| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
608
   |
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 tne nemisis 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. Thier 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 gunnlogi, 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.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2707
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels
Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls
Its future tech
Quote:Future tanks will likely have a crew of one or two, video cameras that will help the crew see more clearly, targeting computers and various anti-missile and anti-personel defenses.
With all the new systems and the smaller crew, tanks are more likley to become like aircraft. A small crew to operate the vehicle in combat and a support crew to help maintain and repair it. Since the support crew will likely consist of specialists it is unlikely to follow the tank into battle.
Tanks are big and mean but they are far from invulnerable if the defender knows what he is doing. That is unlikely to change.
This quote here is bang on the money
Right now small crew or 1-3, camera drones we have to see outside the tank, support crew to maintain could be another vehicle when we had remote armor/shield reppers for vehicles which we on LAV or another tank which was weaker
Last line is DUST right now
Intelligence is OP
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
755
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree, in RL it takes at least a 3 man crew to run a tank so we should add that and then that solves the issue of 7 tanks in a match and tankers will be right when they claim out should take multiple AV players to take them out.
But since that won't happen, on the realistic front tanks shouldn't be so damn sneaky in Dust and it would be cool if the main gun couldn't hit infantry within 10m, it would give a tank a reason to want to have a small turret gunner. Also I think the RE warning noise needs to go away.
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
1326
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tanks were originally designed to break through enemy trenches. They are still mainly for area of effect bombardment, infiltration as well as covering larger distances quicker while protected.
In other words, a general blunt instrument vs. precision attack of infantry.
I used to hate tanks in the Marines. I always thought, "How come they are so much better than me? They are just scrubs who don't want to fight like me and be a "man" with all my manly squishiness. I should be able to be as invulnerable as them. They shouldn't be able to just one shot obliterate all before them. I'm sad. Saddy sad sad. Sniff, sniff."
In RL infantry fears tanks. In this game infantry fears tanks. I believe CCP captured the essence of that relationship perfectly.
Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
|
Sam Tektzby
Better Hide R Die
237
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
By my own experience, i NEVER saw ARMOR faster than AA rocket propelled grenade. Guess what they exist here XD
Support - Tactician/Support
Deteis - Orator
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
2604
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels
It seems to me that it is you, rather than the infantry who first stepped up to derail what could otherwise be an intelligent conversation.
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls
DUST tanks are weakest in the back around the engine block. They are also weak on the sides around the treads.
Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
|
Flix Keptick
Red Star.
EoN.
3480
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 13:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
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
The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game.
Scout // Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
|
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
1328
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
Lol, gun depression. When it comes to infantry, you got that right!
Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Tanks were originally designed to break through enemy trenches. They are still mainly for area of effect bombardment, infiltration as well as covering larger distances quicker while protected.
In other words, a general blunt instrument vs. precision attack of infantry.
I used to hate tanks in the Marines. I always thought, "How come they are so much better than me? They are just scrubs who don't want to fight like me and be a "man" with all my manly squishiness. I should be able to be as invulnerable as them. They shouldn't be able to just one shot obliterate all before them. I'm sad. Saddy sad sad. Sniff, sniff."
In RL infantry fears tanks. In this game infantry fears tanks. I believe CCP captured the essence of that relationship perfectly.
My thoughts exactly!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. Lol, gun depression. When it comes to infantry, you got that right!
If I didn't say that, than I certainly meant to say that. As I myself drive the Gunnlogi rather exclusively.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
756
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also ass the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually boo weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem.
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
614
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels It seems to me that it is you, rather than the infantry who first stepped up to derail what could otherwise be an intelligent conversation. Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls DUST tanks are weakest in the back around the engine block. They are also weak on the sides around the treads.
No use arguing with the wall that is Taka, he rather enjoys being too far over the top (OP) with his tank.
And yeah Taka, you do extra damage from behind a tank.
I think I would be cool with having to focus more on keeping my tank forward facing. I should take some serious damage WITH A HARDENER UP, when I'm hit in my weak point.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
614
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also ass the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually boo weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem.
It should take multiple direct AV to take a tank down, but at the same time, it should take multiple people in a tank to take infantry out.
What I mean is the Large Turret shifts focus from being AI (currently they are AI focused while being decent with AV) to being AV. Than a tank must rely on gunners (small turrets) for AI capabilities.
And currently, infantry do sneak up with RE's and blow tanks up Saving Private Ryan style. More than once I've said WTF just happend, only to realize it was no doubt RE's and one sneaky as infantryman. (hint, wait for hardeners to drop before detonating, or I get out of my tank to shoot RE's, had that happen a time or two lol.)
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2707
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels It seems to me that it is you, rather than the infantry who first stepped up to derail what could otherwise be an intelligent conversation. Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls DUST tanks are weakest in the back around the engine block. They are also weak on the sides around the treads. No use arguing with the wall that is Taka, he rather enjoys being too far over the top (OP) with his tank. And yeah Taka, you do extra damage from behind a tank. I think I would be cool with having to focus more on keeping my tank forward facing. I should take some serious damage WITH A HARDENER UP, when I'm hit in my weak point.
The point at the back is just that a point
We dont have armor thickness values or penetration values for AV, you can t knock of the treads or damage the gun
If i get a shot with my breach on the weakspot i 1 shot all the HAVs with no hardeners on, with a hardener on i easy get 50% of the tanks total HP or there abouts
Now you can do this with a FG or even a lolPLC but you cant with swarms since they lock on to 1 point and 1 point early
@Fox - infantry cry over it being a tank, the infantry in the article cry over it being a tank, i might aswell get the obv out of the way that infantry hates tanks as they are in DUST
Intelligence is OP
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
614
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels It seems to me that it is you, rather than the infantry who first stepped up to derail what could otherwise be an intelligent conversation. Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls DUST tanks are weakest in the back around the engine block. They are also weak on the sides around the treads. No use arguing with the wall that is Taka, he rather enjoys being too far over the top (OP) with his tank. And yeah Taka, you do extra damage from behind a tank. I think I would be cool with having to focus more on keeping my tank forward facing. I should take some serious damage WITH A HARDENER UP, when I'm hit in my weak point. The point at the back is just that a point We dont have armor thickness values or penetration values for AV, you can t knock of the treads or damage the gun If i get a shot with my breach on the weakspot i 1 shot all the HAVs with no hardeners on, with a hardener on i easy get 50% of the tanks total HP or there abouts Now you can do this with a FG or even a lolPLC but you cant with swarms since they lock on to 1 point and 1 point early @Fox - infantry cry over it being a tank, the infantry in the article cry over it being a tank, i might aswell get the obv out of the way that infantry hates tanks as they are in DUST
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2707
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them
Intelligence is OP
|
Zeylon Rho
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3559
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them
A MLT tank is dirt cheap compared to a dropsuit. That alone is something of an issue.
Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2707
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Zeylon Rho wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them A MLT tank is dirt cheap compared to a dropsuit. That alone is something of an issue.
True
A MLT tank is far more expensive than a mlt dropsuit
Like wise my 700k proto fitted HAV with no proto hull or proto pilot suit is still 700k, an ADS is about the same or more
But then again with last build you dont want 2mil+ coffins
Intelligence is OP
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2901
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 14:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
The problem is that tanks are mainly AI, killing one merc at a time just like the guy carrying an AR.
They aren't blowing up fortifications, they aren't knocking down walls or taking out bunkers or towers. No they are wandering around blasting one soldier at a time. That's the role of infantry, making tanks in my book simply oversized dropsuits.
A dropsuit with far more eHP, speed, and DPS than any other suit. Yes, it does have a couple drawbacks: it can be targeted by swarms and it can't drive everywhere, but it shrugs off light weapons and fat suits can't jump a small ledge either.
It's the role, not the shape or the name that matters. The tanks in the game today are playing the same role as infantry, but in a totally different class of suit. Therein lies the problem.
Tank drivers want a degree of invulnerability beyond their current role, and hey have it. Play an ambush with six tanks on the other side and you will immediately see the force multiplication they bestow. If you keep their role the same, you will be forced to make them far more vulnerable. They are competing one-on-one with infantry after all. That means soloable by one merc.
Alternatively you could change their role to blowing up bigger stuff that infantry can't. Differentiate them. Don't let them mow down one merc at a time with their main cannons. |
Rinzler XVIII
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
90
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Real life tanksSo 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.
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 ..
|
|
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
11567
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
Why skill into infantry when everyone gets free tanks though?
If all I saw was Madrugars and Gunloggis trolling around, I'd be ok with that. But I don't, because people abuse the **** out of how broken MLT tanks are.
They are an abomination in every sense of the word, and make this game seem like little more than a badly balanced joke.
Videos / Fiction
Closed Beta Vet; Incubus Pilot
|
Pisidon Gmen
Ivory Vanguard
23
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
what i havent seen is in real life it only takes 1 hit to kill a tank most times
if you were to relate dust tanks to real life tanks
which is the A1 Abrams?
which is a sherman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
go read up on real tanks and how they are used in a real battle
However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57]
so tell me why the av in dust is so far behind the tanks? |
Dingleburt Bangledack
PiZzA DuDeS
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:
"Tanks can move faster than an infantryman, about five hundred meters a minute."
(And infantry want to keep up with tanks?)
Just letting you know that my scout sprints faster than that with one Complex Kin Cat.
500 m/m is about 8.3 m/s. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
616
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Pisidon Gmen wrote:what i havent seen is in real life it only takes 1 hit to kill a tank most times if you were to relate dust tanks to real life tanks which is the A1 Abrams? which is a sherman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankgo read up on real tanks and how they are used in a real battle However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57] so tell me why the av in dust is so far behind the tanks?
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 .
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Thumb Green
Mannar Focused Warfare
Gallente Federation
811
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:
In RL infantry fears tanks. In this game infantry fears tanks. I believe CCP captured the essence of that relationship perfectly.
In RL tanks fear infantry as well. In this game tanks currently do not fear infantry; not so perfect after all.
Support Orbital Spawns
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
622
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also as the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually no weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem.
When tanks can willingly reduce the number of engaged hostile AV users to only 1 at a time, then you might have a point.
You don't have a point, and sound quite absurd because of the fact that tanks will always be engaged by multiple people at once. Just being in a tank already causes the attention of every player within a 100 meter radius to look in your direction. In other words, 1v1 is impossible unless the infantry being targeted is running alone for some unknown reason. Once spotted, the only way for a tank to lose the attention of a combatant is to speed away.
Dropsuits on the other hand can sneak around, or simply run straight up to an enemy and engage 1v1 whenever they feel like it. Albeit a quick blurb over comms can quickly end the 1v1, but it is possible for infantry to get such a situation, and then retreat by cover and loose any pursuant.
Also, I hear a lot of people rant and rave over "triple hardeners" when most fits cannot afford more than 2, only a shield tank might have three, but the limit of hardeners is 2 per health type due to slot and stat constraints.
Can you detail the slot uses of these "Triple hardeners"?
If you can read this, it means you are reading.
Unless you are skimming
|
Himiko Tsukiyomi
Expert Intervention
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
If infantry didn't fear tanks the so called field of bones would have never happened. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
616
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:30:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also as the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually no weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem. When tanks can willingly reduce the number of engaged hostile AV users to only 1 at a time, then you might have a point. You don't have a point, and sound quite absurd because of the fact that tanks will always be engaged by multiple people at once. Just being in a tank already causes the attention of every player within a 100 meter radius to look in your direction. In other words, 1v1 is impossible unless the infantry being targeted is running alone for some unknown reason. Once spotted, the only way for a tank to lose the attention of a combatant is to speed away. Dropsuits on the other hand can sneak around, or simply run straight up to an enemy and engage 1v1 whenever they feel like it. Albeit a quick blurb over comms can quickly end the 1v1, but it is possible for infantry to get such a situation, and then retreat by cover and loose any pursuant. Also, I hear a lot of people rant and rave over "triple hardeners" when most fits cannot afford more than 2, only a shield tank might have three, but the limit of hardeners is 2 per health type due to slot and stat constraints. Can you detail the slot uses of these "Triple hardeners"?
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.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
764
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
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.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2905
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
The problem is that tanks aren't acting like tanks, they act just like infantry suits.
They have a main gun that they use to kill one merc at a time. They chase them down and kill them one at a time, one right after the other.
THEY OCCUPY THE EXACT SAME ROLE ON THE BATTLEFIELD
You don't need a tank for any special purpose. You don't say to yourself, "Oh I've got to bust that bunker, I'll call in a tank".
No, you say to yourself, "Hmm, I'd like to go on a murder rampage so I'll call in a blaster tank."
Is that your fault as a tank driver? Is that a major character flaw on your part? No.
It's CCP's fault for not giving the tank (or dropship for that matter) a real differentiated role on the battlefield.
We basically have one game mode (TDM) with slight variations (objectives to keep the battle in one area), and that mode requires nothing more than straight up DPS. No side objectives, no other requirements other than "Shoot face with more DPS".
With nothing else to do tanks just become super dropsuits. An OP class of infantry rather than a distinct role.
It shows in Ambush. Why would anyone do anything but call in a blaster tank? More importantly, why would you not? What would restrict you from doing so? Nothing but an artificial vehicle count, that's what!
