**** your honour. That's the **** players in Dark Souls fed themselves to tell them that they were good.

Honour is something you confine yourself to. Never impose your honour on others nor use it as a basis of judging a foe, that only makes you look foolish.

To the people saying "irl it takes a crew to drive a tank" well guess what! A single person can control a 16km long ship in the eve universe!!! How cool is that? It's also called computer assisted controls :D

To op: It's the madrugar that has the insane gun depression. Gunnlogi can't shoot infantry that get too close.

1: MLT HAV's and all the active modules and turrets are too similar

2: hardeners are completely broken

3: Slot layout is ******

4: Gallente HAV's have horrible fitting capabilities

5: handling is ******

6: they go too fast and the acceleration is too high

7: turrets are either ****** on some/all vehicles (small blasters), or is OP (Large rails/missiles).

I could go all day.

It's a good thing those same ships aren't housed with hundreds to thousands of crew members that are doing their part in keeping the entire vessel operational.

Yea, you would feel pretty silly if that were the case....

Well, technically they don't, if your being sarcastic. But Lore-wise that's correct (somewhat.) While regular NPC crewed ships would be like this, a Megathron for example probably only has like 50 crew members if a Capsuleer is at the helm.

You do know the explanation of a single person driving the ship is also EVE lore...right?

Well, yes. But being that the two game's lore are deeply interconnected, it wouldn't be unsafe to assume that the same tech that is applied to ships is applied to vehicles. As the Capsuleer uses his pod as a medium for interacting with the ship, controlling the actions of the ship with his mind, should a mercenary not be able to use the implants in his brain and dropsuit as a medium for interacting with the vehicle controlling it with his mind thereby minimizing the required crew to operate it?

Sure.

But a game needs to balanced first, then lore created afterward. Not the other way around.

To the people saying "irl it takes a crew to drive a tank" well guess what! A single person can control a 16km long ship in the eve universe!!! How cool is that? It's also called computer assisted controls :D

To op: It's the madrugar that has the insane gun depression. Gunnlogi can't shoot infantry that get too close.

Ironically enough, there already is lore of some of the events that have taken place early on like the Battle for Caldari Prime and early Planetary Conquest and even the PSN Mercenary Pack


http://dust514.wikia.com/wiki/Category:History_and_Lore

Real life tanks

So was reading through that, that somebody posted on another post. Rather interesting, and I think we could take a lesson from RL tanks when it comes to balancing.

"Originally they were designed to assist infantry. They still do, and quite well I might add. There are several problems with this however. Unlike infantry they cannot sneak up on you. They are often restricted to what terrain they can travel through."

(Right now, tanks easily sneak up on ya. It's nearly impossible to tell directionally where a tank is, just that you know it's in the general area around you, same with dropships.)

"Now the best way to kill a tank is to use another tank."

(True of tanks now)

"Tanks can move faster than an infantryman, about five hundred meters a minute."

(And infantry want to keep up with tanks?)

"Infantry are the nemesis of tanks and there is a love/hate relationship. Tanks hate infantry and infantry hate tanks, yet when the two are on the same side they love each other."

(How fing true is this in relation to dust! )

"Tanks destroy targets that are too tough for most infantry and infantry keep the tanks safe from other infantry."

(Perhaps tanks need an actual purpose on the battlefield. Like breaking down a gate, to allow infantry easier/ more access points to an objective.)

"Attacking is what tanks are primarily designed for. Their frontal armor is thickest and their weapons point forward of their main gun. Anything in front of a tank is going to get hurt and is unlikely to hurt the tank in return."

(Imagine that, our tanks are just like this!)

"The sides, rear, top and bottom of a tank are another story completely. Although they are usually well armored the armor is not nearly as thick as the front. That is why infantry like to attack tanks from nearly any direction but the front (plus tanks have no qualms about running over infantry if they can't shoot them up infantry know this)."

(IE we need the ability to run people over) (Infantry at one time had now qualms attacking from any angle.)

"Because large viewports would make the tank vulnerable to rockets and enemy cannon, the viewports have to be small. This means that when the crew is hiding behind the armor they can't see very well. In fact if an infantryman can get within ten meters of a Soviet built tank then the tanker cannot see him unless he sticks his head out. Also to minimize the weakpoints in the armor the main guns are limited in how high and low they can elevate. This means that if an infantryman can get within twenty feet of the tank, the tanker can't shoot him with any of the tank weapons. The tanker can still try to run over the poor guy though and tanks can move fast.

This is why tanks need infantry. Enemy infantrymen to the rear or flanks of a tank can be a major threat. If the tank has infantry to keep off pesky enemy infantry the tank becomes a true terror. Infantry can shoot at enemy infantry on or near friendly tanks without fear because tanks are bullet proof in the truest sense of the word. Enemy infantry are not."

As far as balance is concerned, changing gun depression so that it's impossible to hit any infantry within 10M isn't a bad idea. (Currently, this is true only of the madrudger, turret depression allows them to shoot infantry right next to their tanks.)

But that's something I've noticed with the new build, infantry used to BE the tanks. They were fearless when it came to tanks, hardly giving a second thought to the tank in front of them. Now though, the things described in these quotes are coming true. Infantry are no longer headstrong and fearless against tanks, and have had to adapt and change tactics to ones similar to dealing with RL tanks.

I think we could take a lesson though from how RL works when it comes to infantry and tank interaction.

Unless you are trying to say EVE created that lore before said events happened, I'm not sure how it relates to our discussion.

As for the merc pack, i also do not see how that lore has any correlation on balance within the game.

Edit - Or were you just randomly mentioning the lore existed? If so the "irony" part threw me off greatly.

