DUST Search - It Should Take Three - Four AVers To Take Out One Tank

All Channels

General Discussions

It Should Take Three - Four AVers To Take Out One Tank

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 502	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:48:00 - [1] - Quote It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
darkiller240 K-A-O-S theory 213	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:49:00 - [2] - Quote if they are all running militia gear "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
Yoma Carrim Situation Normal all fraked up 136	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:50:00 - [3] - Quote You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? When you turn a corner and find the entire enemy team.Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
TranquilBiscuit ofVaLoR F.T.U. IMMORTAL REGIME 902	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:52:00 - [4] - Quote makes sense, i suppose. or you could make tanks only effective against other vehicles, where it would be very hard to kill infantry, but still possible and vice versa. Tell me, how exactly DOES a biscuit gain Valor?
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 502	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:54:00 - [5] - Quote Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 6376	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:55:00 - [6] - Quote No, tanks need a buff. They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible. Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous. Level 6 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
Knight Soiaire BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 3819	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:56:00 - [7] - Quote Just because there aren't 3 people inside the HAV, doesn't mean the Pilot isn't using teamwork. Your squad is much better off outside your HAV, because they can take out AVers that are camped in areas a HAV cant reach. Killmail :O
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 502	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:56:00 - [8] - Quote TranquilBiscuit ofVaLoR wrote: makes sense, i suppose. or you could make tanks only effective against other vehicles, where it would be very hard to kill infantry, but still possible and vice versa. I thought about this as well but in the end that would be a whole lot of balancing and well we can see that CCP is not the best at that yet. SoonGäó Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 1253	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:57:00 - [9] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance. Fizzer94 // Level 1 Forum Warrior // PLASMA CANNONS FUCKING SUCK A BIG FAT DICK NOW, FIX THEM!
True Adamance Scions of Athra 4986	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:58:00 - [10] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Should take 3 people to operate a dropsuit by equivalent logic....if a dropsuit player can kill 3 people it should take 3 people to control that dropsuit. To a Texan like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Gunlogi. Reference = ISK

Yoma Carrim Situation Normal all fraked up 137	Posted - 2013.12.17 22:59:00 - [11] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: No, tanks need a buff. They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible. Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous. Careful your dripping with sarcasm When you turn a corner and find the entire enemy team.Oh Heck Logi, Tanker, Heavy
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 503	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:01:00 - [12] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance. Sorry I am not a AVer, in fact I do not have one SP in either AV or Tanks TBH Maybe that is why I can see it the way that I do. If one tank is going to take 3 of my foot soldiers away from killing other foot soldiers then it should take 3 persons sitting in that tank. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 503	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:02:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Should take 3 people to operate a dropsuit by equivalent logic....if a dropsuit player can kill 3 people it should take 3 people to control that dropsuit. I can see your point however right now the logic should be that one AVer should be able to destroy a tank solo. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Ld Collins The Phalanx Inc 99	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:03:00 - [14] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Give tankers triple exp and we have a deal.
Kane Fyea Scions of Athra 2412	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:05:00 - [15] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance. Oh yea I deserve to be stomped because I used a weapon I've been using since the E3 build? In that case the AR should be nerfed into the ground since people have been dominating with the AR since this game was in closed beta.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 503	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:05:00 - [16] - Quote Ld Collins wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Give tankers triple exp and we have a deal. Tankers can make a ton of WP's if set as a Defend order and all three persons in the tank make extra WP's with any WP action gained. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Protocake JR Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 1141	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:08:00 - [17] - Quote Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all).
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 272	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:08:00 - [18] - Quote Knight Soiaire wrote: Just because there aren't 3 people inside the HAV, doesn't mean the Pilot isn't using teamwork. Your squad is much better off outside your HAV, because they can take out AVers that are camped in areas a HAV cant reach. Doesnt matter because thats still causing a balence issue if it takes 3 guys to kill 1 guy there is issue, it not about tanks supporting a fireteam its bout making a tank require the same amount of people to kill as it does operate so we have 3 choices. 1: nerf the tanks tanking ability so one guy can kill it. 2: Rebalence large turrets to be AV rather than Anti infantry like the blaster so that the solo tank is now a AV and supression platform new role that is not more useful than 1 unit, to be effective against infantry you must have gunners therefore creating a AV v V balence at a 2 or 3 vrs 2 or 3 3: As op stated make it so it requires 2 or 3 people to operate said tank this is by far the best balenced as option 2 leaves proper tankers that want to fully crew them selfs at a weakness to solo tanks. Most infantry want option 1 as its a quick fix and favors them, anyone who actually wants balence and more depth in the game wants option 3 the only real issue with it is its not a quick fix and would take time to implement correctly as it involves tanks being a coop vehicle which it is not at the moment.
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 6381	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:09:00 - [19] - Quote Protocake JR wrote: Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all). Especially when the person forcing the others to use teamwork is solo. Level 6 Forum Warrior Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution Gallente FW - 'Turalyon'
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 505	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:10:00 - [20] - Quote Protocake JR wrote: Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all). So what do you call the current AV v Tank situation that we find our selves in now? AVers are forced to team up in order to take out tanks. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.

BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 505	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:12:00 - [21] - Quote Ranger SnakeBlood wrote: Knight Soiaire wrote: Just because there aren't 3 people inside the HAV, doesn't mean the Pilot isn't using teamwork. Your squad is much better off outside your HAV, because they can take out AVers that are camped in areas a HAV cant reach. Doesnt matter because thats still causing a balence issue if it takes 3 guys to kill 1 guy there is issue, it not about tanks supporting a fireteam its bout making a tank require the same amount of people to kill as it does operate so we have 3 choices. 1: nerf the tanks tanking ability so one guy can kill it. 2: Rebalence large turrets to be AV rather than Anti infantry like the blaster so that the solo tank is now a AV and supression platform new role that is not more useful than 1 unit, to be effective against infantry you must have gunners therefore creating a AV v V balence at a 2 or 3 vrs 2 or 3 3: As op stated make it so it requires 2 or 3 people to operate said tank this is by far the best balenced as option 2 leaves proper tankers that want to fully crew them selfs at a weakness to solo tanks. Most infantry want option 1 as its a quick fix and favors them, anyone who actually wants balence and more depth in the game wants option 3 the only real issue with it is its not a quick fix and would take time to implement correctly as it involves tanks being a coop vehicle which it is not at the moment. I like the way you think. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
CrotchGrab 360 622	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:13:00 - [22] - Quote spk4rthedead wrote: only tanks should be able to take out tanks, now AV is nerfed, tanks are in a good place BALANCE looooooooooooooool
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9065	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:14:00 - [23] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Stupid sales, I've sat through that presentation one too many times Vids / O7
ALPHA DECRIPTER Dragon-Empire 636	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:19:00 - [24] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Tankers can make a ton of WP's if set as a Defend order and all three persons in the tank make extra WP's with any WP action gained. Was in a two-man squad and called in 3 OBs. How? With a tank of course If it took 3 swarms to stop a tank then they would be easy mode. I've noticed that players are talking more about scouts (wow) and tanks then weapons. Why? Because tanks are harder to destroy and scouts are on the verge of being a viable class. `Sigh. Oh well. I suppose all we can do is sit back and see what happens. pulls out scanner to find another good thread Scout Tactician "You have been Scanned"
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 508	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:20:00 - [25] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Stupid sales, I've sat through that presentation one too many times Actually I learned this phrase from this man, Quote: Richard "****" Marcinko (born November 21, 1940), is a retired U.S. Navy SEAL commander and Vietnam War veteran. He was the first commanding officer of SEAL Team Six and Red Cell. After retiring from the United States Navy, he became an author, radio talk show host, military consultant, and motivational speaker. The Rogue Warrior's Ten Commandments of SpecWar #7. Thou shalt Keep It Simple, Stupid. (I had a typo in OP) Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Protocake JR Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 1143	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:20:00 - [26] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Protocake JR wrote: Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all). So what do you call the current AV v Tank situation that we find our selves in now? AVers are forced to team up in order to take out tanks. Yesterday, I was watching my roommate 3-4 shot many tanks and dropships by himself with his forge gun. It's possible to solo a vehicle, as it should be with heavy weaponry. Plasma cannons and swarm launchers should be a sidearm or equipment slot items to increase accessibility of AV weaponry for non-heavy suits.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 508	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:23:00 - [27] - Quote ALPHA DECRIPTER wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Tankers can make a ton of WP's if set as a Defend order and all three persons in the tank make extra WP's with any WP action gained. Was in a two-man squad and called in 3 OBs. How? With a tank of course If it took 3 swarms to stop a tank then they would be easy mode. I've noticed that players are talking more about scouts (wow) and tanks then weapons. Why? Because tanks are harder to destroy and scouts are on the verge of being a viable class. `Sigh. Oh well. I suppose all we can do is sit back and see what happens. pulls out scanner to find another good thread Does it take three tanks to take out three proto swarm launchers? Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 508	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:23:00 - [28] - Quote Protocake JR wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Protocake JR wrote: Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all). So what do you call the current AV v Tank situation that we find our selves in now? AVers are forced to team up in order to take out tanks. Yesterday, I was watching my roommate 3-4 shot many tanks and dropships by himself with his forge gun. It's possible to solo a vehicle, as it should be with heavy weaponry. Plasma cannons and swarm launchers should be a sidearm or equipment slot items to increase accessibility of AV weaponry for non-heavy suits. He was not up against very good Tankers then. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
echo47 Minmatar Republic 116	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:27:00 - [29] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance. how many forge gunners should it take? I would rather look bad and win, than look good and lose.
Protocake JR Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 1143	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:27:00 - [30] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Protocake JR wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Protocake JR wrote: Forced teamwork is not fun. It's okay reward players who use teamwork, but to force them is a bad game mechanic. Someone will fall short of their duty (or even fail to show up at all). So what do you call the current AV v Tank situation that we find our selves in now? AVers are forced to team up in order to take out tanks. Yesterday, I was watching my roommate 3-4 shot many tanks and dropships by himself with his forge gun. It's possible to solo a vehicle, as it should be with heavy weaponry. Plasma cannons and swarm launchers should be a sidearm or equipment slot items to increase accessibility of AV weaponry for non-heavy suits. He was not up against very good Tankers then. So? Good, smart, tankers will always have good survivability. Just like good, smart, infantry players will always have good survivability. Nothing wrong with that.

Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 986	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:27:00 - [31] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: No, tanks need a buff. They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible. Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous. Hey you forgot a sidemounted Orbital Cannon since otherwise the poor tank is UP. And tank scanners to 900 m just to be able to see all the red rabbits. And a 500% speed booster just in case those bad rabbit AV infantry get together and have 16 holding a forge gun. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1889	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:30:00 - [32] - Quote Ranger SnakeBlood wrote: Knight Soiaire wrote: Just because there aren't 3 people inside the HAV, doesn't mean the Pilot isn't using teamwork. Your squad is much better off outside your HAV, because they can take out AVers that are camped in areas a HAV cant reach. Doesnt matter because thats still causing a balence issue if it takes 3 guys to kill 1 guy there is issue, it not about tanks supporting a fireteam its bout making a tank require the same amount of people to kill as it does operate so we have 3 choices. 1: nerf the tanks tanking ability so one guy can kill it. 2: Rebalence large turrets to be AV rather than Anti infantry like the blaster so that the solo tank is now a AV and supression platform new role that is not more useful than 1 unit, to be effective against infantry you must have gunners therefore creating a AV v V balence at a 2 or 3 vrs 2 or 3 3: As op stated make it so it requires 2 or 3 people to operate said tank this is by far the best balenced as option 2 leaves proper tankers that want to fully crew them selfs at a weakness to solo tanks. Most infantry want option 1 as its a quick fix and favors them, anyone who actually wants balence and more depth in the game wants option 3 the only real issue with it is its not a quick fix and would take time to implement correctly as it involves tanks being a coop vehicle which it is not at the moment. Correct Level 1 Forum Warrior I'm a normal person, if I seem like a douche it's because I hate 90% of people on these forums
R F Gyro Clones 4u 863	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:33:00 - [33] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. This kind of thing has been suggested fairly often, but solo tankers want to solo tank, and solo tankers feel they should stomp infantry because :tank: My personal favourite approach is for tanks to be fairly weak by default, but if there are three players in one then the tank owner can enable "crew mode" at which point the driver gets the front small turret, the gunner gets the large turret (and also a limited field of view) and the top gunner (commander) gets the external view but is the only one who can activate modules. In "crew mode" the tank gets significant bonuses to EHP and speed, making it worth at least 3, probably 4 or 5, infantry. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 508	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:39:00 - [34] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. This kind of thing has been suggested fairly often, but solo tankers want to solo tank, and solo tankers feel they should stomp infantry because :tank: My personal favourite approach is for tanks to be fairly weak by default, but if there are three players in one then the tank owner can enable "crew mode" at which point the driver gets the front small turret, the gunner gets the large turret (and also a limited field of view) and the top gunner (commander) gets the external view but is the only one who can activate modules. In "crew mode" the tank gets significant bonuses to EHP and speed, making it worth at least 3, probably 4 or 5, infantry. I like your approach only issue I see is the whole Tank skill tree issue. Mind you forcing three persons in a tank in order to use highly priced tank skills can also be an issue. Crew mode I like that. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Ld Collins The Phalanx Inc 99	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:44:00 - [35] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Ld Collins wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Give tankers triple exp and we have a deal. Tankers can make a ton of WP's if set as a Defend order and all three persons in the tank make extra WP's with any WP action gained. Yep and they should get triple exp because tankers shouldn't have to live a double life if the only way to operate a tank requires having a full crew. To have this and have full time tankers invest in dropsuits too without a boost GTFO
R F Gyro Clones 4u 864	Posted - 2013.12.17 23:52:00 - [36] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: I like your approach only issue I see is the whole Tank skill tree issue. Mind you forcing three persons in a tank in order to use highly priced tank skills can also be an issue. Crew mode I like that. It would require yet another reworking of the skill tree, and yet another partial SP refund, yes. Some sort of split between "fitting" skills and "operation" skills, such that you can train one without the other. The skills would still be valuable when solo tanking though. There are a bunch of other issues that would need to be resolved as well, but there's no point in discussing them at this point because the people who matter - the die-hard solo tankers - won't even entertain the concept. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 273	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:13:00 - [37] - Quote What if we take a page out of the old Planetside book which had 2 main tanks the Light tank which i guess in Dust would be the MAV it would be a fast moving (for a tank) that uses a medium sized turret it would be balenced around 1 guy so it can be killed by 1 AV dude 4 hits of the same grade, relitivly cheap 50k at standard fully fitted the crew of this tank would be 1 man. the medium should be a middle ground bettween large and small turrets so its good against infantry and vehicles smaller vehicles mostly but good vrs large vehicles in packs i know this is going against the 1 should be able to kill one untill you take into acount how HAVs should be done. My view on a HAV lets call it the MBT is a 3 man tank it has 3 seats just like that normal tank but to make it so the tank is only effective while fully crewed lets have seat 1 as driver who has access to movement and movement based modules BUT no third person camera instead uses the front mount gun, second seat gunner is the person who uses the main large turret and has access to damage related modules as well as different vision modes including magnification levels and NV and therm just for the laugh, the third seat uses the top small turret and is the only seat with access to the third person view this is the commander seat which has the ability to tag enemies and create waypoints also has access to a scanners and things like that he also controles the defence systems. This thing wouls be quite hard to kill by AV but would require 3 to kill effectively at all. So to sum up this gives a solo and a tank for Real tankers who value team work.