Now if tanks had differentiation you wouldn't need artificial restrictions. You would say to yourself, "Oh, we already have two tanks on the field, I'll go infantry because I'm not needed in a tank." Right now you say, "The only task in this game is shooting face with high DPS, so I'll pull out my blaster tank."
You are competing directly with infantry. What do they think when on the ground with six tanks on their side? Is it "Oh cool, they will assist me in getting my infantry kills in"? No, it's "Oh damn, they are going to hog all the kills this match!"
Tanks need a different role. They desperately need game modes and maps that require them to get the job done.
If they continue to compete directly with infantry then they need exactly the same degree of vulnerability to the lone infantry unit. I don't think tank drivers want that. |
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1878
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:55:00 -
[31] - Quote
Zeylon Rho wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them A MLT tank is dirt cheap compared to a dropsuit. That alone is something of an issue.
So, another one complaining that MLT gear is cheap.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1878
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:00:00 -
[32] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls Its future tech Quote:Future tanks will likely have a crew of one or two, video cameras that will help the crew see more clearly, targeting computers and various anti-missile and anti-personel defenses.
With all the new systems and the smaller crew, tanks are more likley to become like aircraft. A small crew to operate the vehicle in combat and a support crew to help maintain and repair it. Since the support crew will likely consist of specialists it is unlikely to follow the tank into battle.
Tanks are big and mean but they are far from invulnerable if the defender knows what he is doing. That is unlikely to change. This quote here is bang on the money Right now small crew or 1-3, camera drones we have to see outside the tank, support crew to maintain could be another vehicle when we had remote armor/shield reppers for vehicles which we on LAV or another tank which was weaker Last line is DUST right now
That's the whole problem though, infantry don't know what they're doing, and have been badly spoiled by OP swarms.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
759
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:08:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also ass the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually boo weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem. It should take multiple direct AV to take a tank down, but at the same time, it should take multiple people in a tank to take infantry out. What I mean is the Large Turret shifts focus from being AI (currently they are AI focused while being decent with AV) to being AV. Than a tank must rely on gunners (small turrets) for AI capabilities. And currently, infantry do sneak up with RE's and blow tanks up Saving Private Ryan style. More than once I've said WTF just happend, only to realize it was no doubt RE's and one sneaky as infantryman. (hint, wait for hardeners to drop before detonating, or I get out of my tank to shoot RE's, had that happen a time or two lol.)
I try to do this all the time and I've been successful I think twice. Its easy to get one RE on a tank, but I've been told by tank driving friends that placing that first RE makes a noise that warns the driver to get the hell out of their and turn on hardeners. Hardeners last too long and most often the tank is out of sight or has killed my poor scout before I can activate the REs (in the unlikely event I get more than one on). Thus sneaking up and using RE to tank kill is very hard to do, this is why suicide LAVs are the preferred method for most people
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Space Marine One
The Vanguardians
INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS
10
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
Quote:
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 ..
Wait what you want Dust tank to be like WW2 tank, am i reading this right
i mean i don't think infantry can surround a Modern tank like M1 A2 or a T90 and kill it with Molotov cocktails/grenades to blow it engines up. yeah they get damage by IED Mine or short-range antitank rockets most aim at tank track to slow it down or disable their movement completely thats about it.
What CCP can do is to add a gameplay mechanic where if a tank get hit by proximity mine. if it didnt get destroy by it. it should a least lost some movement or completely disable due to how deep its track damage
or add a new EMP mine that disable active Modules for brief moment
or a much simpler and quick solution get rid of the large blaster replace with an medium range anti armor main turret give tank pilot control of the small baster turret on top of the main gun for anti infantry role
and yeah get rid of tank in ambush that solve the current problem right now |
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
759
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls Its future tech Quote:Future tanks will likely have a crew of one or two, video cameras that will help the crew see more clearly, targeting computers and various anti-missile and anti-personel defenses.
With all the new systems and the smaller crew, tanks are more likley to become like aircraft. A small crew to operate the vehicle in combat and a support crew to help maintain and repair it. Since the support crew will likely consist of specialists it is unlikely to follow the tank into battle.
Tanks are big and mean but they are far from invulnerable if the defender knows what he is doing. That is unlikely to change. This quote here is bang on the money Right now small crew or 1-3, camera drones we have to see outside the tank, support crew to maintain could be another vehicle when we had remote armor/shield reppers for vehicles which we on LAV or another tank which was weaker Last line is DUST right now That's the whole problem though, infantry don't know what they're doing, and have been badly spoiled by OP swarms.
Yeah the problem is infantry don't know what we're doing, no the fact that hardeners last too long, or can be stacked or that tanks are just too fast. Look, I'm the very definition of a scrub tanker, I have 0 SP invested and I suck at driving vehicles in this or any game. Yet if I pull out a militia tank my only fears are: a real tank, a good forge gunner, or my own stupidity. That sums up the problem right there, yet we need scrubs with militia tanks because now swarms are so UP. That's what you get when you change 2 variables at the same time with apparently zero testing I suppose.
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2906
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Price, name, and description doesn't matter, it's the role.
What we have is suit "A" and suit "B" that are competing directly for the same game role: slaying infantry.
Suit "A" is faster than suit "B". Suit "A" has an order more magnitude eHP than suit "B". Suit "A" can carry a gun that puts out an order of magnitude more DPS then suit "B". Suit "A" has a natural resistance to most any weapon carried by suit "B". Those weapons it is vulnerable to gimp the user when going up against other users of suit "B".
Suit "A" does have a vastly larger hitbox, but it's got immunity from most weapons as compensation, and has hardeners and extra speed to get out of dodge when needed.
So one would be foolish to choose suit "B" for that role. The only thing keeping people from choosing suit "A" before was high cost, but that's gone.
I'm actually surprised that I don't see suit "A" being used by everyone in Ambush where there is no other role than slaying infantry. It makes me think that players are being foolish or stubborn rather than optimizing their chances. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1879
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
Zahle Undt wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea but infantry doesnt like it when a tank is a tank, they like it when its a coffin on wheels Also the armor point is moot anyways, we dont have angles/armor thickness or penetration values for the AV we have let alone the hulls Its future tech Quote:Future tanks will likely have a crew of one or two, video cameras that will help the crew see more clearly, targeting computers and various anti-missile and anti-personel defenses.
With all the new systems and the smaller crew, tanks are more likley to become like aircraft. A small crew to operate the vehicle in combat and a support crew to help maintain and repair it. Since the support crew will likely consist of specialists it is unlikely to follow the tank into battle.