No tank operates in Real life with just one operator...

You need a gunner to operate the turret along with someone to drive the tank.

MAV's should be introduced into DUST that a singular mercenary could drive with limited strength that 1-2 infantry could compete with.

The HAV's should need a Driver to "Drive" the tank and gets the small front turret position... And an Actual "Gunner" that operates the main turret of the HAV.... With all the glory and strength potential tanks have now.

Will it be hard to get the team work down to max out the potential of the HAV? hell yea... But Imagine being able to evade drive.. while the gunner is fighting the target behind you... The potential is amazing.. With good team work.


HAV's will always be a force multiplier problem in DUST. The fact that one person can call in a mechanized unit and increase their battlefield potential by 300% can never be balanced unless it requires more then 1 Mercenary to utilize that potential.

Nobody uses triple hardeners. I've tried them, and typically I'm better off using the last slot for a damage mod, or nitro. Triple hardened tanks are myths.

Make large turrets suck against infantry. Make small turrets better at killing infantry. Most importantly, release more vehicles so large turrets have more to shoot at.

I'm complaining about ambush because that all I play, because I have ADD and can't pay attention to objectives

Ran with two missile turrets on my railgun a few matches. Felt like it should be. My railgun sucks against infantry and wrecks vehicles. My turrets ate up infantry, and supplemented me against vehicles. Took three tanks and a forge gunner to down me. That's how it should be.

No tank operates in Real life with just one operator...

You need a gunner to operate the turret along with someone to drive the tank. Even more IRL

MAV's should be introduced into DUST that a singular mercenary could drive with limited strength that 1-2 infantry could compete with.

The HAV's should need a Driver to "Drive" the tank and gets the small front turret position... And an Actual "Gunner" that operates the main turret of the HAV.... With all the glory and strength potential tanks have now.

Will it be hard to get the team work down to max out the potential of the HAV? hell yea... But Imagine being able to evade drive.. while the gunner is fighting the target behind you... The potential is amazing.. With good team work.


HAV's will always be a force multiplier problem in DUST. The fact that one person can call in a mechanized unit and increase their battlefield potential by 300% can never be balanced unless it requires more then 1 Mercenary to utilize that potential.

To the people saying "irl it takes a crew to drive a tank" well guess what! A single person can control a 16km long ship in the eve universe!!! How cool is that? It's also called computer assisted controls :D

To op: It's the madrugar that has the insane gun depression. Gunnlogi can't shoot infantry that get too close.

For the sake of balance, a bit of realism must be excluded.

What I point to though, is that we can take something from how tanks operate in the real world and apply it to our tanks.

Like the point that tanks are not focused on killing infantry, but rather bigger stuff. Or how gimped a tank is in an urban enviroment, or how effective infantry can be against said tank.

In the game, if you want something to be one shot, you yourself must be one shot, for the sake of balance.

In the real world, it's about stacking the odds in your favor, and creating an unbalnced enviroment that you may use .

But I need that window so I can reach out and hack objectives within my tank.

It's not like we can magically teleport inside vehicles. If we could, we would teleport into turret installations and CRUs, too.

The ignorance and irony in this post is so god damn hilarious
You know lets ignore the view ports in real tanks since hey future tanks probably have cameras for visibility
But hey, why dont our flux grenades screw up those cameras, just makes sense doesnt it
and why should we be able to drag a scrubby little tank driver out and kill him, I mean those hatches have to be locked right
Oh wait, you mean to tell me that all of our suits come equipped with the gear we need to hack turrets, null cannons, and CRU's so a piddly little lock would get hacked just as easily


Man, countering your arguments and attempts at sarcasm with my own is as easy as teasing a cat with a laser pointer and Im not even a very witty guy

1: MLT HAV's and all the active modules and turrets are too similar

2: hardeners are completely broken

3: Slot layout is ******

4: Gallente HAV's have horrible fitting capabilities

5: handling is ******

6: they go too fast and the acceleration is too high

7: turrets are either ****** on some/all vehicles (small blasters), or is OP (Large rails/missiles).

I could go all day.

Yeah it was me who found that Tank information and posted it

But you've missed some key points

On that other thread i referred to a quote that a Tanks main turrets are primarily Anti Vehicle and very rarely if ever are they fitted with an anti infantry weapon, they sometimes have side guns that provide some form of anti infantry but the main turret is pretty much designed to take down other Tanks .. Large Blaster Turrets are what causes the major unbalance between Tanks and infantry .. to gain some anti infantry capabilities Tanks should have to fit a side gun and have a gunner

I also referred to a quote about 1 Tank alone v a group of infantry is a sitting duck as the infantry can get behind it and surround it and use things like molotov cocktails/grenades on the top of the tank to kill the people manning it or blow it's engine up, they can also attack the tracks to stop to moving .. we have none of this in dust and 1 Tank can pop hardeners on and drive into the middle of infantry and kill them with impunity

Really infantry need things like Electric Shock grenades that render a vehicles electronics (modules) unusable and stop it being able to move .. think of a sticky grenade that would require the tanker/his crew to get out of the tank to remove it before its modules would begin to work again .. infantry would have to get really close to attach it but in CQC infantry should be able to do things like this v Tanks

Personally I don't think a Tank should be used to kill infantry with its main turret as a primary role .. that is what APC/MAVs are for .. infantry carriers with light weaponry to kill enemy infantry ..

Sooo you are basicly saying that HAVs should be one shooted by Infantry? Becasue HAVS can oneshot all infantry .

Ok seriously I am fine with strong HAVs as long as they are AV or Anti Installations tools. Nearly invincible Anti Infantry tanks are just a bad thing balancing wise...