Zirzo Valcyn Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:30:00 - [38] - Quote 3-4 is like one total side of a failed matchmaker u can ban the troll out of the forums but u can't ban the forums out of the troll.
Jason Pearson 3510	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:31:00 - [39] - Quote No, it should take one person to take down a tank. But it shouldn't be as easy as "LOCKBOOMLOCKBOOM" lol dead tank or "Don't worry guys I'll handle the tank" chucks 3 Lai Dais and jumps over the burning wreck. It should require things like webifiers, emps that freeze weapons, **** like this that makes it hell for the tank, can be done by a single person, can be made easier by a group of people (Like, one guy with webs slowing the guy to a crawl, one guy with something that jams the weapons and one that unloads a forge into the guys rear). Which in turn would give tanks more reason to run with Infantry. Before we'd get stomped by AV and then told "use teamwork", but honestly unless it was a tank squad (which cost millions of ISK) we couldn't use teamwork, because we were getting battered from a massive distance by all AV, it took a few Lai Dais to kill us before friendly Infantry could even react. Now we can, we can survive longer now, so by promoting teamwork through AV (but not making it a necessity) means Tanks would look to Infantry for support. I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. So we're imagining, Tank rolling down the street with not a care in the world, A Forge hits it, Tank immediately pops shield hardeners, looks for target. Webifier and guy with the turret malfunction equipment sneak up behind the tank, they fire at it from cover. Tank turns around to fire back, easy kills right?. Forge hits it a second time and the tank turns his turret, back, the support fire their weapons, it's now very slow and cannot turn its turret very fast, it remains like this as the hardener runs out. Forge gun aims at Tank rear because tank cannot speed away nor rotate very fast, Tank is slain, drops 9 gil and a potion. This could be a very likely story if ewar was added and functioning well within the game. With ewar would come reasons a tanker would like to be by Infantry, if you're stuck in the situation as above and have an Infantry friend, the guys with webs and equipment to make the tank malfunction can be dropped to allow the tank to escape, rather than the Tanker hoping he can solo all the things. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1686	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:38:00 - [40] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ I could be down with some type of mechanic like this... I agree one person shouldn't be able to drive and shoot.... 1 to drive 1 to shoot at most least.... stop the lol bans in FW.... instead make teamkillers purple! https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=129910&fi

Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1253	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:38:00 - [41] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: No, it should take one person to take down a tank. But it shouldn't be as easy as "LOCKBOOMLOCKBOOM" lol dead tank or "Don't worry guys I'll handle the tank" chucks 3 Lai Dais and jumps over the burning wreck. It should require things like webifiers, emps that freeze weapons, **** like this that makes it hell for the tank, can be done by a single person, can be made easier by a group of people (Like, one guy with webs slowing the guy to a crawl, one guy with something that jams the weapons and one that unloads a forge into the guys rear). Which in turn would give tanks more reason to run with Infantry. Before we'd get stomped by AV and then told "use teamwork", but honestly unless it was a tank squad (which cost millions of ISK) we couldn't use teamwork, because we were getting battered from a massive distance by all AV, it took a few Lai Dais to kill us before friendly Infantry could even react. Now we can, we can survive longer now, so by promoting teamwork through AV (but not making it a necessity) means Tanks would look to Infantry for support. I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. So we're imagining, Tank rolling down the street with not a care in the world, A Forge hits it, Tank immediately pops shield hardeners, looks for target. Webifier and guy with the turret malfunction equipment sneak up behind the tank, they fire at it from cover. Tank turns around to fire back, easy kills right?. Forge hits it a second time and the tank turns his turret, back, the support fire their weapons, it's now very slow and cannot turn its turret very fast, it remains like this as the hardener runs out. Forge gun aims at Tank rear because tank cannot speed away nor rotate very fast, Tank is slain, drops 9 gil and a potion. This could be a very likely story if ewar was added and functioning well within the game. With ewar would come reasons a tanker would like to be by Infantry, if you're stuck in the situation as above and have an Infantry friend, the guys with webs and equipment to make the tank malfunction can be dropped to allow the tank to escape, rather than the Tanker hoping he can solo all the things. Tl;Dr It should only REQUIRE one AV to take out a tank (with tactics) AV teamwork should make killing Tanks easier Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Jason Pearson 3510	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:41:00 - [42] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: No, it should take one person to take down a tank. But it shouldn't be as easy as "LOCKBOOMLOCKBOOM" lol dead tank or "Don't worry guys I'll handle the tank" chucks 3 Lai Dais and jumps over the burning wreck. It should require things like webifiers, emps that freeze weapons, **** like this that makes it hell for the tank, can be done by a single person, can be made easier by a group of people (Like, one guy with webs slowing the guy to a crawl, one guy with something that jams the weapons and one that unloads a forge into the guys rear). Which in turn would give tanks more reason to run with Infantry. Before we'd get stomped by AV and then told "use teamwork", but honestly unless it was a tank squad (which cost millions of ISK) we couldn't use teamwork, because we were getting battered from a massive distance by all AV, it took a few Lai Dais to kill us before friendly Infantry could even react. Now we can, we can survive longer now, so by promoting teamwork through AV (but not making it a necessity) means Tanks would look to Infantry for support. I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. So we're imagining, Tank rolling down the street with not a care in the world, A Forge hits it, Tank immediately pops shield hardeners, looks for target. Webifier and guy with the turret malfunction equipment sneak up behind the tank, they fire at it from cover. Tank turns around to fire back, easy kills right?. Forge hits it a second time and the tank turns his turret, back, the support fire their weapons, it's now very slow and cannot turn its turret very fast, it remains like this as the hardener runs out. Forge gun aims at Tank rear because tank cannot speed away nor rotate very fast, Tank is slain, drops 9 gil and a potion. This could be a very likely story if ewar was added and functioning well within the game. With ewar would come reasons a tanker would like to be by Infantry, if you're stuck in the situation as above and have an Infantry friend, the guys with webs and equipment to make the tank malfunction can be dropped to allow the tank to escape, rather than the Tanker hoping he can solo all the things. Tl;Dr It should only REQUIRE one AV to take out a tank (with tactics) AV teamwork should make killing Tanks easier You skipped the post, you get a 1 star battle rating and no items. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1253	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:43:00 - [43] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: No, it should take one person to take down a tank. But it shouldn't be as easy as "LOCKBOOMLOCKBOOM" lol dead tank or "Don't worry guys I'll handle the tank" chucks 3 Lai Dais and jumps over the burning wreck. It should require things like webifiers, emps that freeze weapons, **** like this that makes it hell for the tank, can be done by a single person, can be made easier by a group of people (Like, one guy with webs slowing the guy to a crawl, one guy with something that jams the weapons and one that unloads a forge into the guys rear). Which in turn would give tanks more reason to run with Infantry. Before we'd get stomped by AV and then told "use teamwork", but honestly unless it was a tank squad (which cost millions of ISK) we couldn't use teamwork, because we were getting battered from a massive distance by all AV, it took a few Lai Dais to kill us before friendly Infantry could even react. Now we can, we can survive longer now, so by promoting teamwork through AV (but not making it a necessity) means Tanks would look to Infantry for support. I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. So we're imagining, Tank rolling down the street with not a care in the world, A Forge hits it, Tank immediately pops shield hardeners, looks for target. Webifier and guy with the turret malfunction equipment sneak up behind the tank, they fire at it from cover. Tank turns around to fire back, easy kills right?. Forge hits it a second time and the tank turns his turret, back, the support fire their weapons, it's now very slow and cannot turn its turret very fast, it remains like this as the hardener runs out. Forge gun aims at Tank rear because tank cannot speed away nor rotate very fast, Tank is slain, drops 9 gil and a potion. This could be a very likely story if ewar was added and functioning well within the game. With ewar would come reasons a tanker would like to be by Infantry, if you're stuck in the situation as above and have an Infantry friend, the guys with webs and equipment to make the tank malfunction can be dropped to allow the tank to escape, rather than the Tanker hoping he can solo all the things. Tl;Dr It should only REQUIRE one AV to take out a tank (with tactics) AV teamwork should make killing Tanks easier You skipped the post, you get a 1 star battle rating and no items. No I read the whole thing! I am retracting that like I gave you! Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 511	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:50:00 - [44] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. I hear ya on the OP AV of the past and agree it was OP. In the above example you are still drawing 3 v 1 and even still it is more like 3 v 5 if the tanker is running with a full squad of support. Now if one foot soldier could carry all the above gear and solo a solo driver then sure. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Jason Pearson 3510	Posted - 2013.12.18 00:56:00 - [45] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: I mean imagine a squad of three AVers with the following setup of weapons I'd like to see. Webifier Weapon that when fired (like a laser) can reduce the movment speed of a tank to a slow crawl, stupidly slow. A weapon that can be thrown that like an AV grenade, seeks the target and locks up the turrets of the vehicle, very slow rotation speed, massive overheat when firing weapon and possibly other things, debuff lasts for let's say 10 seconds. A Forge Gunner. I hear ya on the OP AV of the past and agree it was OP. In the above example you are still drawing 3 v 1 and even still it is more like 3 v 5 if the tanker is running with a full squad of support. Now if one foot soldier could carry all the above gear and solo a solo driver then sure. It wasn't an example of 3v1 only, It was aimed at showing what teamwork would achieve, it would be that easy with three people, however I do believe there should be numerous devices, mines that can do the job of a weapon that is focused on slowing a vehicle down for example, place those in a line, tank rolls over one and gets debuffed for 15 seconds. EMP Grenades that mess up someones screen and messes with their turret equipment. etc One person can do it, it won't be like previous times with AV but it can be done without massive difficulty, just a little prep, good fitting and not being a moron :D If you have a setup that forces teamwork, people won't enjoy it, but if you have a setup that encourages teamwork, people will adjust and make it be necessary. You'll hear tankers recommending to newbies not to run by themselves and laughing because someone got popped for being a hero, you'll hear AVers talking about how they need to run in groups and telling someone how stupid they are for complaining that they died to a tanker despite following exactly how someone described how to do it, telling them to practice and get good. The idea of a 3man tank forces teamwork on a tank player, making his playstyle obsolete, his SP meaningless and his enjoyment from the game is taken away unless he goes and makes friends. If you're going to have a 3man Tank, you need to remove the SP required to play in Vehicles, because I wouldn't be happy if I'm spending 20mil SP and require players to use my stuff. And what do I do when I'm up late and my friends are asleep? I won't be playing DUST that's for sure. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 513	Posted - 2013.12.18 01:03:00 - [46] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: It wasn't an example of 3v1 only, It was aimed at showing what teamwork would achieve, it would be that easy with three people, however I do believe there should be numerous devices, mines that can do the job of a weapon that is focused on slowing a vehicle down for example, place those in a line, tank rolls over one and gets debuffed for 15 seconds. EMP Grenades that mess up someones screen and messes with their turret equipment. etc One person can do it, it won't be like previous times with AV but it can be done without massive difficulty, just a little prep, good fitting and not being a moron :D If you have a setup that forces teamwork, people won't enjoy it, but if you have a setup that encourages teamwork, people will adjust and make it be necessary. You'll hear tankers recommending to newbies not to run by themselves and laughing because someone got popped for being a hero, you'll hear AVers talking about how they need to run in groups and telling someone how stupid they are for complaining that they died to a tanker despite following exactly how someone described how to do it, telling them to practice and get good. The idea of a 3man tank forces teamwork on a tank player, making his playstyle obsolete, his SP meaningless and his enjoyment from the game is taken away unless he goes and makes friends. If you're going to have a 3man Tank, you need to remove the SP required to play in Vehicles, because I wouldn't be happy if I'm spending 20mil SP and require players to use my stuff. And what do I do when I'm up late and my friends are asleep? I won't be playing DUST that's for sure. Okay so then why shouldn't it take three persons to run a tank? one to drive it, one to shoot the gun, one to run mods or ect..... If it takes team work to take one down why can't it take team work to operate one? Right now we are forcing AVers to use team work. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Jason Pearson 3511	Posted - 2013.12.18 01:10:00 - [47] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Okay so then why shouldn't it take three persons to run a tank? one to drive it, one to shoot the gun, one to run mods or ect..... If it takes team work to take one down why can't it take team work to operate one? Erm, did you read my post? As I said, it shouldn't take three people to kill a tank, there should be a range of options, equipment and weapons that allow different things to happen, Stasis mines and Grenades, EMP Grenades, weapons such as a rifle that fires a beam that slows down a vehicle, ones sort of make a visual wave that hits the tank and slows his turrets down, those are just the tip of things we could ask to be added. For your idea to work, you need to remove SP from vehicles, make them ISK only things, no SP required and make this an Infantry focused game, AV should cost anything other than ISK either, then refund everyones SP back from Vehicles and AV so we can spec back into Infantry. You cannot make it so a players entire playstyle can only be played when more players are on. I run pretty much only tank, if I had to wait for my friends to get on and let me play, I'd be on for about an hour a week and if it's requiring SP to play like this, you're having a ******* laugh :) King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1255	Posted - 2013.12.18 01:12:00 - [48] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: It wasn't an example of 3v1 only, It was aimed at showing what teamwork would achieve, it would be that easy with three people, however I do believe there should be numerous devices, mines that can do the job of a weapon that is focused on slowing a vehicle down for example, place those in a line, tank rolls over one and gets debuffed for 15 seconds. EMP Grenades that mess up someones screen and messes with their turret equipment. etc One person can do it, it won't be like previous times with AV but it can be done without massive difficulty, just a little prep, good fitting and not being a moron :D If you have a setup that forces teamwork, people won't enjoy it, but if you have a setup that encourages teamwork, people will adjust and make it be necessary. You'll hear tankers recommending to newbies not to run by themselves and laughing because someone got popped for being a hero, you'll hear AVers talking about how they need to run in groups and telling someone how stupid they are for complaining that they died to a tanker despite following exactly how someone described how to do it, telling them to practice and get good. The idea of a 3man tank forces teamwork on a tank player, making his playstyle obsolete, his SP meaningless and his enjoyment from the game is taken away unless he goes and makes friends. If you're going to have a 3man Tank, you need to remove the SP required to play in Vehicles, because I wouldn't be happy if I'm spending 20mil SP and require players to use my stuff. And what do I do when I'm up late and my friends are asleep? I won't be playing DUST that's for sure. Okay so then why shouldn't it take three persons to run a tank? one to drive it, one to shoot the gun, one to run mods or ect..... If it takes team work to take one down why can't it take team work to operate one? It won't take more than one, if you know, what you are doing! You could have a commando run, webifier mines, an overcharge weapon and swarms or plc, who could reliably take out a tank, if he knew one was coming, but he would be severly disadvantaged in the infantry v infantry theatre, because of no wait to return infantry fire! It would be more favourable to run these pieces of equipment between multiple people to make up for the short comings! Just like with tankers it shouldn't be neccesary to run with two gunners, but a blaster tank with 2 rail gunners will be at better advantage than a 1 man blaster! Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Ninja Troll 2	Posted - 2013.12.18 01:48:00 - [49] - Quote I agree. Although the title of your topic made me think you were against AVers. I'm hoping CCP implement an Infantry Only mode or option with no vehicles. Not sure if they've tried it yet. [Request] Infantry Only Mode or Option - No Vehicles
Jason Pearson 3514	Posted - 2013.12.18 01:55:00 - [50] - Quote Ninja Troll wrote: I agree. Although the title of your topic made me think you were against AVers. I'm hoping CCP implement an Infantry Only mode or option with no vehicles. Not sure if they've tried it yet. They haven't tried it, wouldn't be against matches for infantry only if they're just Ambush, Vehicles should be present when it comes to domi and skirm. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.

BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 522	Posted - 2013.12.18 11:29:00 - [51] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Ninja Troll wrote: I agree. Although the title of your topic made me think you were against AVers. I'm hoping CCP implement an Infantry Only mode or option with no vehicles. Not sure if they've tried it yet. They haven't tried it, wouldn't be against matches for infantry only if they're just Ambush, Vehicles should be present when it comes to domi and skirm. TBH I would like to see an infantry only version of all three modes but that would split the player base up way too much IMO. Ambush needs to be Infantry only though. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
Salviatino Maiano Eternal Beings 73	Posted - 2013.12.18 11:37:00 - [52] - Quote True Adamance wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Should take 3 people to operate a dropsuit by equivalent logic....if a dropsuit player can kill 3 people it should take 3 people to control that dropsuit. being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse...... tanks should have a presence on the battlefield, when properly piloted they should be a menace and damn hard to kill. oh look they are. now require at least two players per tank. if six tanks get spammed 12 infantry have to man them balancing out the battle. not 6 tanks and 10 infantry supporting. especially when your not even safe to spawn a tank in your redzone to counter enemy tanks. idk i dont tank or AV, tanks are just ruining matches, after the fifth tank gets called in its game over and time to lolAV from the redline.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 522	Posted - 2013.12.18 11:38:00 - [53] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Erm, did you read my post? As I said, it shouldn't take three people to kill a tank, there should be a range of options, equipment and weapons that allow different things to happen, Stasis mines and Grenades, EMP Grenades, weapons such as a rifle that fires a beam that slows down a vehicle, ones sort of make a visual wave that hits the tank and slows his turrets down, those are just the tip of things we could ask to be added. For your idea to work, you need to remove SP from vehicles, make them ISK only things, no SP required and make this an Infantry focused game, AV should cost anything other than ISK either, then refund everyones SP back from Vehicles and AV so we can spec back into Infantry. You cannot make it so a players entire playstyle can only be played when more players are on. I run pretty much only tank, if I had to wait for my friends to get on and let me play, I'd be on for about an hour a week and if it's requiring SP to play like this, you're having a ******* laugh :) I read it. New toys like you described would be nice however those toys by themselves would only annoy the tank pilots and could be huge SP sinks for little to no gain. What kind of WP gains are you going to hand out to the guy that just slowed the tank down but did not destroy it? If it takes CCP removing all SP's from tanks and AV and making them ISK only to balance then so be it. TBH it is not that bad of an idea. I understand that forcing you to have three persons in your tank is not fare but right now I run Logi and have invested no SP's in either tanks or AV so I am forced to hope that someone on my team is running AV or we are just screwed. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.
bigbad bro FERAL OUTCASTS.INC 1	Posted - 2013.12.18 11:45:00 - [54] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ This is a futuristic game and you guys are making it a Black Ops or even BF, your on planets with future weapons and CCP said once in closed beta there will be 1 man tanks and jets. For now I see 1 man tanks hint hint. So if want to whine at all the vehicle players, do something about it get a real squad and learn war tactics. AMEN!!!