Tanks are big and mean but they are far from invulnerable if the defender knows what he is doing. That is unlikely to change. This quote here is bang on the money Right now small crew or 1-3, camera drones we have to see outside the tank, support crew to maintain could be another vehicle when we had remote armor/shield reppers for vehicles which we on LAV or another tank which was weaker Last line is DUST right now That's the whole problem though, infantry don't know what they're doing, and have been badly spoiled by OP swarms. Yeah the problem is infantry don't know what we're doing, no the fact that hardeners last too long, or can be stacked or that tanks are just too fast. Look, I'm the very definition of a scrub tanker, I have 0 SP invested and I suck at driving vehicles in this or any game. Yet if I pull out a militia tank my only fears are: a real tank, a good forge gunner, or my own stupidity. That sums up the problem right there, yet we need scrubs with militia tanks because now swarms are so UP. That's what you get when you change 2 variables at the same time with apparently zero testing I suppose.
You wanted the changes. Why aren't you happy with them?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Pisidon Gmen
Ivory Vanguard
23
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Zeylon Rho wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them A MLT tank is dirt cheap compared to a dropsuit. That alone is something of an issue. So, another one complaining that MLT gear is cheap.
too cheep to be that effective in the game with little skill invested in tanks that is the problem with almost no av effectiveness in the game |
Leonid Tybalt
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
268
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
Yeah, it's pretty strange the way people argue that tanks in dust should require three or four more players as crew, yet the don't utter a peep about Eve where one person is enough to crew starships (with fighter squadrons) the size of fifteen Nimitz class aircraft carriers lined up in a row.
Also, you could with quite little engineering and programming make a real world tank controlled by one person (turrets and evering). Heck you could even make an Abrhams M1 tank be controlled by a Dualshock 3 game controller if you wanted with nothing more than some cables, a small box containing a motherboard with suitable control interface, and some servos.
The reason why they haven't done it in real life is because they don't want to make one single driver have the responsibility of comms, command, driving and gunner at the same time.
|
Pisidon Gmen
Ivory Vanguard
23
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:42:00 -
[40] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Price, name, and description doesn't matter, it's the role.
What we have is suit "A" and suit "B" that are competing directly for the same game role: slaying infantry.
Suit "A" is faster than suit "B". Suit "A" has an order more magnitude eHP than suit "B". Suit "A" can carry a gun that puts out an order of magnitude more DPS then suit "B". Suit "A" has a natural resistance to most any weapon carried by suit "B". Those weapons it is vulnerable to gimp the user when going up against other users of suit "B".
Suit "A" does have a vastly larger hitbox, but it's got immunity from most weapons as compensation, and has hardeners and extra speed to get out of dodge when needed.
So one would be foolish to choose suit "B" for that role. The only thing keeping people from choosing suit "A" before was high cost, but that's gone.
I'm actually surprised that I don't see suit "A" being used by everyone in Ambush where there is no other role than slaying infantry. It makes me think that players are being foolish or stubborn rather than optimizing their chances.
how about the limit on the # of tanks that can b called in and some of us wanted to play a first person shooter not a tank game |
|
|
Pisidon Gmen
Ivory Vanguard
23
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
[
You wanted the changes. Why aren't you happy with them?[/quote]
change is good when it changes small things over time changing every thing at 1 time was stupid |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1879
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pisidon Gmen wrote:[
You wanted the changes. Why aren't you happy with them?
change is good when it changes small things over time changing every thing at 1 time was stupid[/quote]
But that's what infantry wanted. Everything redone now, instead of changing over time. As a result, we have no specialized ground vehicles.
Why can't infantry be happy with the changes they forced on CCP?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2906
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:52:00 -
[43] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Pisidon Gmen wrote:[
You wanted the changes. Why aren't you happy with them? change is good when it changes small things over time changing every thing at 1 time was stupid
But that's what infantry wanted. Everything redone now, instead of changing over time. As a result, we have no specialized ground vehicles.
Why can't infantry be happy with the changes they forced on CCP?[/quote]
CCP was never forced to make tanks compete for the same game role as infantry. That's all on them. |
Phazoid
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
247
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 20:35:00 -
[44] - Quote
the real problem here is the large blaster turret, its too good against everything, it rapes vehicles at medium -close range, infantry are easy prey for it as well, its extremely accurate, and it deals tons of damage, coupled with the high speed of tanks it makes a real terror on the battlefield with little infantry counterplay, and of course there is the hardeners stacking which makes tanks near invincible
Dragons don't have friends. The nearest we can get to the idea is an enemy who is still alive.
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
4139
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 20:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet.
I am your scan error.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7534
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 20:49:00 -
[46] - Quote
Admittedly though futuristic sensor systems and small 360 degree rotational cameras mounted on hull or cupola would somewhat allow for much greater situational awareness.
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 21:08:00 -
[47] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet.
loldrag the driver out
Next you will be asking for a window for the driver
Intelligence is OP
|
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
1767
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 21:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver
But I need that window so I can reach out and hack objectives within my tank.
Patrick57 Carries us all
Tanker Prof. V scrub
Q_Q moar
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
4139
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 21:30:00 -
[49] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver
It's not like we can magically teleport inside vehicles. If we could, we would teleport into turret installations and CRUs, too.
I am your scan error.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2561
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 21:31:00 -
[50] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver
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
I'll start my own war, with hookers, and blackjack!
In fact forget the war and the blackjack.
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 21:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet.
Yes, agreed for slower acceleration, but I want to say, keep the top speed.
Same with gun depression, a tank simply shouldn't be able to shoot infantry right beside his tank. It's a LARGE TURRET after all, not an AR, mounted to the top there. This creates a safe zone directly by the tank where an infantryman can stand and apply damage mostly carefree of the main gun. This truly makes it difficult to play against infantry.
As I drive a gunnlogi, which has gun depression as you have described. And on the side I drive a madrudger, which can aim it turret all the way down to the ground. I always get far more kills with the madruger against infantry than I do with my gunnlogi, yet my madruger is mostly just advanced mods and turret.
What a difference that gun depression makes with blasters. Without it, you can't shoot enemies within something like 10 to 15 meters from you, as your turret sits higher than infantry (and it can only go level, and no further down). You need distance when you and infantry are on level ground. That's why a madrudger is ALWAYS best for blastin infantry. They would STILL be best with railguns if it wasn't for damage mods being so CPU heavy (because of gun depression).
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1781
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them
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.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:05:00 -
[53] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver 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
Oh, ignore taka, I think that's the best way to go about it. I myself should have never even said anything to him. Always best to go "Yup Taka, you are right", and go back to discussing logically and rationally. He might say something every now and again, but just give it a chuckle and move on to the next one.
Yup, you are right taka, tanks make everything go boom, and that is good, so they are good. That means they are fine, just AV stupid heads don't know. They run like chickens, and I laugh and shoot them. AV, why can't you blow me up, you suck. Yea AV sucks and are stupid, I still go boom sometimes. Why they no understand, I'm so easy to kill, just wait for hardeners go down, and boom. Ded tank.
