DUST Search - Actual question: What does infantry want tanks to be like?

All Channels

General Discussions

Actual question: What does infantry want tanks to be like?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3431	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:09:00 - [31] - Quote These are good ideas people (well, most of them lol). Keep em coming. The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1216	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:11:00 - [32] - Quote 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). RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 661	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:12:00 - [33] - Quote killable by infantry AV that isn't synced proto breach forge guns Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Balance!
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3431	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:13:00 - [34] - Quote 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. The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1216	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:15:00 - [35] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: The point of view solution for tanks is really interesting. They would still be usable solo but would sacrifise a gigantic amount of situational awareness. Not sure I made it clear in my post, but I think the driver should get the front small turret. The large turret should require a dedicated gunner. Much more controversial, I know. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Faunher Ivory Vanguard 130	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:15:00 - [36] - Quote To start, LAVs should be better at killing and supporting infantry (not murder-taxi wise) and HAVS should be geared towards taking out LAVs and other HAVs. Militia HAVs should be less effective. Scrap the wave of opportunity idea, it is not going to work given the current speed of tanks and the ability of them to stack their invincibility modules. Give them more hp or more reps, but make them slow. At the moment they are too adept at getting in and out of situations. Tanking should be 90% situational, and crippling their speed would make positioning an important factor in tanking. They need a more defined role. As it is, the only things tanks cannot do is hack objectives. Heavy turrets should be geared towards vehicles, small turrets should be geared towards infantry. Tanks are fundamentally flawed, it is similar to rail rifles having long range and high damage.
Logi Stician The Vanguardians INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 253	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:17:00 - [37] - Quote In answer to the Topic, "Challenging but fun to play against." "...and I'm the seventh out of seven sons, my pappy was a pistol, I'm a son of a gun. "
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 3431	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:17:00 - [38] - Quote Faunher wrote: To start, LAVs should be better at killing and supporting infantry (not murder-taxi wise) and HAVS should be geared towards taking out LAVs and other HAVs. Militia HAVs should be less effective. Scrap the wave of opportunity idea, it is not going to work given the current speed of tanks and the ability of them to stack their invincibility modules. Give them more hp or more reps, but make them slow. At the moment they are too adept at getting in and out of situations. Tanking should be 90% situational, and crippling their speed would make positioning an important factor in tanking. They need a more defined role. As it is, the only things tanks cannot do is hack objectives. Heavy turrets should be geared towards vehicles, small turrets should be geared towards infantry. Tanks are fundamentally flawed, it is similar to rail rifles having long range and high damage. The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4077	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:21:00 - [39] - Quote da GAND wrote: Tanks should be powerful to break through enemy lines that infantry alone can't break through. But they should have weaknesses to exploit on certain parts of the tank that take a few focused people to take care of. Those sortof contradict each other. If defenses are too tough for infantry to break through, they're definitely tough enough to focus and take down an HAV I am your scan error.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1001	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:25:00 - [40] - Quote Tanks only need the cooldown on the hardeners to be longer and the duration a little bit shorter so they really are the hit and fade option that they talking about pre 1.7 launch. Or, we need a buff to the AV. We don't need both, one or the other. I'd prefer if the swarm missiles were faster than a speeding tank (seriously CCP, what were you thinking?) and worked like a javelin missile in real life, straight up to a pre set height then direct to the target. Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot CEO of DUST University CPM1 candidate

Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4077	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:32:00 - [41] - Quote I think we should be thinking of SEVERAL roles instead of one. HAVs are just a basic chassis, like basic heavy frame suits. I think we should be more focused on getting a good correlation between mobility, damage, and tank. An HAV with a very powerful turret should be slow and squishy. An HAV that can move very quickly should have weak guns and be easy to destroy if you hit it. An HAV that takes a small army of AVers to destroy should be firing peas and moving very slowly. Right now, what we have is fast, powerful, tough HAVs. What really sucks with balancing something like that is that we need complete tiericide. No proto turrets, no tiers of AV. Last build we had the problem that standard AV was a joke while proto AV was overpowered. I am your scan error.
Darken-Soul BIG BAD W0LVES 787	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:33:00 - [42] - Quote I was AV since almost day one. Tanks have always been tough. CCP buffed swarms for those crybaby assault guys(yeah all of you) tanks got hosed. I have always made it my goal to kill every tank I see. Others just wanted the tanks to go away. I thoroughly enjoy tanking when its not a job. Its easy mode. I want my FGs charge time back so I can begin to function in my chosen role. As it stands it is way cheaper isk and sp wise to tank. Having been a tanker for roughly 6months i feel no threat from AV. I use the swarms and blue balls of energy as target locaters. Is this what CCPintended? I doubt it. They clearly lack any real ability to predict what the changes they make will do to the game. Whichever way it goes i hope they get something close to balance but won't hold my breath. I would actually be shocked if they got something right for a change. Who wants some?
low genius The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 1257	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:41:00 - [43] - Quote slower.
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC Intara Direct Action Caldari State 264	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:43:00 - [44] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL 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) Tanks to not be in my space warfare. I'd also like to sit in the MCC and auto target/kill all enemy dropsuits on the ground. Oh you mean as a gameplay concept and not reality? I just want a tank that isn't good at everything. Right now, they are good at everything. If the game would let you spawn 32 tanks in a match, that's all we would need. Right now the vehicle cap is the only reason infantry exist. The problem for me is that tactically tanks take multiple people to kill it, I know thats by design, but even if 3 people attack the tank he can run, now you have 3 infantry out of the objective side of the fight chasing a tank they may or may not kill, and in the meantime the tank can continue to use what might as well be an officer class blaster weapon for the damage it does and how quickly blasters kill us. Im not saying they shouldnt be powerful, but think about what we are saying, with no sp investment you can put on a dropsuit "the tank" with thousands of hit points, then again with no sp investment you can equip a officer class gun "militia blaster turret" and just begin to mow and mow and mow, and if the other team doesnt tank your bad ass, they just have to ignore the tank or lose the objectives, this isnt always the case and I jihad jeep, im prof 4 in fg, so personally I do okay, but there are lots of mercs not feeling the same way. It basically comes down to they invest more isk over my sp and isk wins. I should counter tank, but I have over 73,000 kills and none in tanks, I see proto wearing vets, like cal cat dog, or bear in the damn tank hopping out use the rr and hop back in, im not knocking it but I cant do it, im never going to pad with tanks, got an alt for that I guess ultimately if tanks were more vulernable somehow to av when using a infantry focused killing weapon like a blaster, and less vulnerable when they were killing other tanks, or each other asxit were.
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution 5221	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:43:00 - [45] - Quote Slower is all I want them to be :( Fatal Absolution's official bench warmer and mascot I go negative in PC, yay
Turtle Hermit Roshi D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 136	Posted - 2014.02.17 21:48:00 - [46] - Quote 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) well as an pro heavy (hmg/forge pro 5) i think tanks are well balenced and are as owerful as they should be but i have a problem with the MLT tanks being as good as they are too many scrubs in mlt tanks and i can still solo a tank in dire circumstances so thats balanced well i think its hard to do but dueable but having 9 mlt tanks in an amb is just wrong maybe get rid of the MLT tanks alltogether make it where u have to have sp invested to even call one Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for, welcome to New Eden. KAMEHAMEHA professional Heavy for hire
Everything Dies Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 486	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:17:00 - [47] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I think we should be thinking of SEVERAL roles instead of one. HAVs are just a basic chassis, like basic heavy frame suits. I think we should be more focused on getting a good correlation between mobility, damage, and tank. An HAV with a very powerful turret should be slow and squishy. An HAV that can move very quickly should have weak guns and be easy to destroy if you hit it. An HAV that takes a small army of AVers to destroy should be firing peas and moving very slowly. Right now, what we have is fast, powerful, tough HAVs. What really sucks with balancing something like that is that we need complete tiericide. No proto turrets, no tiers of AV. Last build we had the problem that standard AV was a joke while proto AV was overpowered. Interesting ideas. I'm not a tanker by any means (mostly just bringing in a rail tank if I spot an enemy tank/dropship on the battlefield) but I've been having a lot of fun using a Soma with blaster turret for the past two days. The reason I enjoy it because I'm not trying to rack up kills; instead, I have two militia scanners equipped which allows me to drive around while constantly scanning for the enemy. I like to get ahead of a few friendly blues and scan the area around null cannons/CRUs and then provide cover while they hack (this also works pretty well for defending nodes.) I'd definitely be willing to trade the majority of my damage output in return for more speed/mobility. Perhaps the game should apply speed penalties to turrets? You could have quick, speedy tanks that can absorb damage while serving as anti-infantry (maybe along the lines of doing railgun/combat rifle-like damage) specialists or the slow moving, heavy damage-dealing goliaths. Life is killing me.
Moron Lame Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:23:00 - [48] - Quote I would like tanks to be fallible. Tanks are God right now. AV needs to be balanced because CCP overreacted to the tankers crying, and made them near-invincible. Let me use the district our corp just lost to Tanks514 for example. If infantry could actually put a dent in a tank we could keep them from single handedly holding a point by camping their fat ass on it. I'm all for tanks being able to stand up to one guy with AV not 2 or 3.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1704	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:27:00 - [49] - Quote Powerful, tough and slow war machines that require internal teamwork to be deployed most effectively. Crew Service for all vehicles, not just a few. Crazy AV options, swarm buff, PLC buff, web prox mines, stealth prox mines. Crazy AV countermeasures options, ablative plating, chaff, CIWS. SKILLS NEED TO BE REQUIRED FOR UTILIZATION THOUGH NOT FITTING. No more "I have no points in Vehicles at all but I can hop right in a drive off in a vehicle that I have no training in and no ******* clue how best to use". Lots more too, just can't think straight currently. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 603	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:27:00 - [50] - 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