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1256	Posted - 2013.12.18 13:01:00 - [55] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Erm, did you read my post? As I said, it shouldn't take three people to kill a tank, there should be a range of options, equipment and weapons that allow different things to happen, Stasis mines and Grenades, EMP Grenades, weapons such as a rifle that fires a beam that slows down a vehicle, ones sort of make a visual wave that hits the tank and slows his turrets down, those are just the tip of things we could ask to be added. For your idea to work, you need to remove SP from vehicles, make them ISK only things, no SP required and make this an Infantry focused game, AV should cost anything other than ISK either, then refund everyones SP back from Vehicles and AV so we can spec back into Infantry. You cannot make it so a players entire playstyle can only be played when more players are on. I run pretty much only tank, if I had to wait for my friends to get on and let me play, I'd be on for about an hour a week and if it's requiring SP to play like this, you're having a ******* laugh :) I read it. New toys like you described would be nice however those toys by themselves would only annoy the tank pilots and could be huge SP sinks for little to no gain. What kind of WP gains are you going to hand out to the guy that just slowed the tank down but did not destroy it? If it takes CCP removing all SP's from tanks and AV and making them ISK only to balance then so be it. TBH it is not that bad of an idea. I understand that forcing you to have three persons in your tank is not fare but right now I run Logi and have invested no SP's in either tanks or AV so I am forced to hope that someone on my team is running AV or we are just screwed and even then lets say it is just on Proto AVer up against two tanks or even just one, the tanks still win 90% of the time. Well unless it is just standard tanker someone like me who has no clue about tanking. By themselves there would be little use, they would be used purely with the intention of destroying the vehicle, as with other support based equipment you earn a 20% commission on all WP earned against the effected target! Setting up a webifier would serve little use, unless there is some form of AV to capatilise on it! Even if its just a set of proximity explosives! Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1976	Posted - 2013.12.18 13:17:00 - [56] - Quote OP if it takes 3-4 AV'ers to take out 1 tank then either a) your AV crew is bad and full of idiots or b) the tank pilot is damn good or c) both Also in my tank i use teamwork, not in the tank but outside it like a sniper for spotting targets, a friendly tank for backup and support and that makes 3ppl, anyone else in either another tank or infantry to help hack stuff Bad luck OP i already use teamwork
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 370	Posted - 2013.12.18 13:55:00 - [57] - Quote Ld Collins wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: It should also take three persons in side the tank in order for the tank to move, aim / fire, and reload its weapon. - Remove one person from the tank and the tank then loses its ability to reload its weapons - Remove two persons from the tank and it loses its ability to fire its weapon - Remove three persons...................well you get the point Team work ^ Ahhhhhh Balance. TL:Don't Care If it takes three AVers to take down a tank it should take three persons to run a tank. Kiss Keep it simple stupid$ Give tankers triple exp and we have a deal. Thanks to vehicle Assists you already can get a lot of WP from operating a tank as a team...its not exactly trippled but it is not that far away...
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 277	Posted - 2013.12.18 13:59:00 - [58] - Quote I appreciate the way you're pointing out one of the biggest fallacies in the eterntal AV/Tank debate. It's just a ridiculous premise that leads to a zero-sum game of paralysing entire teams of infantry to deal with 1 or 2 tanks, when it's easier to just summon another tank, thereby changing the dynamic of putting infantry in the periphery and just relying on vehicles completely - hence the tank spam. It seems difficult to understand somehow.
Zerus Ni'Kator Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 19	Posted - 2013.12.18 14:06:00 - [59] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Okay so then why shouldn't it take three persons to run a tank? one to drive it, one to shoot the gun, one to run mods or ect..... If it takes team work to take one down why can't it take team work to operate one? Erm, did you read my post? As I said, it shouldn't take three people to kill a tank, there should be a range of options, equipment and weapons that allow different things to happen, Stasis mines and Grenades, EMP Grenades, weapons such as a rifle that fires a beam that slows down a vehicle, ones sort of make a visual wave that hits the tank and slows his turrets down, those are just the tip of things we could ask to be added. For your idea to work, you need to remove SP from vehicles, make them ISK only things, no SP required and make this an Infantry focused game, AV should cost anything other than ISK either, then refund everyones SP back from Vehicles and AV so we can spec back into Infantry. You cannot make it so a players entire playstyle can only be played when more players are on. I run pretty much only tank, if I had to wait for my friends to get on and let me play, I'd be on for about an hour a week and if it's requiring SP to play like this, you're having a ******* laugh :) But Your forcing AV players through that route currently If you can't solo vehicles with your SP investment because you don't have other AV friends on then all the SP invested in AV is useless
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 2218	Posted - 2013.12.18 14:06:00 - [60] - Quote Knight Soiaire wrote: Just because there aren't 3 people inside the HAV, doesn't mean the Pilot isn't using teamwork. Your squad is much better off outside your HAV, because they can take out AVers that are camped in areas a HAV cant reach. But that pilot isn't forced to, nor will the outcome of his life or WP be affected by using teamwork. AV on the other hand, requires teamwork to be successful, and without it then there is no possible way to kill a pilot with an IQ greater than 5. Why must vehicle pilots try to ruin DUST 514 for everyone? Do they really want to go 60/0 that badly?

Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2569	Posted - 2013.12.18 14:25:00 - [61] - Quote Something to consider: Properly balanced, over time a tank is only as powerful as a single infantry unit. It is X times more powerful for 1/X amount of time. It packs a bunker busting strength to break through heavily defended objectives, but then must run away or be protected by others fr a longer period of time. That's the new "waves of opportunity" philosophy. That means we can have it both ways now. One AV player can solo a tank when it's in cool down, but it takes a coordinated effort when it's in power mode.
Jason Pearson 3520	Posted - 2013.12.18 14:34:00 - [62] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: I read it. New toys like you described would be nice however those toys by themselves would only annoy the tank pilots and could be huge SP sinks for little to no gain. What kind of WP gains are you going to hand out to the guy that just slowed the tank down but did not destroy it? If it takes CCP removing all SP's from tanks and AV and making them ISK only to balance then so be it. TBH it is not that bad of an idea. I understand that forcing you to have three persons in your tank is not fare but right now I run Logi and have invested no SP's in either tanks or AV so I am forced to hope that someone on my team is running AV or we are just screwed and even then lets say it is just on Proto AVer up against two tanks or even just one, the tanks still win 90% of the time. Well unless it is just standard tanker someone like me who has no clue about tanking. Would only annoy? Not quite sure on that, it would be a massive hindrance to be put in a position like that when trying to flee, using them would let you escape, would let you continue dealing damage without them running off, could stop them from assisting their team, could hit them just as a friendly tank rolls round and boom, poor stuck tank. Of course, WP needs to be balanced and needs to go for everything that you do, continuous WP for a beam type thing (like a rep tool) up to a cap, wp for just stopping one with something that needs to be thrown, damage also needs to give WP, I don't really know what number, something like 25 for every 1000 damage dealt? Thats down to your decision in not running something to combat a vehicle, we however invested our SP into something that you want to require 3 people, so SP would need to go because I doubt many people would stay if they were stuck with a useless class that REQUIRES 3 to even attempt to do something, it's different with AV, I got pushed back by a single forge gunner, if he was properly rewarded for his efforts then it'd be a whole different story, Zerus Ni'Kator wrote: But Your forcing AV players through that route currently If you can't solo vehicles with your SP investment because you don't have other AV friends on then all the SP invested in AV is useless Which is why I'm asking for ewar, the possibility that a single player can bait, trap and kill a tank easier than now, but isn't a range/damage buff to their weapons so they just lolstomp tanks like before, King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire. Buffing or Debuffing Vehicles or AV will never fix anything.