BOOM BOOM BOOM, as the swarms pound away
*Hardeners go down*
Yeah, I'm kind of sitting in the redline when they go down. To the infantry it's like.
BOOM BOOM BOOM, as the swarms pound away
*Hardeners go down*
*Tank disappears for 45 seconds*
Comes back with hardeners ready to rock and melt faces.
Naw, you are right Taka, tanks are just right huh buddy.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Godin Thekiller
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1781
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:08:00 -
[54] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet.
We're in sealed pods (probably) inside the HAV. I doubt you could get inside of it and drag me out of it. And they don't need to stay as is; they are broken. Also, try fitting smalls on a HAV (with a still good tank), and then get a good crew to go with you. Doubt you'll do both.
'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever!
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. We're in sealed pods (probably) inside the HAV. I doubt you could get inside of it and drag me out of it. And they don't need to stay as is; they are broken. Also, try fitting smalls on a HAV (with a still good tank), and then get a good crew to go with you. Doubt you'll do both.
Maybe you could open a hatch and drop something big and explosive for an instant kill eh, regardless of what's activated atm.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
761
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:28:00 -
[56] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. We're in sealed pods (probably) inside the HAV. I doubt you could get inside of it and drag me out of it. And they don't need to stay as is; they are broken. Also, try fitting smalls on a HAV (with a still good tank), and then get a good crew to go with you. Doubt you'll do both.
Those pods are pretty awesome with their instant pop out. My man Skihids missed that ***** in his excellent analogy about tanks. Suit A is a suit within another suit. Thus how we fools still trying to swat giants with our fly swatter swarm launchers sometimes get killed by a driver ballsy enough to hop out with a rifle
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Meeko Fent
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
1802
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:32:00 -
[57] - Quote
I Think that If the Plasma Cannon was a viable AV weapon, us infantry might be quite happy because,
A- They deal damage to a spot specifically selected (Rear, sides) whereas SL's are very much non-descript in where they will hit.
B- They CAN deal a lot of damage in a short amount of time.
And Tanks would like it too because,
A- They can be dodged, provided you are good enough, and not lolStanding Still.
B- Hardeners would make the massive burst damage Plasma Cannons do More bearable.
My Ideas on the Plasma Cannon would be to MAKE THE FUKING THING SHOOT STRAIGHT. Maybe that is what the Minmatar AV is supposed to do, but we can tweak the Cannon back to its current state when we get the Minnies AV. Nothing is more annoying then Spamming you whole Ammo supply at a tank just to lead the first shot on target.
Then, make the reload a wink faster, and the Plasma Cannon will be a good AV weapon for those looking to put a lot of Burst damage on target in a short time, provided they can aim and account for Projectile speed for a damn.
Looking for a Interesting Character Name?
Why Not Zoidberg?
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
4143
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 23:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. Yes, agreed for slower acceleration, but I want to say, keep the top speed. Same with gun depression, a tank simply shouldn't be able to shoot infantry right beside his tank. It's a LARGE TURRET after all, not an AR, mounted to the top there. This creates a safe zone directly by the tank where an infantryman can stand and apply damage mostly carefree of the main gun. This truly makes it difficult to play against infantry. As I drive a gunnlogi, which has gun depression as you have described. And on the side I drive a madrudger, which can aim it turret all the way down to the ground. I always get far more kills with the madruger against infantry than I do with my gunnlogi, yet my madruger is mostly just advanced mods and turret. What a difference that gun depression makes with blasters. Without it, you can't shoot enemies within something like 10 to 15 meters from you, as your turret sits higher than infantry (and it can only go level, and no further down). You need distance when you and infantry are on level ground. That's why a madrudger is ALWAYS best for blastin infantry. They would STILL be best with railguns if it wasn't for damage mods being so CPU heavy (because of gun depression).
I don't have any problem with top speed- slow HAVs will never get anywhere ever.
I'm wanting an acceleration nerf because the current acceleration counters poor gun depression. Run up to an HAV and they can quickly accelerate and adjust to be able to shoot you.
I am your scan error.
|
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 03:53:00 -
[59] - Quote
Skihids wrote:
You would say to yourself, "Oh, we already have two tanks on the field, I'll go infantry because I'm not needed in a tank.".
Me being an Honor Tanker, I'm probably one of the few people who actually do this.
I'm also apparently one of the few people that understand that the only HAVs that fit under the tradtional role of "Tank" as in MBT are rail HAVs.
Me being a Maddi pilot I know full well how easy it is to take out infantry with large blasters. Thats why I only use it in an escalation situation where the other team is going balls to the wall and going on a mad dash with their HAVs. I use both Federation Maddies as well as standard Maddies. Both while they can serve the same purpose are used differently.
My Fed Madi (which is also my preffered fit, cheap but not OP) is my IFV support fit and is designed around the concept of doing just that. Fighting infantry. I dropped my ability to move fast and sacrificed some tank in order to do this. My two high slots are used for scanners and mobile CRU. It also comes pre-equipped with small blasters. I use it to cordon off the area around an objective while serving as a spawn point right next to the objective. If i see a threatening vehicle, I'll move to engage it and return back to my team mates. All this, while at the cost of potential EHP and DPS. Also, because of my proficiency in HAV piloting I can ward off infantry with easy while still engaging enemy HAVs and Dropships with some degree of effectiveness. HAVs (ones with turrets) are great for sneaking in a surprise pair of tandem heavies as well. Nobody expects it to be used as a transport.
My standard Maddi is my brawler fit. I use this only in an escalation situation. Its all tank and DPS and is used to fight against other HAVs and only after all other enemy vehicles are cleared from the area do I start mopping up the rest of the infantry.
While I'm primarily a Tanker and Logi, I also do AV when its not viable to call in my own HAV. As a PLC gunner, i will concede i do get more infantry kills than tank kills. I believe it needs a buff to direct damage and AoE it it increases its AV capability and mildly making it more effective against infantry while not becoming OP. BUT having spent a lot of time using it I can tell you it is a very effective tool for driving off HAVs. Maddi pilots get scared when I one-shot their shields and damage a small portion of their armor with a KLA PLC. And If im fast enough i can can chuck my adv AV grenades and send it running off for the literal hills with 40-20% armor. Shield tankers get even more scared when i brake their tank in 2-3 shots unless they do that instant shield boost. Even if i didn't kill it, it is still out of the fight for a good while.And in a game like Ambush, this makes all the difference especially on the bridge map. All this and i'm an average AV gunner who solos a lot. People just need to learn how to combine weapons, grenades and equipment properly.
