DUST Search - Tank you very much

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Tank you very much

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 474	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:45:00 - [1] - Quote This idea wasn't originally mine (though I forgot who told me about it) but I've been trying to spread it out there because it's a really damn good idea. Have tanks that require the driver seat and the main gun seat to be separate, this way 1 person can't drive and use the main gun at the same time and would either need to get a co-pilot or would require you to switch seats to fire. Not only does this make traveling in tanks more capable because you can have 1 person focus on driving and the other focus on gunning, but it cuts down on how many tanks are on the field because it eliminates the solo tank spam. I think there should still be a variant of tank that can be piloted solo for the veteran tankers that know the maps like the back of their hand, but there should be something that prohibits people who don't have or aren't willing to put points into tanks from having access to it. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 351	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:14:00 - [2] - Quote Fully Crewed HAV: three positions that must be fitted to be considered valid. Has current levels of HP and possibly a slightly increase CPU/PG loadout to compensate for the fitting requirements. Driver operates the front small turret, mobility modules, tanking modules and drives the vehicle. Main Gunner operates the large turret and damage modules. Top Gunner operates the top small turret, damage modules and EWAR modules (Scanners, and any other modules that come out in future.) Single-Merc HAVs: only one position that must be filled and operates as the current HAVs do right now. Reduced overall HP and possibly fitting. Essentially a cheaper, weaker HAV, but more 'available' to allow solo-HAV-ing.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 475	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:58:00 - [3] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Fully Crewed HAV: three positions that must be fitted to be considered valid. Has current levels of HP and possibly a slightly increase CPU/PG loadout to compensate for the fitting requirements. Driver operates the front small turret, mobility modules, tanking modules and drives the vehicle. Main Gunner operates the large turret and damage modules. Top Gunner operates the top small turret, damage modules and EWAR modules (Scanners, and any other modules that come out in future.) Single-Merc HAVs: only one position that must be filled and operates as the current HAVs do right now. Reduced overall HP and possibly fitting. Essentially a cheaper, weaker HAV, but more 'available' to allow solo-HAV-ing. That This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
FarQue FromAfar Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 11	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:17:00 - [4] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: This idea wasn't originally mine (though I forgot who told me about it) but I've been trying to spread it out there because it's a really damn good idea. Have tanks that require the driver seat and the main gun seat to be separate, this way 1 person can't drive and use the main gun at the same time and would either need to get a co-pilot or would require you to switch seats to fire. Not only does this make traveling in tanks more capable because you can have 1 person focus on driving and the other focus on gunning, but it cuts down on how many tanks are on the field because it eliminates the solo tank spam. I think there should still be a variant of tank that can be piloted solo for the veteran tankers that know the maps like the back of their hand, but there should be something that prohibits people who don't have or aren't willing to put points into tanks from having access to it. Umm ... No.... LOL There are already additional slots that can be placed for tag-alongs... Why not make your gun be operated by another player on your dropsuit, just so proto stompers can not run around and get 20 to 40 kills and no deaths.... Poor idea
FarQue FromAfar Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 11	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:20:00 - [5] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Fully Crewed HAV: three positions that must be fitted to be considered valid. Has current levels of HP and possibly a slightly increase CPU/PG loadout to compensate for the fitting requirements. Driver operates the front small turret, mobility modules, tanking modules and drives the vehicle. Main Gunner operates the large turret and damage modules. Top Gunner operates the top small turret, damage modules and EWAR modules (Scanners, and any other modules that come out in future.) Single-Merc HAVs: only one position that must be filled and operates as the current HAVs do right now. Reduced overall HP and possibly fitting. Essentially a cheaper, weaker HAV, but more 'available' to allow solo-HAV-ing. That Or make the idea an XHAV with a crew as described, and keep HAV a Heavy Attack Vehicle... Not a complicated free warpoints hunk of ignorant metal.... I LOL'D when I read this....
