|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
603
   |
Posted - 2014.02.17 21:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Xander Mercy wrote:slower large blaster turret rotation speed so sprinting medium and light frames have a chance to run from cover to cover. the large blaster shouldn't be able to hit fast moving infantry thats what the small terrets are for
So... you want the anti-infantry turret to be unable to actually track infantry? Blasters are practically useless vs other tanks, and are unable to do anything VS dropships cause they can pull away. The only target such a tank would have is LAV's... no wait, those would be too fast as well.
By your model the spread of the gun would have to go down, and the damage up, so that if infantry was merely clipped, it would die, this would be so that the tank could actually fight other tanks and LAV's.
If you dislike blasters now, you'll be furious with a slower, far more accurate version.
Why? Tanks would simply pop a torque mod to turn after you using the wheel speed instead of the turret.
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
603
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 22:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Xander Mercy wrote:slower large blaster turret rotation speed so sprinting medium and light frames have a chance to run from cover to cover. the large blaster shouldn't be able to hit fast moving infantry thats what the small terrets are for So... you want the anti-infantry turret to be unable to actually track infantry? Blasters are practically useless vs other tanks, and are unable to do anything VS dropships cause they can pull away. The only target such a tank would have is LAV's... no wait, those would be too fast as well. By your model the spread of the gun would have to go down, and the damage up, so that if infantry was merely clipped, it would die, this would be so that the tank could actually fight other tanks and LAV's. If you dislike blasters now, you'll be furious with a slower, far more accurate version. Why? Tanks would simply pop a torque mod to turn after you using the wheel speed instead of the turret. Eh? A large turret should not be "anti-infantry". If large blasters are useless against vehicles (I don't believe they are) then buff them or nerf rails. If you want an anti-infantry platform then use a small weapon(not even sure you can fit a small blaster in a large turret, but if you can't you should be able to).
You didn't read a thing of what you quoted? Cause your reply was at a rather large tangent to the quoted post.
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
604
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 22:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote:R F Gyro wrote:Flix Keptick wrote:I have only seen "wahwah dat tank iz op" (I know some people said the same about AV but that's not the point here). So, here is your oportunity to tell me: what do YOU want tanks to actually be like?
Please let's not start a flame war or debate, this is a purely informative thread. Oh, and let's keep it about tanks because that's where the problems are at (except for the people who SOMEHOW manage to find lavs/derpships op) I'm not in any way claiming to speak for anyone other than myself, but here's what I'd like to see... Tanks (HAVs) should get even stronger and be really scary, but they would require 3 players to operate. CCP should balance around 3 players in AV suits fighting the HAV, given equal SP and ISK on both sides. The easiest way to require 3 players in the HAV is to give the driver the front turret and move the 3rd person view to the top turret, but there are other alternatives. Note that balancing on ISK and SP may require increasing the cost of AV, which I'm fine with. Introduce a MAV - the mobile gun platform - which is a single seat vehicle with a single large turret. Give it bonuses to the turret to give it higher DPS than a HAV, but it should have pretty low EHP. Balance this around 1 MAV vs 1 AV player, again equal SP and ISK where possible. The MAV is for the solo tankers out there. Introduce active countermeasures - flares/chaff/ECM. Pilots/drivers should be able to fire these off to protect against swarms, but they should have limited ammo (flares/chaff) or a cooldown period (ECM, which would break swarm lock). Swarms then get a damage buff (and dropships an EHP buff). Oh, and I'd go with the Judge's ideas about rail turret range and elevation to make dropships less suicidal. The point of view solution for tanks is really interesting. They would still be usable solo but would sacrifice a gigantic amount of situational awareness. Good suggestions tbh.
It looks horribly convoluted to me. Answer these questions now:
Who would foot the bill in the Tank?
--Only the driver? That means the passengers get free rides.
Who'se skills are used to determine weapon power?
-- Right now it's the driver. That means riders get free damage output (aka just make a new MLT character to spam in the seat)
You're saying that they should upgrade the number of people it takes to kill the tank then?
--That would literally mean in regular engagements that destroying a tank will become a rare commodity, not something that happens every match, like they do now. Only the damage output would be changed by the presence of additional players, because altering resistance or armor would be far too uncertain.
What would happen to these vehicles in PC?
-- A current tank with 2+ hardeners active will go down in about 15 seconds in a PC match. So you will be forced to balance that against a 3-man PC team and not a 3 man random. Mind you current tanks are balanced vs a single PC skilled user, balancing for 3, then adding hardeners for the waves of opportunity system, and there would be no end to the whining on the forums.
So my conclusion is that the concept of 3 man vs 3 man sounds balanced, but from a design perspective infantry would be screwed beyond belief.
You can't just drop an idea out at the concept stage, you have to follow it through a basic design pattern, such as how it will be used, the strengths and weaknesses etc...
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
604
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 23:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:R F Gyro wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Xander Mercy wrote:slower large blaster turret rotation speed so sprinting medium and light frames have a chance to run from cover to cover. the large blaster shouldn't be able to hit fast moving infantry thats what the small terrets are for So... you want the anti-infantry turret to be unable to actually track infantry? Blasters are practically useless vs other tanks, and are unable to do anything VS dropships cause they can pull away. The only target such a tank would have is LAV's... no wait, those would be too fast as well. By your model the spread of the gun would have to go down, and the damage up, so that if infantry was merely clipped, it would die, this would be so that the tank could actually fight other tanks and LAV's. If you dislike blasters now, you'll be furious with a slower, far more accurate version. Why? Tanks would simply pop a torque mod to turn after you using the wheel speed instead of the turret. Eh? A large turret should not be "anti-infantry". If large blasters are useless against vehicles (I don't believe they are) then buff them or nerf rails. If you want an anti-infantry platform then use a small weapon(not even sure you can fit a small blaster in a large turret, but if you can't you should be able to). You didn't read a thing of what you quoted? Cause your reply was at a rather large tangent to the quoted post. Are you saying that the initial comment about the large blaster being an anti-infantry turret was merely tangental to the post? It didn't come across that way to me. The rest of your post seemed to be based on what seemed to me like an unwarranted assumption that other attributes of the large blaster would need to be buffed to compensate. Sorry for not addressing this.
The buffs would be a requirement of the platform.
What would it be used to shoot if it performed sub-par damage(vs vehicle), AND was unable to target things(vs infantry)?
In effect the machine would not even be able to take out other tanks with those reduced stats. Blaster tanks already have a horrible time confronting other tanks.
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
|
|
| |
|