Examples:
Gunnlogi killer:
PLC
AV grenades
Madrugar killer:
Flux grenades
Swarm Launcher.
"But Foehammer, what about the fact that they can drive off really fast and get away before i can reach them?"
Simple, don't engage them on open terrain. that's their home turf where mobility is their friend and not yours. try to grab their attention and coax them into a spot where its hard to maneuver around like in hills with steep-ish inclines, rocky areas, or confined quarters like inside the "urban" inside areas . Believe it or not, contrary to popular belief it is in-fact possible to solo a tank. Its just not a good idea generally and is very difficult to do.
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
7596
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 03:57:00 -
[60] - Quote
Foehammerr wrote:
Me being an Honor Tanker.
**** 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.
"Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
|
|
|
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:05:00 -
[61] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Foehammerr wrote:
Me being an Honor Tanker.
**** 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.
I find it interesting that of all the subjects in my lengthy post that is the one thing you choose to comment on.
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
538
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:20:00 -
[62] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
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.... |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
538
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:24:00 -
[63] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them 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.
And he will ignore you all day whilst retorting with
"You just want to destroy tanks with ARs" |
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:25:00 -
[64] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. 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.
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
538
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. 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.
The explanation of a ship being piloted by a single person is also EVE lore.
Edit - reworded the douche-like nature of my sentence. |
Poonmunch
Sanguis Defense Syndicate
805
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:39:00 -
[66] - Quote
I think tanks are pretty balanced except for one or two things.
Tanks in this game do not seem to be subject to inertia. They can go from a full stop to full speed instantly. A real tank can go faster than infantry but it needs maybe 10 seconds (or more) to get to full speed. The same argument holds for slowing down.
Tanks should have limited weapon depression.
Tanks are far too cheap.
The real key though is the current state of AV. It should be feared more than it currently is.
Real life AV can hit a tank up to a kilometre away. Swarm Launchers have a maximum lock range of something like 400m. This forces an infantry guy to get suicidally close to a tank to get a good shot. Swarm Launcher range should be bumped up a bit.
Real life AV can kill a tank in one or two shots. Swarm Launchers scratch the paint of tanks and light up the user, so tanks/snipers can kill the user. Swarm Launcher damage needs to be increased.
Munch
Munch for CPM 1 Campaign Headquarters
|
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:40:00 -
[67] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. 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?
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
540
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. 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. |
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 04:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:
Sure.
But a game needs to balanced first, then lore created afterward. Not the other way around.
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
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
55
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
Then I should totally be able to fire the gun on my LAV. |
|
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
540
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:07:00 -
[71] - Quote
Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
Sure.
But a game needs to balanced first, then lore created afterward. Not the other way around.
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
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. |
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:10:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Real life tanksSo 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. I dont think rl has **** to do with our fake space man game, thqt being said one correction, the best way to kill a tank is not another tank, its with an AH 64 McDonald Douglas Apache Helicopter, thats what they were made for. Huuuuurrrrrrrrrrahhhhhhhhhh
|
Foehammerr
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:11:00 -
[73] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Foehammerr wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
Sure.
But a game needs to balanced first, then lore created afterward. Not the other way around.
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 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.
It doesnt. I accidentallied a tangent. Back on topic, Rail turrets need a mild-moderate nerf. Its near-impossible to out tank a rail gun.
Rangers Lead The Way!
|
Bethhy
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1369
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
540
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 05:26:00 -
[75] - Quote
Bethhy wrote: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.
I'd rather have the HAV's main turrets to only be effective against vehicles, unless it opted to provide passenger turrets that could kill infantry. If a single tank is rolling around taking out vehicles whilst it's two passengers work over the infantry...taking 3 AV to take out that HAV is perfectly balanced.
Let the MAV be the infantry dominate vehicle that also can be taken out by other, just as skilled and SP sinked AV infantry.
It keeps the rock/paper/scissor scenario in check.
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
765
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 06:03:00 -
[76] - Quote
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.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1880
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 06:57:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also as the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually no weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem. When tanks can willingly reduce the number of engaged hostile AV users to only 1 at a time, then you might have a point. You don't have a point, and sound quite absurd because of the fact that tanks will always be engaged by multiple people at once. Just being in a tank already causes the attention of every player within a 100 meter radius to look in your direction. In other words, 1v1 is impossible unless the infantry being targeted is running alone for some unknown reason. Once spotted, the only way for a tank to lose the attention of a combatant is to speed away. Dropsuits on the other hand can sneak around, or simply run straight up to an enemy and engage 1v1 whenever they feel like it. Albeit a quick blurb over comms can quickly end the 1v1, but it is possible for infantry to get such a situation, and then retreat by cover and loose any pursuant. Also, I hear a lot of people rant and rave over "triple hardeners" when most fits cannot afford more than 2, only a shield tank might have three, but the limit of hardeners is 2 per health type due to slot and stat constraints. Can you detail the slot uses of these "Triple hardeners"? 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.
You obviously don't tank.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1880
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 06:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote: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.
Then you're gonna have to lose something.
AV grenade variants?
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1880
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 07:06:00 -
[79] - Quote
Skihids wrote:I'm complaining about ambush because that all I play, because I have ADD and can't pay attention to objectives
Infantry complained about tanks, CCP listened, and they reworked everything.
They're going to work on roles.
You just wanted it to be done in one sweep. Well, guess what, that's not going to happen. They're not on a 3, 6, or 12 month plan. They're thinking multiple years down the line, to have such and such a thing ready to go by X / X / 2017.
Remember that one awesome video, that showed ISK prices of everything, where a massive ground installation vaporized an EVE ship? When do you think that's going to come out? Summer this year? Winter? Spring of 2015? No, that's years down the line, when the EVE / Dust link has been matured to a stable enough state.
CCP still needs to put out the STD Minmatar and Ammar hulls, plus their respective turrets. But, I bet that behind the scenes, they'll be looking at those, plus the Gallente and Caldari hulls, and figuring out what their specialized roles on the battlefield will be.
The Enforcers were terrible. Few were willing to invest an obscene amount of SP for a hull with what were basically MLT stats. The Vayu had a blaster bonus, and the Falchion had a missile bonus. Problem was, missiles were still terrible, so it was next to useless. The Vayu wasn't bad, but once a rail saw one, the Vayu was useless.
Stop complaining about the timeline you gave CCP without telling them, with the stuff that you want, still without telling them, that affects a smaller segment of the game population that you're not a part of.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1880
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 07:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote: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.
If you can't use a rail against infantry, you haven't been using it long enough.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
766
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 08:12:00 -
[81] - Quote
Bethhy wrote: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 Quote:talking about American Tanks, there are 4 people. Loader, driver, gunner and commander. Russian tanks only have three men; gunner, commander and driver. They have an auto loader. Many American tanks in WW2 had 5, including a radio specialist 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.
