DUST Search - A Idea to bring tanks back to balance ( a bit )

Ninjanomyx wrote:

Nocturnal Soul wrote:

Ninjanomyx wrote:

Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI.

Well what scout put a RE up your bum hole? Anyway the reason for my suggestion was because 9/10 a bad tanker gets away because of lol 360viewswag420 when a person with enough balls runs up to it to place REs and the height the tanker can see from is more than enough to see all infantry from all sides. And let me say this again in a different way I'm not suggesting taking away your backside view just changing it.

He bit!!!! Here we go:

1. Overhead 3PV for Vehicles has been in just about every Title, regardless of FPS or 3PS/OTS, with Vehicles in it. There is a reason as to why none have ventured astray from this Formula.....you'll find out below.

2. Adding a "Rear View Mirror" seems like it could work on paper.....but in practice it falls flat, even as an "Addition" as opposed to "In place of". L3 or R3 for Rear View would cause collisions with Aiming & Movement. Making it L2 or X may seem viable, but then there's the issue of where the RVM actually shifts to...... Example: Turret faces Tank's 8 o'clock. RVM is accessed. Where does the View change to??? Behind the Tank??? Behind the Turret LoS??? Either way this creates serious complications for Movement Confusion & would cause more Collision Issues than ever before (Remember when Turrets Auto-Repositioned themselves when against a Solid Surface &/or going from 3PV to ADS? I do....it was bad.)

3. 3PV only works for Vehicles that lack Lateral Pivots. In other words...if it can face anywhere other than 12 & 6 the RVM becomes nightmarishly Counterproductive.

Next???

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nocturnal Soul Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1765	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:28:00 - [1] - Quote Take away their third person view. And instead give them a backwards/reversal/idkwhatitscalled view whenever they push the analogue stick. Yes? No? Maybe so? Discusse. New born sAMARRi
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1679	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:33:00 - [2] - Quote Make HMGs do 50% damage to vehicles instead of 15%. This makes the HMG more appealing to heavies, helping the Light-Heavy problem, and provides a decent anti vehicle weapon, helping with the HAV issue. Yours Truly, Reginald Fizzer94 Delafontaine III, Esquire
demonkiller 12 G.L.O.R.Y Public Disorder. 367	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:35:00 - [3] - Quote leave them as is, make them a little slow, bring back old prices
Rusty Shallows 906	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:44:00 - [4] - Quote An over the shoulder view sure would be nice on infantry. The lack of peripheral vision sucks. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 541	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:47:00 - [5] - Quote Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 3 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI.
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1681	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:54:00 - [6] - Quote Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Much Insightful Very Balance Wow Yours Truly, Reginald Fizzer94 Delafontaine III, Esquire
Rusty Shallows 906	Posted - 2014.01.26 08:57:00 - [7] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Much Insightful Very Balance Wow It was a hilariously bad troll. Edit: I was entertained enough to give a like. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Nocturnal Soul Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1765	Posted - 2014.01.26 09:23:00 - [8] - Quote Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Well what scout put a RE up your bum hole? Anyway the reason for my suggestion was because 9/10 a bad tanker gets away because of lol 360viewswag420 when a person with enough balls runs up to it to place REs and the height the tanker can see from is more than enough to see all infantry from all sides. And let me say this again in a different way I'm not suggesting taking away your backside view just changing it. New born sAMARRi
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 543	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:35:00 - [9] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Well what scout put a RE up your bum hole? Anyway the reason for my suggestion was because 9/10 a bad tanker gets away because of lol 360viewswag420 when a person with enough balls runs up to it to place REs and the height the tanker can see from is more than enough to see all infantry from all sides. And let me say this again in a different way I'm not suggesting taking away your backside view just changing it. He bit!!!! Here we go: 1. Overhead 3PV for Vehicles has been in just about every Title, regardless of FPS or 3PS/OTS, with Vehicles in it. There is a reason as to why none have ventured astray from this Formula.....you'll find out below. 2. Adding a "Rear View Mirror" seems like it could work on paper.....but in practice it falls flat, even as an "Addition" as opposed to "In place of". L3 or R3 for Rear View would cause collisions with Aiming & Movement. Making it L2 or X may seem viable, but then there's the issue of where the RVM actually shifts to...... Example: Turret faces Tank's 8 o'clock. RVM is accessed. Where does the View change to??? Behind the Tank??? Behind the Turret LoS??? Either way this creates serious complications for Movement Confusion & would cause more Collision Issues than ever before (Remember when Turrets Auto-Repositioned themselves when against a Solid Surface &/or going from 3PV to ADS? I do....it was bad.) 3. 3PV only works for Vehicles that lack Lateral Pivots. In other words...if it can face anywhere other than 12 & 6 the RVM becomes nightmarishly Counterproductive. Next???
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 3733	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:46:00 - [10] - Quote Simple solution (I've been suggesting this since CLOSED-*****-BETA and people are JUST NOW agreeing with me)- Separate the main turret from the driver's seat. Also buff the ** out of small rails and allow small blasters to deal 100% damage to HAVs Problem solved. I am your scan error.

Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 512	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:01:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Simple solution (I've been suggesting this since CLOSED-*****-BETA and people are JUST NOW agreeing with me)- Separate the main turret from the driver's seat. Also buff the ** out of small rails and allow small blasters to deal 100% damage to HAVs Problem solved. You do realize that if they did that, the Large Blaster would have to become a Large Automated Shotgun right? While I'd personally love that, I can assure you, that YOU personally would be crying in a corner when you finally realized the entirety of the horror you are asking to unleash upon the battlefield. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
True Adamance Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6175	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:08:00 - [12] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Take away their third person view. And instead give them a backwards/reversal/idkwhatitscalled view whenever they push the analogue stick. Yes? No? Maybe so? Discusse. I don't believe that is necessary, most if not all FPS games have a vehicle 3rd person mode but also achieved vehicle balance.... for the most part its not about achieving a state whereby vehicles achieve their role on the battlefield well, but are counterable. IMO this requires - Small Turrets to be effective anti infantry tools - Large turrets to carry large payload weaponry forgoing their effective anti infantry role for anti vehicle. - Slight speed penalties - Introduction of lighter vehicle roles - Higher SP and ISK threshold - AV damage model buff "My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity."
Savage Mangler DUST University Ivy League 26	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:12:00 - [13] - Quote How about people actually bring some AV to the battlefield? Mind-blowing concept I know, but if two people with ADV forges actually put their brains together and gangbanged a tank, they might not be so hard to kill. Seriously, I'm tired of being the only guy on my team who pulls out his DAU or, the Amarrian God forbid, my Ishukone whenever ADS and Tanks show up. -YOU HAVE BEEN SCANNED- "Good, then they'll know who killed them." Keep your knives sharp....and your wits sharper.
Nocturnal Soul Fatal Absolution Covert Intervention 1770	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:12:00 - [14] - Quote Okay New born sAMARRi
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1096	Posted - 2014.01.26 19:25:00 - [15] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Take away their third person view. And instead give them a backwards/reversal/idkwhatitscalled view whenever they push the analogue stick. Yes? No? Maybe so? Discusse. Rather than removing it entirely I'd suggest giving it to the top turret (commander), and then separate the driver and main gun controls. But this suggestion would be shouted down by solo tankers, so I'm not going to bother. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Aizen Intiki OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 764	Posted - 2014.01.26 20:04:00 - [16] - Quote Nocturnal Soul wrote: Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Well what scout put a RE up your bum hole? Anyway the reason for my suggestion was because 9/10 a bad tanker gets away because of lol 360viewswag420 when a person with enough balls runs up to it to place REs and the height the tanker can see from is more than enough to see all infantry from all sides. And let me say this again in a different way I'm not suggesting taking away your backside view just changing it. no, because 1: In some instances, such as general driving, especially when in a group, 3rd person is far superior, as you won't hit people, and cause unnecessary rage and butthurt. 2:camera drones makes 3rd person make sense 3: 3rd person is awful for combat, so taking it away would solve nothing in that front. SO taking ti away would solve nothing, and make driving them even more clunky than they are now. And your rear view cam would make it worse, as you said to bind it to pushing back on the stick. "Hello, world!" lol, sounds like something a whore lover would say Alt of the great Godin I like chocolate ^___^
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 543	Posted - 2014.01.27 00:46:00 - [17] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Simple solution (I've been suggesting this since CLOSED-*****-BETA and people are JUST NOW agreeing with me)- Separate the main turret from the driver's seat. Also buff the ** out of small rails and allow small blasters to deal 100% damage to HAVs Problem solved. Only Non-Tankers agree with you...... Next.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 250	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:33:00 - [18] - Quote demonkiller 12 wrote: leave them as is, make them a little slow, bring back old prices **** NO, the only reason tanks aren't unfucking beatable right now is becuase you can pull out a scrub tank and keep high end tanks busy and maybe score a few kills if you know what you are doing, you take that away and the tanks will get worse not better, cause no one wants to run AV (CCP restore WP for DMG dealt) and frankly AV is more useful as a tactical assets then for destroying tanks. I make one exception to this refusal, if there is a MASSIVE isk bonus for killing a tanks and turrets, then increase the cost how every much you want.
Jack McReady DUST University Ivy League 1091	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:38:00 - [19] - Quote Ninjanomyx wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Ninjanomyx wrote: Every Post above this is Full Derp Mode..... All 4 are hereby Red Flagged as Banned from Balancing Discussions in regards to EVERY Playstyle. Give me 1 reason why your "Suggestion" should be taken seriously & I'll give you many as to why it should not....... Think b4 u Type, KthxBAI. Well what scout put a RE up your bum hole? Anyway the reason for my suggestion was because 9/10 a bad tanker gets away because of lol 360viewswag420 when a person with enough balls runs up to it to place REs and the height the tanker can see from is more than enough to see all infantry from all sides. And let me say this again in a different way I'm not suggesting taking away your backside view just changing it. He bit!!!! Here we go: 1. Overhead 3PV for Vehicles has been in just about every Title, regardless of FPS or 3PS/OTS, with Vehicles in it. There is a reason as to why none have ventured astray from this Formula.....you'll find out below. 2. Adding a "Rear View Mirror" seems like it could work on paper.....but in practice it falls flat, even as an "Addition" as opposed to "In place of". L3 or R3 for Rear View would cause collisions with Aiming & Movement. Making it L2 or X may seem viable, but then there's the issue of where the RVM actually shifts to...... Example: Turret faces Tank's 8 o'clock. RVM is accessed. Where does the View change to??? Behind the Tank??? Behind the Turret LoS??? Either way this creates serious complications for Movement Confusion & would cause more Collision Issues than ever before (Remember when Turrets Auto-Repositioned themselves when against a Solid Surface &/or going from 3PV to ADS? I do....it was bad.) 3. 3PV only works for Vehicles that lack Lateral Pivots. In other words...if it can face anywhere other than 12 & 6 the RVM becomes nightmarishly Counterproductive. Next??? get gud
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 250	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:38:00 - [20] - Quote BTW +1 to both the top two posts, tho me thinks tankers will hate the 1st, I rather liker the idea

hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 250	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:41:00 - [21] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Simple solution (I've been suggesting this since CLOSED-*****-BETA and people are JUST NOW agreeing with me)- Separate the main turret from the driver's seat. Also buff the ** out of small rails and allow small blasters to deal 100% damage to HAVs Problem solved. mmmmm 100% would make them almost as powerful as the main guns, thats a bit much but a compromise on that would be a great idea.
hgghyujh Expert Intervention Caldari State 250	Posted - 2014.01.27 08:56:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Nocturnal Soul wrote: Take away their third person view. And instead give them a backwards/reversal/idkwhatitscalled view whenever they push the analogue stick. Yes? No? Maybe so? Discusse. I don't believe that is necessary, most if not all FPS games have a vehicle 3rd person mode but also achieved vehicle balance.... for the most part its not about achieving a state whereby vehicles achieve their role on the battlefield well, but are counterable. IMO this requires - Small Turrets to be effective anti infantry tools - Large turrets to carry large payload weaponry forgoing their effective anti infantry role for anti vehicle. - Slight speed penalties - Introduction of lighter vehicle roles - Higher SP and ISK threshold - AV damage model buff HAH!!! no tank will go for this but I mostly agree, However tanks need a roll that can make them the isk to make up for the increase in cost with out turning it into an infantry eating monsters, before you can increase ISK costs. frankly I like the way the large turrets work now I would just debuff their accuracy a bit, mainly in the rail and blaster, nothing major just enough to make it hard to kill infantry outside of being on top of them. Agreed that small turrets should be buffed into the infantry killers effectively making an anti infantry tank and a anti vehicle tank. forge is actually OK, but swarms need a revisit and I think CCP needs to re-enable dumb fire on them first, with missiles getting a AVnade trigger in the first 40m of flight to prevent shotgunning infantry with it. This would actually open the way to target painter equipment that could increase the range of the swarm, by causing them to home at any range as long as they could be fired into LOS of the target painters target.
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 516	Posted - 2014.01.27 09:06:00 - [23] - Quote Fizzer94 wrote: Make HMGs do 50% damage to vehicles instead of 15%. This makes the HMG more appealing to heavies, helping the Light-Heavy problem, and provides a decent anti vehicle weapon, helping with the HAV issue. Because who cares about LAVs and dropships right? To OP, reverse would be so welcome, and though I would miss third-person, I would give it up for the ability to see behind me at the push of a button.


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