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 852	Posted - 2013.12.18 15:22:00 - [63] - Quote okay, I've been avoiding this post like the plague but I do have one question. what does the reloader do? does he just sit there enjoying the view pressing one button on occasion? are you so desperate to make it 3 people instead of 2 that you made up a nonsense position that has no purpose just to shove another person in the tank? "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1256	Posted - 2013.12.18 15:40:00 - [64] - Quote Skihids wrote: Something to consider: Properly balanced, over time a tank is only as powerful as a single infantry unit. It is X times more powerful for 1/X amount of time. It packs a bunker busting strength to break through heavily defended objectives, but then must run away or be protected by others fr a longer period of time. That's the new "waves of opportunity" philosophy. That means we can have it both ways now. One AV player can solo a tank when it's in cool down, but it takes a coordinated effort when it's in power mode. Yes but any tanker knows you shouldn't get caught with your pant's(hardeners) down! So instead you get a tanker who is X times more powerful, because when he isn't there he isn't effecting the battle! Which doesn't work, because instead of having waves of opportunity, you end up like now, almost continous waves of hiding in a corner waiting for the big bad tank to leave! Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Dexter307 The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar 671	Posted - 2013.12.18 15:41:00 - [65] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. In all honesty, you AV guys kind of deserve this after many months of completely dominating tanks into the ground. It should take 2-3 swarm launchers to down a tank, because using a swarm launcher is 2-3x easier than using a tank. That is balance. Is this a troll? I can use a militia tank with no prior experience with tanking in dust and go 20-0 AV is MUCH harder than using vehicles.
Kuroiokami Tsukinaku A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. Renegade Alliance 12	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:23:00 - [66] - Quote I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV. My proposal: 1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank. 2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew. 3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield. In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down.
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 278	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:29:00 - [67] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: okay, I've been avoiding this post like the plague but I do have one question. what does the reloader do? does he just sit there enjoying the view pressing one button on occasion? are you so desperate to make it 3 people instead of 2 that you made up a nonsense position that has no purpose just to shove another person in the tank? A loader would be a bad solution as it is outdated even by todays standards, the best option for seat 3 if there is a need for one is commander who is essentially in charge of intel with access to scanners and defensive capabilities and is located in top small turret. There may not be a need for seat 3 but in my opinion this would be the most usefull one. The 2 seat option would be driver and main gunner which would now be a AV weapon in a ideal world.
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 278	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:34:00 - [68] - Quote Kuroiokami Tsukinaku wrote: I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV. My proposal: 1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank. 2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew. 3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield. In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down. Ive seen this one come up a few time while i agree its a nice solution it does put crew tankers against solo tankers at a simular disadvantage to the current AV vrs V, in that it would be more effective for someone and 2 friends who wants to kill a tank to bring in 3 solo tanks and hit the crew tank with the main turrets AV, its just something to keep in mind i guess.
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 852	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:37:00 - [69] - Quote Kuroiokami Tsukinaku wrote: I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV. My proposal: 1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank. 2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew. 3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield. In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down. I like this +1. rate of fire nerf is a bit large and well doesn't make sense. my HAV is missing 2 people so it doesn't fire as quickly when all all of the projectiles come in magazines. perhaps a minor increase to reload time(like 2.5 seconds per person making 15 seconds solo 10 seconds occupied) would make more sense and be a better option? also fitting small turrets is a burden on the tank, we are extremely tight on pg/cpu and that is the reason a lot of us myself included don't run smalls. however if you gave us a pg/cpu buff it could work, the advantages of smalls would have to out weigh the deficits though. knight of 6 wrote: my tank has no small guns, it is largely due to PG constraints and given the opportunity I would probably put back the top gun and ditch the front gunners position. I've gotten bad gunners over and over again and completely understand the motives of anyone who said bucket and removed all their smalls. small gunners are really useful and yes I did cater to them when the situation presents it self. however neither gun is well placed on the tank. the top gun can't track down far enough to to be useful in short to mid range combat and smalls are really bad at any range at all, so unless your target was above you(in which case it is likely that they are protected by a railing) it is essentially useless, another strike against the top gun is that is off center of the main turret rendering tracking with both simultaneously turrets nearly impossible. the front gun is worse than the top gun, the front gun's only saving grace is that is substantially more accurate than the to gun due to the a fore mentioned placement issue. it's field of fire is horrendous and catering to it very often endangers the integrity of the tank. the full 360 movement ability of the main turret means that broadsiding your target is possible and if the situation arises you can pull transversal on any threat perpendicular to your tank often breaking line of sight. facing your enemy so that the front gunner can line up shots is preferable however if a threat arises the only means of escape is to eliminate the threat or reverse which never breaks line of sight and can't take advantage of transversal. there is one situation where pulling forward into the enemy lines in a blitz is a viable option and in fact preferable to any other maneuver. in the case that you are facing enemy lines and parked, good squad leaders will often plant an orbital on the back end of the tank because allied infantry often use the tank for cover and many tankers first instinct is to full reverse out of danger and into their own lines. this gives the squad leader a 2 for 1 taking out the panicked driver who reversed further into the OB and his infantry support. there is of course the human element of having gunners, I have had excellent gunners but more often than not I get very, very bad gunners. the guy AFKing in my top turret(the semi useful one), the impatient blueberry in the front gun firing very angrily at nothing in my front gun because I'm not lining up shots for him, as doing so would endanger the tank. the ******* shooting at blues for sport, the guy who refuses to leave so I can recall the tank. the guy who doesn't understand the basics of tanking and shoots at nothing giving my position to the whole wide world while I wait for favorable conditions to engage. the guy frantically switching seats trying to get the drivers seat(he's probably moving to fast to notice if he actually got it). I've spent a lot of time tanking and gunning for other tankers, I hope that this helps the community at large understand the decisions we make with our machinery and why we do what we do how we do it.(say that last bit 5 times fast for extra fun!) and I hope this post helps at least some people realize that while tanking may be EZmode now, good tankers put a lot of thought into when and how they move. I posted this a while ago and it sums up the current issues with smalls. there is a lot that would need to happen to make smalls a good idea again but fixing these is a good start. "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Canis Ferox Ultramarine Corp 11	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:42:00 - [70] - Quote CCP caved into pressure from lazy whining tankers grumbling that HAVs were too slow and too easy to kill. Fact is they only ever got killed when sat out in the frontline, in open ground, without infantry support and were too focused on getting their 30+ kills in a match to see the enemy who changed his fit so he could only kill tanks and not infantry, then painstakingly stalked across the map, unseen, to deliver 4-5 AV grenades and 2-3 swarm hits to finally cease the gimpoid's reign of terror. That kind of dedication should be encouraged. The tanker is one man, the tank killer was one man. That was fair. Now it is not fair. All we need to do is put a whole heap of counter pressure on CCP to nerf the **** out of tanks again and they will fold to popular demand like the fan-whores they are. So here's my contribution to the argument!... Tanks are OP Tanks are OP Tanks are OP Tanks are too fast Tanks are too fast Tanks are too fast Tanks are OP Tanks are OP Tanks are OP Tank ROF should be nerfed Tank damage should be nerfed BUFF the AV grenade BUFF the swarm launcher ... Make Scouts strafe fast again! Provide a fresh call-girl each evening to hold Canis Ferox's balls whilst he plays Dust! - the people demand it. Viva La Republic!