Instead, make large turrets awful for fighting infantry. I want control of my large turret, but I want my infantry capabilities to come from my small turrets.
If large blasters weren't so good at killing infantry, a lot of the QQ would go away.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
|
MarasdF Loron
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
182
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 08:22:00 -
[82] - Quote
If you guys want tanks main weapons to be mainly AV, what we need for tanks is an actual purpose beyond infantry killing, you know stuff like blowing up walls to let infantry clear out fortified buildings, breaching barricades/infantry chokepoints and destroying / taking out strategic targets and having cannons with actual explosions with actual splash and able to penetrate 1mm thick steel, you know, the kind of stuff that a game I wont name lets us do.
Currently these large blasters can penetrate 240mm thick armor, but when it comes to 1mm thick railings it's a no can do.
R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
619
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 10:47:00 -
[83] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote: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.
You do know that even EVE ships have large crews of normal human beeings? Its just capsuleers don't really care for mortal life...thats the reason the Crew does not matter for EVE... |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
620
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 10:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Pisidon Gmen wrote:what i havent seen is in real life it only takes 1 hit to kill a tank most times if you were to relate dust tanks to real life tanks which is the A1 Abrams? which is a sherman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankgo read up on real tanks and how they are used in a real battle However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57] so tell me why the av in dust is so far behind the tanks? 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 .
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...
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 11:25:00 -
[85] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver But I need that window so I can reach out and hack objectives within my tank.
Ask for a small robotic arm which can hack things for you
It would go in the front turret slot and has a special ability of being able to pick ppl up and smash them on the ground or slap em around a bit
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 11:27:00 -
[86] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver It's not like we can magically teleport inside vehicles. If we could, we would teleport into turret installations and CRUs, too.
We already teleport out of CRU and objectives and they dont have a door, its even worse we materalize out of thin air
At least when i get in my tank im already there after being made in the MCC out of thin air
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 11:28:00 -
[87] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:That last part gives me an idea.
Slow down the acceleration for HAVs, and don't let blasters aim quite as low as they can now.
On top of that, give us some way to drag the driver out once we're touching the HAV.
Let them stay death machines, but this would force them to rely on infantry and gunners to protect them from infantry.
AV weaponry could be given some different aspects along with this, but I don't have a clear idea as to what yet. loldrag the driver out Next you will be asking for a window for the driver 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
Flux effects shields and we dont have doors let alone locks which still dont exist
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2718
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 11:43:00 -
[88] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:
Because there are certain aspects of tanking that are currently unbalanced and broken. Why won't you admit that? It's the stone cold truth man.
Name them 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.
1. True - Should be a difference between basic/adv/proto mods, they did it with the nitros
2. No - They offer a % of resistance and do what they need to do, as for 3 hardener Gunlogi they may perma harden but cant fit scanners/dmg/nitro/boosters/extenders, that fit is generally the anti infantry fit but if another tank comes out to play it can wreck its **** and if you get 1 FG it will hit through the hardener and stop regen
3. MLT have a 2/2, maybe it should be 2/1 with the 2 slots for the main tank, leave STD at 3/2, adv and proto we need which i could see being 4/2 and 5/3, maybe a 4/4 if they keep with Amarr being omni like with the suits so far
4. Less CPU - Doesnt help that we lost 5% per level CPU/PG for the electronics/engineering skills yet infantry still get them, we dont even have the 5% per level for shield and armor HP anymore which infantry still have. As for the Maddy the Federation version makes it hard to fit stuff due to 2 madatory turrets on it, even then take off the turrets and you are stil struggling to fit various things on it. With my Gunlogi i can put on all proto, my maddy cant tho - Needs a CPU buff
5. Gunlogi handling is fine, Maddy on the other hand is ****, turns too slow but i think its more of a character trait. DS3 control seems terrible still
6. Modern tank can go 50mph, maybe they are going to add in webs of somekind
7. Blasters have always had terrible hit detection on vehicles, small suffer still but pre 1.7 large blasters also had terrible hit detection and i used to get alot of shield flare and no dmg, now large blasters work and i get alot less shield flare maybe thats why its OP it finally go fixed. Large missiles OP you must be joking? they barely kill infantry because no splash and need a direct hit which frankly is luck and the missiles disperse in various directions after 100m which being good at taking out armor tanks but full auto is glitched and generally is only fitted on the Gunlogi so its got crap gun depression and is situational as a result. Rails are good at there job, long distance high alpha, as for CQC if i have room i can outmanouver them due to a terrible turning speed but the skill doesnt work anyways even tho i have level 3, redline rails is a problem because of the redline, move both spawns back 1000m and the problem disappears because they have to come out of the redline but rails themselves are working fine for me and do what they should
Please go on
Intelligence is OP
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
630
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:14:00 -
[89] - Quote
Rinzler XVIII wrote:
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 ..
You did post this in another of my threads!
But I think I did get the point! I agree with you wholeheartedly and have been pushing for changes to the blaster turret, as it is the main source of hate.
The thing is, if a tank doesn't kill infantry, what exactly is it's purpose? Not much else for a tank to do, aside from killing other tanks. But if a tank isn't a threat to infantry, what would be the need for tanks? Why call out a tank other than nostalgic purposes. Aren't we trying to capture points or something!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
630
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Pisidon Gmen wrote:what i havent seen is in real life it only takes 1 hit to kill a tank most times if you were to relate dust tanks to real life tanks which is the A1 Abrams? which is a sherman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankgo read up on real tanks and how they are used in a real battle However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generation tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[54] For example, the RPG-29 from 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[55][56] and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[57] so tell me why the av in dust is so far behind the tanks? 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 . 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...
Actually, that's exactly what I was saying. Balance is balance.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:21:00 -
[91] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:If you guys want tanks main weapons to be mainly AV, what we need for tanks is an actual purpose beyond infantry killing, you know stuff like blowing up walls to let infantry clear out fortified buildings, breaching barricades/infantry chokepoints and destroying / taking out strategic targets and having cannons with actual explosions with actual splash and able to penetrate 1mm thick steel, you know, the kind of stuff that a game I wont name lets us do.
Currently these large blasters can penetrate 240mm thick armor, but when it comes to 1mm thick railings it's a no can do.
This is what tanks need. A role and purpose beyond simply killing infantry or killing tanks.
Additionally, I would say map changes are in order, as a tank should be limited in the areas it can control. Get rid of gun depression for the madrudger, and put them on some hilly terrain. They WILL struggle to hit anything around them like my gunnlogi.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:28:00 -
[92] - Quote
Poonmunch wrote:I think tanks are pretty balanced except for one or two things.