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 475	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:24:00 - [6] - Quote Why is this a dumb idea farque? Go ahead and explain to me why it's impractical to have a buddy use your main gun while you focus on activating modules and navigating the map, why wouldn't this work? This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
FarQue FromAfar Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 12	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:34:00 - [7] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: Why is this a dumb idea farque? Go ahead and explain to me why it's impractical to have a buddy use your main gun while you focus on activating modules and navigating the map, why wouldn't this work? That is NOT my idea.... Ever.... We have small turrets for the buddy system... I am a sniper first off, not a tanker, and getting really tired of all the QQ about tanks. The rare time I get a rail tank out to deal with tankers, I do not want some random jagoff being responsible for shooting my main gun. Komodo explain to me why having someone shooting YOUR main hand weapon and your only in control of where you turn your dropsuit but can not move unless the dropsuit gun operator moves you.... I really want to know...
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 357	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:43:00 - [8] - Quote FarQue FromAfar wrote: That is NOT my idea.... Ever.... We have small turrets for the buddy system... I am a sniper first off, not a tanker, and getting really tired of all the QQ about tanks. The rare time I get a rail tank out to deal with tankers, I do not want some random jagoff being responsible for shooting my main gun. QQ about HAVs...there is an issue with them and little will get done if feedback and ideas are not given. Certainly, there are many threads of crying, but at least this thread is attempting to be constructive. FarQue FromAfar wrote: Komodo explain to me why having someone shooting YOUR main hand weapon and your only in control of where you turn your dropsuit but can not move unless the dropsuit gun operator moves you.... I really want to know... Your example is incomplete. It would be like you controlling your dropsuit and only having a sidearm while another player sits on your shoulders, immune to damage and fires a light/heavy weapon. The idea of a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner is not new but it is also not bad. It would, in fact, reward the much lauded teamwork that people often espouse. To flip the question around, why should a single play be immune to damage from 80% of infantry and have an incredibly dominating presence with next to no investment? Why should a, traditionally, multi-crew vehicle not require multiple crew members to operate at full efficiency? My suggestion was to provide an alternative to the current HAV: have a single-man vehicle that operates like now, but is less effective overall (because it is only one person) or have a full crew vehicle that is as powerful/could be more powerful than now but requires teamwork to be a dominating force.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 477	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:47:00 - [9] - Quote I wouldn't call in a tank unless I had someone to use the main gun, that's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with dropsuits and having someone fire your primary weapon out on the field that doesn't make sense, if you can't get someone you trust and can communicate with in your tank to use your main gun then you need to do 1 of 2 things, get a new squad with people who aren't assholes, or get skilled into tanks enough to use the solo pilot variant. This isn't QQ because I don't have a problem dealing with tanks unless there's 6 of them on the field and no-one can get out of their red line, just as bad as proto stomping people right out of academy. And this idea DOES make sense in a realistic and practical manner, in real life tanks are not driven by 1 person, it's at least 2 or 3, 1 to drive it, 1 to operate the main gun, 1 to load ammo or use the top mounted turret. And practically unless you know the area you're driving through, trying to steer a tank AND fire the main gun would be very overbearing on your mind, our brains can only handle 1 task at a time, we just switch between them, or set another task in the background. Therefore designating 1 person to drive a tank and 1 person to use the main gun is far more efficient. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 477	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:56:00 - [10] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: FarQue FromAfar wrote: That is NOT my idea.... Ever.... We have small turrets for the buddy system... I am a sniper first off, not a tanker, and getting really tired of all the QQ about tanks. The rare time I get a rail tank out to deal with tankers, I do not want some random jagoff being responsible for shooting my main gun. QQ about HAVs...there is an issue with them and little will get done if feedback and ideas are not given. Certainly, there are many threads of crying, but at least this thread is attempting to be constructive. FarQue FromAfar wrote: Komodo explain to me why having someone shooting YOUR main hand weapon and your only in control of where