Faunher Ivory Vanguard 131	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:39:00 - [51] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Faunher wrote: To start, LAVs should be better at killing and supporting infantry (not murder-taxi wise) and HAVS should be geared towards taking out LAVs and other HAVs. Militia HAVs should be less effective. Scrap the wave of opportunity idea, it is not going to work given the current speed of tanks and the ability of them to stack their invincibility modules. Give them more hp or more reps, but make them slow. At the moment they are too adept at getting in and out of situations. Tanking should be 90% situational, and crippling their speed would make positioning an important factor in tanking. They need a more defined role. As it is, the only things tanks cannot do is hack objectives. Heavy turrets should be geared towards vehicles, small turrets should be geared towards infantry. Tanks are fundamentally flawed, it is similar to rail rifles having long range and high damage. I agree. However, I think tanks should be geared to take out other vehicles (if ccp f****** released them) Ya that's the main problem with things atm. It is difficult to balance something when it was created to counter, or act against, things that are currently not in the game. The opposite rings true as well; you cannot balance something by its relation to content that is not in the game. On second thought, what we truly need is fleshed out content, give us the basic building blocks, all the suits and vehicles, new vehicle types, then balancing can actually accomplish something.
PLAYSTTION GamersForChrist 35	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:44:00 - [52] - Quote Fraceska wrote: I would want to see ablative plates that can detonate warheads before impacting the tank and causing damage. But you can only fit so much of them on the tank. But this is the super future and reality of combat need not apply! Join MercenaryCenter. i saw your corpless. join the chat channel named the same for more info -Open Beta Vet-13.5 mil sp- Dust 514 recruitment link here
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 604	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:50:00 - [53] - 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
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1216	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:52:00 - [54] - Quote 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. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 313	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:54:00 - [55] - Quote I want them to die in a single shot from a MLT forge gun or volley from the starter fit Anti-Armor. I want them to blow over when I sneeze. I want the suspension to drop out the bottom when I take a dump on the hood. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Zene Ren Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 49	Posted - 2014.02.17 22:54:00 - [56] - Quote crew based killing machines! Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 604	Posted - 2014.02.17 23:05:00 - [57] - 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
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4081	Posted - 2014.02.17 23:17:00 - [58] - Quote Everything Dies wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I think we should be thinking of SEVERAL roles instead of one. HAVs are just a basic chassis, like basic heavy frame suits. I think we should be more focused on getting a good correlation between mobility, damage, and tank. An HAV with a very powerful turret should be slow and squishy. An HAV that can move very quickly should have weak guns and be easy to destroy if you hit it. An HAV that takes a small army of AVers to destroy should be firing peas and moving very slowly. Right now, what we have is fast, powerful, tough HAVs. What really sucks with balancing something like that is that we need complete tiericide. No proto turrets, no tiers of AV. Last build we had the problem that standard AV was a joke while proto AV was overpowered. Interesting ideas. I'm not a tanker by any means (mostly just bringing in a rail tank if I spot an enemy tank/dropship on the battlefield) but I've been having a lot of fun using a Soma with blaster turret for the past two days. The reason I enjoy it because I'm not trying to rack up kills; instead, I have two militia scanners equipped which allows me to drive around while constantly scanning for the enemy. I like to get ahead of a few friendly blues and scan the area around null cannons/CRUs and then provide cover while they hack (this also works pretty well for defending nodes.) I'd definitely be willing to trade the majority of my damage output in return for more speed/mobility. Perhaps the game should apply speed penalties to turrets? You could have quick, speedy tanks that can absorb damage while serving as anti-infantry (maybe along the lines of doing railgun/combat rifle-like damage) specialists or the slow moving, heavy damage-dealing goliaths. This actually gives me a clearer idea: The role of the HAV is simple: flat out combat. EWAR should be LAV stuff Transporting troops should be dropship stuff Back to my original post, my main idea is not to add penalties, but to make the base stats ******, with modules to make it better. That also solves the problem of HAV "spam" since an unfit HAV would be a slow tin can. I am your scan error.
Auris Lionesse Capital Acquisitions LLC Renegade Alliance 223	Posted - 2014.02.17 23:39:00 - [59] - Quote Like battlefield: balanced. A good tanker can own a team, but you can get blown up in about 2 seconds if you aren't careful. RPGs/repair tools/c4 own tanks, tanks own infantry, and infantry own engineers (usually) The way it should be.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 1992	Posted - 2014.02.17 23:44:00 - [60] - Quote Im not going to go into the semantics of it now, but as I have said time and again, in numerous threads across the forums. I want Tanks to have an equal FORCE STRENGTH to the equivalent amount of infantry. Tanks (so long as they are piloted by 1 person -and rightly so-) should be considered a niche weapon, like the Mass Driver or LR. Spkr4thedead: Me > AV This is why tanks are unbalanced Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.