Joel II X Lo-Tech Solutions Ltd 338	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:43:00 - [71] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: No, tanks need a buff. They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible. Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous. Not sure is serious or...
knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 852	Posted - 2013.12.18 17:49:00 - [72] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: No, tanks need a buff. They should properly be solo pubstomp machines and literally the only thing that should be able to take them out should be another tank. AV is terrible and a crutch and needs to be removed. It's a tank - therefore it should be nigh on invincible. Also, tanks are still too expensive. A Madrugar can cost more than a proto dropsuit - that's ridiculous. Not sure is serious or... troll "God favors the side with the best artillery" ~ Napoleon Ko6, scout, tanker. CLOSED BETA VET
Kuroiokami Tsukinaku A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. Renegade Alliance 12	Posted - 2013.12.18 18:15:00 - [73] - Quote Ranger SnakeBlood wrote: Kuroiokami Tsukinaku wrote: I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV. My proposal: 1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank. 2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew. 3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield. In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down. Ive seen this one come up a few time while i agree its a nice solution it does put crew tankers against solo tankers at a simular disadvantage to the current AV vrs V, in that it would be more effective for someone and 2 friends who wants to kill a tank to bring in 3 solo tanks and hit the crew tank with the main turrets AV, its just something to keep in mind i guess. True that you could respond with more HAVs rather than fully crewing one. But that in turn puts 3 juicy targets that are ill prepaired for infantry AV. While I have the opinion that a crewed tank should be stronger than a single solo tank, it shouldn't be stronger than three solo tanks.
Kuroiokami Tsukinaku A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. Renegade Alliance 12	Posted - 2013.12.18 18:32:00 - [74] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: I like this +1. rate of fire nerf is a bit large and well doesn't make sense. my HAV is missing 2 people so it doesn't fire as quickly when all all of the projectiles come in magazines. perhaps a minor increase to reload time(like 2.5 seconds per person making 15 seconds solo 10 seconds occupied) would make more sense and be a better option? also fitting small turrets is a burden on the tank, we are extremely tight on pg/cpu and that is the reason a lot of us myself included don't run smalls. however if you gave us a pg/cpu buff it could work, the advantages of smalls would have to out weigh the deficits though. I posted this a while ago and it sums up the current issues with smalls. there is a lot that would need to happen to make smalls a good idea again but fixing these is a good start. Content removed for space. I am not as familiar with the new effects of reloading the main turret so I can't speak directly to your idea. But the overall inference should be that there be a detrement to solo tanking compared to crew tanking. I suggested the rate of fire due to it directly affecting the DPS, but not the capability to obtain OHK when shooting squishy stuff. So it would loose in a tank dual, but still kill single exposed soft targets. To me the more important detrement is the scan. Make it easier for solo tanks to be flanked or snuck up on. And I agree about the current issues with small turrets. Every time I've manned them, I can't see what I need to see and my accuracy is dependent on how steady the driver makes the tank. I'd be happy if turrets had lead indicators to take vechile movement into account. And their pg/CPUcost should be small in my proposal. The goal is to get tanks to want turrets not trade a proto largeturret for two weak small turrets.
taxi bastard Minor Trueblood 79	Posted - 2013.12.18 18:43:00 - [75] - Quote i would honestly love to know how often REAL tankers (10 mil SP+ into tanks) die atm to AV. before tanker were a rare thing.....now we see them en mass so its pretty safe to say that most users have less than 1 mil SP's invested into tanks. my alt has 700k SP invested into tanks and in all honesty infantry is not so much of a worry unless i am already licking my wounds. also do there tankers find that ammo is rarely an issue? i think its another aspect which needs to be looked at.
MINA Longstrike 2Shitz 1Giggle 173	Posted - 2013.12.18 18:59:00 - [76] - Quote BMSTUBBY wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: You sir were calling for a flame war with that title weren't you? Not really, why? Think about it. Pilots are saying it should take team work in order to destroy their tanks, right? Well all I am saying is that it should take team work to pilot a tank. Pilot went through months of getting near instantly killed by anyone with even the least bit of av, from militia forges to militia swarms, to av grenades + nanohives and this had nothing on proto av weapons, your only hope was speccing into the madrugar and getting full proto fittings and even then you still had to worry about a lot. our vehicles also cost a lot and were more or less expensive coffins. Now there are a few problems with the current system but overall it is much better than it was previously. Current issues are that tanks are probably way, way too fast (though the improved handling is a godsend from the old system where it could take 20+ seconds to turn around), shield tanks could probably use a slightly longer delay on shield recharge kicking in (+3 or +4 seconds, maybe longer if there's lowslot modules that reduce the delay), vehicles are often cycled out to refresh modules or restore ammo (this can be good if you decide the easiest way to combat tanks is to destroy supply depots), and some matches have the hilarious tendancy for one team to have 7 tanks and the other team trying to kill them with AR's. All I can really say is now that vehicles are no longer completely free kills, you might want to spend a bit of SP investing into AV weapons, ADV swarms with damage mods + proficiency still get the job done if you're not trying to shoot shield tanks while hardeners are up. Flux grenades do more damage to shield tanks than av grenades do. Where we're at isn't perfect, but its a lot more balanced than it was.
BMSTUBBY KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 530	Posted - 2013.12.18 19:02:00 - [77] - Quote knight of 6 wrote: okay, I've been avoiding this post like the plague but I do have one question. what does the reloader do? does he just sit there enjoying the view pressing one button on occasion? are you so desperate to make it 3 people instead of 2 that you made up a nonsense position that has no purpose just to shove another person in the tank? My thought was if and when the tank ran out of ammo and needed to go to supply depot, if you did not have three persons in the tank then you would not be able to reload, lol. In the mean time he would be pew pewing a small turret. TBH others have much better ideas in this thread. Kuroiokami Tsukinaku wrote: I would not seperate the driver from the turret. Only one person buys the tank, so that one person should be able to use it. I would rather reduce the effectiveness of the tank if it will not or can not get two gunners. There's nothing wrong with a solo operated HAV. But it should be measurably weaker than a crew operated HAV. My proposal: 1. Slightly increase the effectivity of small turrets against infantry. We need people to want to crew a tank. 2. Slightly decrease the effectivity of large turrets against infantry. We want tankers to want a crew. 3. Reduce the capabilities of a tank without the crew. I've suggested in the past to give a -10% rate of fire and a -20% scan radius for each unoccupied seat. So the tank is slightly weaker and blind without his crew. I think this would match a quasi-reality as the crew could help load the main turret as well as scan the battlefield. In the end you still have a tank that is formidable with a solo operator. But, with a crew, it's a war machine deserving AV teamwork to take down. Ranger SnakeBlood wrote: A loader would be a bad solution as it is outdated even by todays standards, the best option for seat 3 if there is a need for one is commander who is essentially in charge of intel with access to scanners and defensive capabilities and is located in top small turret. There may not be a need for seat 3 but in my opinion this would be the most usefull one. The 2 seat option would be driver and main gunner which would now be a AV weapon in a ideal world. Meh, F2P Lobby Shooter BattleDuty 514 Working as intended.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.