you turn your dropsuit but can not move unless the dropsuit gun operator moves you.... I really want to know... Your example is incomplete. It would be like you controlling your dropsuit and only having a sidearm while another player sits on your shoulders, immune to damage and fires a light/heavy weapon. The idea of a dedicated driver and a dedicated gunner is not new but it is also not bad. It would, in fact, reward the much lauded teamwork that people often espouse. To flip the question around, why should a single play be immune to damage from 80% of infantry and have an incredibly dominating presence with next to no investment? Why should a, traditionally, multi-crew vehicle not require multiple crew members to operate at full efficiency? My suggestion was to provide an alternative to the current HAV: have a single-man vehicle that operates like now, but is less effective overall (because it is only one person) or have a full crew vehicle that is as powerful/could be more powerful than now but requires teamwork to be a dominating force. I was going to suggest that the driver also have control of the small front turret but I wasn't sure how that would function and it would put an equal burden on the driver to gun and drive and I wasn't sure how to work with the limited camera view that the front gunner usually suffers with, but I guess something has to be there. And yeah I wasn't sure how to set the disparity between solo tanks and multi crew but it makes sense to have the multi crew simply be more powerful as a general rule. Generally I just put ideas out there and let people debate on the specifics because I don't want to make it seem like I know what I'm talking about, for the most part I don't because I'm not a dedicated tanker and if I get too specific I'm likely to have logic that's faulty. But still I can see how, if done correctly, this could be a very beneficial change to the game. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.

Glitch116 On The Brink CRONOS. 67	Posted - 2014.02.16 02:01:00 - [11] - Quote you do realize that 2 man tanks only makes tanks stronger right? just letting you know what you are really asking for many people thing this will "balance" tanks but all it will do is remove one of the biggest weaknesses tanks have I AM THE KING OF THE BLASTER!!! deal with it
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 480	Posted - 2014.02.16 05:35:00 - [12] - Quote People like to use the "6 tanks" scenario, they used to have the impression that if there were 6 tanks on the other side and it took 3 people with AV to kill a tank it would use up the entire team just to kill 6 tanks while they still have 10 infantry (makes sense because after all it takes so long for 3 people running good AV weapons to kill a tank and they have just enough ammo for 1 tank each right?) This is of course absurd and tanks, while not so much weaker, are more understood by people who run AV. But consider the fact that with this system, if each tank takes up at least 2 infantry to use, and you have those 6 tanks on the field, now you only have 4 infantry to run around and do all the work, not a very effective plan to tank spam in this case. Not to mention that it in itself is a deterrent for people to call out a tank, as not many people would trust a blueberry in their gunner's seat so you would need to have a squadmate to help you, sometimes people go without squads, or join random squads where they don't know people and don't know if anyone would be very good in their gunner's seat. So less tanks There's nothing stopping these people from getting into a solo tank besides confidence, they know that tank duos have the advantage but if you're a good enough solo tanker they can still win. The idea here is that yes these duo tanks will become more efficient and powerful, but it would also weaken the team to lose another gun in the infantry fight, the idea is that it balances itself out while also reducing the number of tanks on the field, not that it solves the problems inherent within tanks, they're still perhaps too powerful but that's just a problem with numbers on CCP's side and I'm not arguing for a full on tank balance, just a new mechanic that in my mind is equal parts help and hindrance. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7102	Posted - 2014.02.16 05:49:00 - [13] - Quote This is not the Answer Komodo. Its takes half the fun out of HAV not being able to drive and shoot. I sympathise with the Infantry who whine that tanks are demolishing their teams through clone loss, and to that I say "Why do HAV drivers/main turrets have anti infantry capacity?" Replace all Large turrets on HAV with Railgun variants, depending on HAV racial proclivities, making HAV anti vehicle units primary, with secondary gunners being relied upon to counter infantry. From there all that needs to be done to balance HAV more is reduction in vertical turret angle, ISK value, and the Nitrous Module and HAV have a role on the map that does break infantry game play, allows tanks to be durable and have fire power, allows them to skill shot infantry, but allows infantry much great room to evade tanks, and keeps tanks focused on ground based vehicles which prevents dropshippers from complaining. