|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Billi Gene
456
   |
Posted - 2014.02.05 17:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
You might think that the only nerf to tanks that this change would entail, is one of opportunity. You would ONLY see tanks being called in when the tanker had a known gunner/driver, as the chance for griefing (loss of control) with a system like this would be huge.
Modules would not be operable from the gunner's seat, that would be silly. So a 'solo lol' operator would be at a huge disadvantage to AV and other tanks, aside from being griefed or having curious newberries assume control of either seat.
So it would be a direct nerf to tanker (invested SP player) play style and experience.
This change would not achieve what you think it would:
To accommodate this change, the driver camera would have to be separated from the main turret. This would increase tank survivability via greater situational awareness. Any tank in "fire mode" with a dedicated gunner, would see the driver scanning for threats and pre-aligning to viable escape routes. Fleeing tanks would continue to fire, overall tanks would become better at tanking and killing.
I greatly suspect OP, that you have only considered the first idea i have mentioned or maybe the second. At the first of a change like this, yes we would see a decrease in tanks. Over time though, you would find that dedicated tanker teams would emerge, and that their tanks would be harder to kill and far more deadly than current solo tankers.
Are you aware for instance that the driver and turret operator skill sets overlap as regards turret bonuses?
 if it stays the same or changes its not a real biggy for me, i have access to a large social subset, and i find myself undecided over which playstyle i might prefer... i have actually suggested this myself in the past.
edit: typo
Pedant, Ape, Troll.
My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
|
Billi Gene
456
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 17:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
i just have to add, that I understand the woes of facing off against tanks as an infantryman, but that I also have an alt account with a dedicated vehicle ops, i prefer ADS but run tank to farm isk.
It kinda feels like some people here would find nothing better than to hurt the play experience of tankers, as a punishment for perceived violation of their own play experience by tanks in general.
The best i can offer is to go play with tanks for a bit, and especially DS and ADS, you know less than you think if you haven't done so for a considerable amount of playtime.
Pedant, Ape, Troll.
My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
|
Billi Gene
456
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 17:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sole Fenychs wrote:Billi Gene wrote:You might think that the only nerf to ..blah blah blah wordy wordy words
..... actually suggested this myself in the past.
edit: typo Requiring double-teamed operational crews actually fits the style of the game. Dropships are horribly unwieldy and hard to learn. Why not make tanks equally inaccessible? I would be sad about losing solo HAV possibility (which should have specific target categories), but tandem tanks sound like a really awesome dynamic. Now I wish that we'd have the possibility for both.
ADS is a solo profession until you have the fittings skills to fit more (of the decent meta lvl) guns to its sides-as well as keeping a decent tank. ADS is also anything but unwieldy. Standard DS, yes they are like steering blimps, but they are also easier to fit, so their lack of acceleration actually makes them better gun platforms for a team.
I think CCP needs to get onto a medium ground assault vehicle asap if there is going to be a separation of roles for the HAV. Give the MAV a large fixed turret or something, but do it so as not to disenfranchise a portion of the player base or destroy a playstyle.
...anything that encourages variety can't be a bad thing in a 'sandbox' style game.
Pedant, Ape, Troll.
My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
|
Billi Gene
458
|
Posted - 2014.02.05 19:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tallen Ellecon wrote:IMO the greatest imbalance between vehicles and infantry is manpower. 1 person in a 60,000 ISK tank can easily take down almost any infantry with ease. If large turrets were AV and small turrets AI than it would give tanks a more defined role. This means if a tank also wants to be a highly effective AI weapon it would require more operators, which goes with the OPs idea of having seperate operators for the large gun and driving.
If it takes 3 AV infantry to effectively take down one tank than it should take 3 people to be the most effective tank.
16 vs 16
Currently 1 tanker requires about 3 AV (average)
1 tanker can also easily kill any infantry
1 Tank vs. 3 AV
15 infantry vs. 13 infantry
2 Tanks vs. 6 AV
14 infantry vs 10 infantry
14 vs 10 makes a big difference when it comes to killing clones.
It's a blanket assessment even though there are many variables, but the manpower to combat power ratio is off unless tanks require more operators.
an unmodified mlt tank does not need more than an adv swarm to be taken out from my experiences. And that is the only 60k tank i can think of.
I in no way mean to injure or insult, but asking for parity of manpower based on difficulty to kill is a crutch argument. If it takes 2 people to effectively take out a heavy suit, should we then say that heavy suits require 2 people to operate? How about an 1100hp slayer logi? If i fly a MLT DS with two gunners should it require more than 3 hits from a FG, and instead take 3xFGers to take out my MLT DS?
The only real reasons to insist on multiple operator HAV's is to limit their use, or to enhance gameplay associated with their use.
Pedant, Ape, Troll.
My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
|
|
|
| |
|