| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
586
   |
Posted - 2013.12.23 19:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the rise of Tank514, it has become even more glaringly obvious, how weak weapon installations are.
They serve as little more as WP eggs for tankers at the moment.
I think that gun/missile installations, should be just as difficult to blow up , as CRUs .
Giving then more defense than a freakin LAV, would seem to make sense to me.
They're a stationary installation. They should be *heavily* fortified!!
They should have at least twice as much HP as the most buff tank, IMO.
Gobs of armor.
And the railguns should be able to rapidly home in on any tank firing on them, and proceed to zap them into itty-bitty-tank-bits.
It's rather stupid how you can be "out of range" of a rail installation auto-return-firing at you, while not out of range of a tank railgun.
If anything, stationary installations should have longer range than tanks, not shorter.
This would encourage much more teamplay between tankers, and infantry.
"Sure, i'd LOVE to support you with my tank. but hey, I need you to go hack that installation by you first, or I'll get blown up myself" |
501st Headstrong
Dead Man's Game
106
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adapt for the love of god. Use the Installations as traps. If a tank comes by to blow up an installation, have a friendly Sica hone in and destroy that tank. Our, have Avers at the HAV as it destroys the installation. The difference between an installation and a CRU is that one doesn't attack, the other can inflict 1500 damage a shot. That is why you don't give a Raligun Installation 25,000 armor and 5000 shields. And why the hell are you even worried about installations, shouldn't you be guarding the objectives or piloting another tank?
Not furious, just confused. There's a difference
Mando & proud
Minmatar Commando, join the Commando Squadron Chat 2day!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
586
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
you wouldnt be so confused, if you spent less time running around in a tank, expecting other people to do the gruntwork.
|
501st Headstrong
Dead Man's Game
106
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
I don't run around in a tank, I only use it to combat other tanks. And the trap was referring to blaster tanks. As for the Railgun tanks, well the way I see it get out a railgun and kill them, or seek cover my friend.
Mando & proud
Minmatar Commando, join the Commando Squadron Chat 2day!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
587
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
FYI, I believe effective range for large blaster on a tank, is 250m.
That's not 500m, but its still not too shabby either. So the whole "trap " thing, only works on clueless tankers who are using a tank like an infantry suit.
|
501st Headstrong
Dead Man's Game
106
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Perhaps, but that still doesn't stop you from using the railgun to then destroy them, or get out another tank. I've killed turrets at 300 meters.
Mando & proud
Minmatar Commando, join the Commando Squadron Chat 2day!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
356
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 21:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Buff installations to CRU health. Make the hack time as long as a counterhack. Make installations give no wp if destroyed while neutral. |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
191
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
I agree that Installations need something to make them relevant because as-is, they are simply WP presents for sane vehicle users and bad surprises for unobservant ones.
Increasing their health by a large amount would go a long way to making tanks a lot more cautious and mean that not only would combined arms approaches be viable, but teams would have bulwarks to use to anchor effectively allowing gameplan, tactics and strategies to actually occur. |
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
356
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Also, give remotes a damage boost to installations, or jus t buff raw remote damage (I'm in favor of the first one.) They need to be easily destroyed by SOMETHING, and remotes seems like a good item to do so. |
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
589
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Also, give remotes a damage boost to installations, or jus t buff raw remote damage (I'm in favor of the first one.) They need to be easily destroyed by SOMETHING(...)
Why?
I completely disagree with your premise.
If you want to neutralize their threat "quickly", then you should need to hack them.
If you can get close enough to use remotes on them, it shouldnt be too much more difficult to hack them.
(edit: contrariwise, if they're going to be easily-destroyed WP eggs, then may as well not bother allowing them to be hackable/counter-hackable in the first place.
Particularly as they give more WP for destruction, than for hacking. Now there's something idiotic) |
|
|
Ghermard-ol Dizeriois
Maphia Clan Corporation
28
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Current Turret FOV is very limited, and I agree with OP that they all have very few HP considering they can be destroyed from targets BVR (which is totally BS for me).
If you're an hacker, a cheater o a glitcher, you deserve death. In real life.
|
Delta90212
Dust2Dust.
Top Men.
124
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Unless you want to make it a hell for dropships i say no.
Fear my Minmatarian brothers.
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
594
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Delta90212 wrote:Unless you want to make it a hell for dropships i say no.
regular dropships, or assault dropships?
either way, the point is moot.
regular dropships can Be Dropships. Worst case, they can simply fly at high altitude, and have passengers "drop" out, for deployment.
assault dropships, can have their pilots actually get good, and fly behind cover, until they position themselves out of range of the turret's field of view, and then proceed to bomb them, if desired.
So, really, rather than "hell", it's more like "welcome back to what the rest of us have to live with".
Having to move using cover, and moving tacticaly, rather than "nyah nyah I'm invincible because I've removed all your turrets and AV sucks now"
|
Delta90212
Dust2Dust.
Top Men.
124
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:Delta90212 wrote:Unless you want to make it a hell for dropships i say no. regular dropships, or assault dropships? either way, the point is moot. regular dropships can Be Dropships. Worst case, they can simply fly at high altitude, and have passengers "drop" out, for deployment. assault dropships, can have their pilots actually get good, and fly behind cover, until they position themselves out of range of the turret's field of view, and then proceed to bomb them, if desired. So, really, rather than "hell", it's more like "welcome back to what the rest of us have to live with". Having to move using cover, and moving tacticaly, rather than "nyah nyah I'm invincible because I've removed all your turrets and AV sucks now"
Do you even know how long it would take for a assault dropship to take out a CRU?
It would take you the whole match to get down two and that is only if you have not been shot down yet.
Fear my Minmatarian brothers.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |