up to 5 objectives), cover the hack, and run av. it's not very fun when this happens. we will see several more tweaks over the next couple of patches. no doubt about that.
Naviticus OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 31	Posted - 2013.12.17 20:23:00 - [20] - Quote yap yap yap yap just make them more expensive again the cost is why people spam. Why spawn a 200k proto av suit when you could spawn a 60k militia tank and have more of a chance

R F Gyro Clones 4u 855	Posted - 2013.12.17 20:25:00 - [21] - Quote No, the basic problem is that solo tankers believe a solo tank should be fundamentally better than solo infantry: solo tank should kill infantry easily, solo infantry should not be able to kill tanks. In other words, a game of "scissors vs paper". They then use ISK or SP as a justification for this, forgetting that the key limiting factor in Dust battles is the 16 players per side limit. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
TranquilBiscuit ofVaLoR F.T.U. IMMORTAL REGIME 880	Posted - 2013.12.17 20:29:00 - [22] - Quote i like this idea. why the hell can a tank be invincible to all but a few people, but kill just about anything with ease? Tell me, how exactly DOES a biscuit gain Valor?
Naviticus OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 31	Posted - 2013.12.17 20:44:00 - [23] - Quote just make a new character with a stupid name suicide bomber, tank go boom, some *******, you deserved that anything basically so they know know its a troll name remote a lav and blow em up till they patch things. so you dont care about him get demolitions lvl 3 and start making tanks go boom. I've seen a substantial less amount of tanks when you blow one up with a suicide lav then blow up his tank again in the redline when he call another one in. Plus it never gets old! three arabs(died)three arabs three arabs(remote explosive)Someones Madrugar
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution 2520	Posted - 2013.12.17 21:05:00 - [24] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. If a tank couldnt kill infantry nobody would have bothered to build tanks in the first place, genius. It would serve literally no tactical purpose whatsoever. If you want to avoid tanks, you go to the city. And big ships in EVE still have drone bays to kill smaller ships, as well as the option to web down smaller ships enough to kill them.
Tiny Pineapple Army of 420's Lokun Listamenn 44	Posted - 2013.12.17 21:25:00 - [25] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. If a tank couldnt kill infantry nobody would have bothered to build tanks in the first place, genius. It would serve literally no tactical purpose whatsoever. If you want to avoid tanks, you go to the city. And big ships in EVE still have drone bays to kill smaller ships, as well as the option to web down smaller ships enough to kill them. If AV couldn't kill tanks nobody would have bothered to equip AV in the first place, genius. It would serve no tactical purpose whatsoever. It you want to avoid tanks, don't call it in. And big ships in EVE...oh wait, this isn't EVE, this a FPS where balance>reality.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution 2520	Posted - 2013.12.17 21:48:00 - [26] - Quote Tiny Pineapple wrote: If AV couldn't kill tanks nobody would have bothered to equip AV in the first place, genius. It would serve no tactical purpose whatsoever. It can kill tanks, if you hit them with enough of it. This means AV has the ability to drive tanks back, and take pressure off of an objective. It also helps your other tanks on the field get the edge on the enemy tank and kill them. Over-balance is garbage and the fastest way to kill a competitive game. Clear differences in power are necessary to create a consistently dangerous situation. And consistently dangerous situations are necessary for any kind of deception to manifest. Meh, screw it. I'm not going to get dragged into an argument with competitively low level gamers who understand nothing.
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 390	Posted - 2013.12.17 21:53:00 - [27] - Quote I dunno. I try to avoid fighting infantry, but they get so single-minded. It's like your tank becomes their step-dad telling them they'll never amount to anything. They get really weird. I'm ambivalent about AV. Forge gunners still tear me apart, which is why I avoid large glowing men. When they get me, I feel like they've earned it. Can't really be bothered to care the poor widdle swarm launchers, though. That weapon made my life miserable last build, and I'm quite satisfied with its current level of worthlessness.
Shion Typhon Intara Direct Action Caldari State 329	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:15:00 - [28] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Tiny Pineapple wrote: If AV couldn't kill tanks nobody would have bothered to equip AV in the first place, genius. It would serve no tactical purpose whatsoever. It can kill tanks, if you hit them with enough of it. This means AV has the ability to drive tanks back, and take pressure off of an objective. It also helps your other tanks on the field get the edge on the enemy tank and kill them. Over-balance is garbage and the fastest way to kill a competitive game. Clear differences in power are necessary to create a consistently dangerous situation. And consistently dangerous situations are necessary for any kind of deception to manifest. Meh, screw it. I'm not going to get dragged into an argument with competitively low level gamers who understand nothing. Clear differences in power??!? So a good game is one where the other side has overwhelming advantage and no danger and the other side faces all the danger, this causes some mystical effect which you can't explain that makes the game competitive. Sounds logical to me! You need to stop smoking that weed.
Our Deepest Regret L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 391	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:19:00 - [29] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: Clear differences in power??!? So a good game is one where the other side has overwhelming advantage and no danger and the other side faces all the danger, this causes some mystical effect which you can't explain that makes the game competitive. Sounds logical to me! You need to stop smoking that weed. When it's not tanks, it's proto-gear. The side with the best equipment always wins, and in ambush, it's very rarely a close match. I'm beginning to suspect this game has never been balanced, nor will it ever be. ' What can ye do? Just take it easy, I guess.
Jammer Jalapeno BIG BAD W0LVES 113	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:32:00 - [30] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: then a dropsuit should only be killed by a dropsuit. I propose like in eve where larger ships have issue hitting smaller ships the same should apply here. before you tell me what a stupid idea this is... ask yourself if you are one of those people who think only a tank should kill a tank and tell yourself how stupid that idea is. Hell NO! If a tank is trying to bite me I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND EAT YOU. If tanks can kill infantry than infantry should be able to fight back and take down that juicy piece of meat. MmMmMm TanKs....delicious TanKs



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.