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 480	Posted - 2014.02.16 06:02:00 - [14] - Quote That's...actually pretty fair, I mean while it still doesn't make sense for a tank to be piloted by 1 person except to allow players to get kills with them I've also never seen a tank on another game with something short of a cannon on it and not what's essentially a giant machinegun turret. I usually don't support a restriction on the capabilities and flexibility of people's fits but it would make sense for tanks to be more oriented to anti vehicle instead of just anti everything. So then if we replaced the standard rapid fire "anti-infantry" turrets from the game, how would you feel about allowing the tank driver to have a small co-axial turret that he can switch to for when infantry comes along? I mean it shouldn't be with all turrets, like you shouldn't be allowed to mount a small turret next to a large missile turret, but something that's not too ridiculously overpowered vs infantry that the driver can use, it could just be a replacement for the front small turret as that thing is kind of burdensome anyway. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7103	Posted - 2014.02.16 06:18:00 - [15] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: That's...actually pretty fair, I mean while it still doesn't make sense for a tank to be piloted by 1 person except to allow players to get kills with them I've also never seen a tank on another game with something short of a cannon on it and not what's essentially a giant machinegun turret. I usually don't support a restriction on the capabilities and flexibility of people's fits but it would make sense for tanks to be more oriented to anti vehicle instead of just anti everything. So then if we replaced the standard rapid fire "anti-infantry" turrets from the game, how would you feel about allowing the tank driver to have a small co-axial turret that he can switch to for when infantry comes along? I mean it shouldn't be with all turrets, like you shouldn't be allowed to mount a small turret next to a large missile turret, but something that's not too ridiculously overpowered vs infantry that the driver can use, it could just be a replacement for the front small turret as that thing is kind of burdensome anyway. I understand that it doesn't make sense but for the most part its about enjoyability. I don't have another players I trust to run my turret, or pilot my tank, in which case, the role I most want to achieve in this game is effectively killed. What we need to do is make Tank piloting what it was in 1.6. A high ISK and SP investment for equivalent power and role specific capacity. Most infantry complain that Tanks destroy their teams with Large Blasters..... I hate large blasters, even though it hypocritically use them, and think they undermine the roles of modern tanks. I don't know about a Co-Axial turret, if it was implemented well then it would be fine but that still lands significant anti infantry power in the hands of the driver, and takes away from the design ideal that supporting crew would be required to allow the tank to have anti infantry capacity. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 481	Posted - 2014.02.16 06:39:00 - [16] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I understand that it doesn't make sense but for the most part its about enjoyability. I don't have another players I trust to run my turret, or pilot my tank, in which case, the role I most want to achieve in this game is effectively killed. What we need to do is make Tank piloting what it was in 1.6. A high ISK and SP investment for equivalent power and role specific capacity. Most infantry complain that Tanks destroy their teams with Large Blasters..... I hate large blasters, even though it hypocritically use them, and think they undermine the roles of modern tanks. I don't know about a Co-Axial turret, if it was implemented well then it would be fine but that still lands significant anti infantry power in the hands of the driver, and takes away from the design ideal that supporting crew would be required to allow the tank to have anti infantry capacity. Lol that's something I was considering back when 1.7 just came out, thought they did a bit of overkill, they made tanks cheap AND more powerful, should've been one of the other, not both. There was alot of concern with tanks being killed quickly with AV, well that problem is over so increase the price. On the other hand I can see how they might've done this for publicity, pre 1.7 how many people used tanks, any vehicles for that matter, and were interested in improving on them as compared to post 1.7? Vehicles were prohibitively expensive for anyone that wanted to use them and could be very easily gunned down, now people are interested in vehicles and they play a very prominent role so it would be safe to increase the cost now I think. And yeah it would probably be just as overbearing on infantry to have someone with a coaxial small turret, hell I can see some people slapping a prototype turret on the thing and ONLY using that unless a vehicle came along. I guess what I'm mainly concerned with is the relationship between the super rich an experienced and the not so rich and casual, if we increase the price on tanks less blueberries will use them, whereas organized squads can call in as many as they want and run around blasting people, but I suppose the primary gun being mainly antivehicle would fix this and would promote people who aren't crackshots with a railgun to want to travel with a gunner to deal with infantry, speaking of which I hate the mechanic that doesn't allow you to have a turret on top unless you first have one in the front. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 481	Posted - 2014.02.16 06:40:00 - [17] - Quote I am partly trying to promote more teamwork when it comes to vehicles, I do have a buddy that I ride around in vehicles with, because I have alot of cash I've had the luxury of being able to get alot of practice with vehicles and am an excellent LAV, HAV, and dropship pilot, and because I needed support, he needed a ride, or he wanted to screw around with a big ass gun, he or my other buddy has always been a gunner, in fact today we were pretty much the reason our team won in a skirmish, he got 31 kills in my militia dropship and we were the biggest area denial presence on the map. We're always looking for more ways we could more conveniently work in tandem but currently everyone is looking for ways they can get kills for themselves and don't really care about teamwork. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 425	Posted - 2014.02.16 06:50:00 - [18] - Quote I firmly stand behind the need for other ideas to direct balanced gameplay rather than nerf/buff. HAV Operation Like a LAV Good, well thought ideas are what DUST needs to thrive and stand out as something unique in a sea of FPS Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 482	Posted - 2014.02.16 07:02:00 - [19] - Quote You're probably the guy I heard the idea from lol. But adamance threw in the idea of possibly just changing the large turrets to be more suited for anti-vehicle work instead of having an infantry hating blaster turret, it's pretty sound and I wouldn't mind this being the thing that stops tanks from being such a hugely powerful force against infantry at least. I am slightly disappointed that it seems like no-one wants to just be a vehicle driver and that people are more concerned with getting kills than things that could be tactically advantageous, and I think this stems from a lack of war point coverage for many tactical actions that would promote a win in the game and having everyone laud over their KDR because CCP likes to flaunt our stats on the leaderboards and really, after money and SP what is there? Fun? No that's absurd lol. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7110	Posted - 2014.02.16 10:51:00 - [20] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: You're probably the guy I heard the idea from lol. But adamance threw in the idea of possibly just changing the large turrets to be more suited for anti-vehicle work instead of having an infantry hating blaster turret, it's pretty sound and I wouldn't mind this being the thing that stops tanks from being such a hugely powerful force against infantry at least. I am slightly disappointed that it seems like no-one wants to just be a vehicle driver and that people are more concerned with getting kills than things that could be tactically advantageous, and I think this stems from a lack of war point coverage for many tactical actions that would promote a win in the game and having everyone laud over their KDR because CCP likes to flaunt our stats on the leaderboards and really, after money and SP what is there? Fun? No that's absurd lol. I could be purely a vehicle driver but honestly could you say all you want to do is spend your time positioning a tank while some other guy gets the kills and shoots the targets. Frankly that doesn't sound enjoyable to me. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 969	Posted - 2014.02.16 11:42:00 - [21] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: -- snip yet another let's mess with tanks from a non-tanker -- This has no author because the idea is more ancient than the hills. It has been drooling around the forums on a near continuous loop since last summer. We finally got rid of small turrets so we can get rid of blue belles jumping in our tanks. Before 1.7 1/3 of my tank losses were blue belle related. That has finally been fixed, if you change tanks again we will want another SP reset. Just watch CCP/Shanghai twitch when the realize how many tankers will not want to be in tanks again. And your vet tanker idea isn't going to fly either. Tanks are very tightly tied together since 1.7. You want them to crack the nut open again. Very funny! Remember F2P? That is the basis of Dust514. F2P means players want to come in and play. They get to mess with various toys so they can decide how to choose to spend their time, ISK or AURUM (aka real cash) to shoot mercs in the face. If they can only use tanks when some stupid blue belle jumps in then they will be inspired to play a different game, not dust. What fun they will have when the blue belle runs the turret out of ammunition and jumps out of the tank, leaving the driver high and dry. We will need a better name than Jihad Jeeps for such activity though. There could be a contest! The reward would be left in the middle of a PC match in the new tank ... all by yourself. My entry is ... wait for it ... the Komodo Jump. And so it goes.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 380	Posted - 2014.02.16 11:52:00 - [22] - Quote Gosh, we should never, ever, ever, ever promote teamwork in a game like this! My entry is...wait for it...the Kal Moron.
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 427	Posted - 2014.02.16 22:35:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: You're probably the guy I heard the idea from lol. But adamance threw in the idea of possibly just changing the large turrets to be more suited for anti-vehicle work instead of having an infantry hating blaster turret, it's pretty sound and I wouldn't mind this being the thing that stops tanks from being such a hugely powerful force against infantry at least. I am slightly disappointed that it seems like no-one wants to just be a vehicle driver and that people are more concerned with getting kills than things that could be tactically advantageous, and I think this stems from a lack of war point coverage for many tactical actions that would promote a win in the game and having everyone laud over their KDR because CCP likes to flaunt our stats on the leaderboards and really, after money and SP what is there? Fun? No that's absurd lol. I could be purely a vehicle driver but honestly could you say all you want to do is spend your time positioning a tank while some other guy gets the kills and shoots the targets. Frankly that doesn't sound enjoyable to me. What I never understood was that this is how the LAV and std DS runs. The LAV is hit and run with the turret used to harass or defend and then the whole crew would jump out. Solo drivers have to switch seats. In the case of the DS the std variant can only be flown by the pilot if they are solo. Comrades must operate the turrets unless the DS is landed and then the pilot again has to switch seats. The ADS costs over $300,000 to provide a solo pilot the ability fire solo, so on the one hand (bear with me here) the HAV driver should have to pay the same for their hardware (don't roll your eyes yet) OR there will have to be changes in some way to reduce spam. I've read great stuff about alterations to turret types, large turrets being AV focused/small AI focused. None of these ideas are only a single players idea to turn the tide, they are the culmination of various threads and different ideas. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 427	Posted - 2014.02.16 22:40:00 - [24] - Quote Another idea that's been thrown around is the LAV tank or the MAV tank. A single pilot, light(er) variant with fewer slots/stats that fills the role of a solo assault tank, then the larger HAV cousin is run by a team because it requires a team and is slower because it's bigger. Small tank could be hit and run or armoured up for sustained fighting. Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 491	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:14:00 - [25] - Quote I gotta say flying a dropship, even though I get no kills, is very enjoyable, so is driving LAVs (though I do wish they had a bit more teeth). I definitely wouldn't mind having a tank or some kind of large vehicle variant where I wasn't the main gunner. Maybe that's because I don't care about getting kills for myself I just want the job to get done. Tanks are not my specialty but I at least understand how they work, it's a big killing machine, you tell someone that they can have a dropsuit that has a huge amount of health and is immune to most types of weaponry, as well as a giant rapid fire gun that has higher dps than any infantry weapon, and is cheaper than any prototype suit, and all they have to do is sacrifice the ability to hack and travel in certain areas, what do you think the player who is concerned with kills is going to pick? You can make a direct comparison between tanks and dropsuits because tanks have large weaponry that is built to be anti infantry, if there were a dropsuit that fit the description of a tank everyone would say it was OP, hell they would say that someone hacked and modded the game. The fact that tanks are comparable to infantry means there's a broken mechanic, if tanks and infantry should be parallels in combat then why are those lines crossing to this extent? This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 491	Posted - 2014.02.16 23:16:00 - [26] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: Another idea that's been thrown around is the LAV tank or the MAV tank. A single pilot, light(er) variant with fewer slots/stats that fills the role of a solo assault tank, then the larger HAV cousin is run by a team because it requires a team and is slower because it's bigger. Small tank could be hit and run or armoured up for sustained fighting. this will probably come out when they finally release MAVs This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.