Tanks in this game do not seem to be subject to inertia. They can go from a full stop to full speed instantly. A real tank can go faster than infantry but it needs maybe 10 seconds (or more) to get to full speed. The same argument holds for slowing down.
Tanks should have limited weapon depression.
Tanks are far too cheap.
The real key though is the current state of AV. It should be feared more than it currently is.
Real life AV can hit a tank up to a kilometre away. Swarm Launchers have a maximum lock range of something like 400m. This forces an infantry guy to get suicidally close to a tank to get a good shot. Swarm Launcher range should be bumped up a bit.
Real life AV can kill a tank in one or two shots. Swarm Launchers scratch the paint of tanks and light up the user, so tanks/snipers can kill the user. Swarm Launcher damage needs to be increased.
Munch
Agreed with all but the last one.
We had some pretty OP AV pre 1.7, but tanks also cost 1.2 mil (proto fit) a pop. Perhaps now it wouldn't be so bad, but I don't know if I want to go back to swarms 2 shooting tanks. That to me, seems very unbalanced, favoring the AV over the tank. And what kind of tank is it? Is it a threat or are you just wanting to blow up tanks because you think they need to blow up?
RL AV may kill a tank NP, but that seems to create an imbalance when a single person can go around blowing up tanks. That one person could easily control the map, freeing up the other 15 people on the team to do whatever they want. Then, tanks are no longer feared and go back to being a joke.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:31:00 -
[93] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Zahle Undt wrote:Flix Keptick wrote: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. No kidding really!? Hey its tankers that continually say it should take multiple AVers to take them out which is just as silly am argument. Also as the OP pointed out tanks should be feared but also have to fear being flanked by infantry or infantry getting close enough to sticky bomb them all Saving Private Ryan style. Right now our triple hardener stacked tanks have virtually no weaknesses to infantry and that is the problem. When tanks can willingly reduce the number of engaged hostile AV users to only 1 at a time, then you might have a point. You don't have a point, and sound quite absurd because of the fact that tanks will always be engaged by multiple people at once. Just being in a tank already causes the attention of every player within a 100 meter radius to look in your direction. In other words, 1v1 is impossible unless the infantry being targeted is running alone for some unknown reason. Once spotted, the only way for a tank to lose the attention of a combatant is to speed away. Dropsuits on the other hand can sneak around, or simply run straight up to an enemy and engage 1v1 whenever they feel like it. Albeit a quick blurb over comms can quickly end the 1v1, but it is possible for infantry to get such a situation, and then retreat by cover and loose any pursuant. Also, I hear a lot of people rant and rave over "triple hardeners" when most fits cannot afford more than 2, only a shield tank might have three, but the limit of hardeners is 2 per health type due to slot and stat constraints. Can you detail the slot uses of these "Triple hardeners"? 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. You obviously don't tank.
You obviously get blown up rather often. Tanker noobs go for the 3 hardeners.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:34:00 -
[94] - Quote
Bethhy wrote: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 Quote:talking about American Tanks, there are 4 people. Loader, driver, gunner and commander. Russian tanks only have three men; gunner, commander and driver. They have an auto loader. Many American tanks in WW2 had 5, including a radio specialist 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.
I disagree, I think it can be achieved, but tanks need something else to do, to make an effect on the battlefield.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Scout Registry
Nos Nothi
1342
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:40:00 -
[95] - Quote
Hi CCP!
Just wanted to say thanks ...
My corp is doing really good in pubs this build!
Please increase HAV quota so me and my homeboys can "roll" together more consistently.
There's always some bluedot scrub who calls in a dropship or LAV.
We really need to get in all six of our tanks every match.
Thank you!
- DDB |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2919
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:46:00 -
[96] - Quote
Vehicles need to compliment infantry, not compete with them. It's not only required, it's a good idea.
There is no way to balance vehicles when they compete for the same role as a dropsuit. All versions of a role need to be equally powerful or you need to use the best one to be competitive. Right now blaster tanks are the best fitting for slaying infantry. Try an Ambush match if you still require convincing. MLT Somas cost about what any other ADV suits cost, are more powerful than any PRO suit, and require zero SP. STD HAVs bump the price, SP, and power level. That's why ADV and PRO vehicles are totally unthinkable. You can't balance these two as long as they are sharing the same role.
It's not just tanks though, dropships need to stop competing with infantry for kills and start assisting infantry make assaults. I've said it many times before, but it bears repeating. The best weapon a dropship has is a squad of mercs armed to the teeth.
Differentiation is a good idea.
Why does a game get boring? Because it doesn't have enough challenges to master. DUST has one basic game mode and one way to achieve it. Slay infantry by shooting face with the highest DPS available. Fun for a while, but it pales after a few months. Give vehicles new roles of their own and you vastly expand a players options for fun AND make combat more complex and fun for everyone.
It's going to require game development.
Without destructible environments tanks won't have much to do. Defenders need to be in possession of fortifications at he start of a match to give them a reason to blow stuff up and breach walls.
Communication will need to be improved before a dropship pilot can entice and load assault squad for an effective drop, especially in public matches.
We will need new game modes that either require or benefit greatly from vehicle use. We need infantry rooting for vehicles on their side, not cursing them for hogging all the kills.
You will know when you have gotten it right because you will be able to lift all artificial vehicle limits.
You won't find six tanks in Ambush and you may find none, simply because players won't have much to do in one. In other modes you will find a natural balance as players decide for themselves that there are already enough of some type of vehicle for the job and they would find slim pickings if they called in another.
CCP, please acknowledge you understand this vital point. |
Alternate Insano
SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD
189
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 14:00:00 -
[97] - Quote
I was in the Army, on Ft Knox which is tank heaven. It's the home of the M1 Abrams. There's a funny little tanker joke on post I'll share.
What's the only thing that can kill an Abrams?
Old age!
There is nothing like it. Any listed speeds you see for it are incorrect. Certain units removed the restrictor plates from the turbines during Desert Storm and could outrun the SF Chenoweth buggies that can do 80 mph. An Abrams can also take a direct hit in its 'weaker side armor' from the main gun on a T72 and only suffer a soda can sized dent.
The tanks in game are UP and make me sad. It's even worse that I can't take two steps without tripping over one. Put a cap on them, and put a huge AUR pricetag on a New Eden Abrams.
DUST 514 Super Scrub
Level 262 Forum Troll
Play, or play not. There is no balance.
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 14:36:00 -
[98] - Quote
Scout Registry wrote:Hi CCP!
Just wanted to say thanks ...
My corp is doing really good in pubs this build!
Please increase HAV quota so me and my homeboys can "roll" together more consistently.
There's always some bluedot scrub who calls in a dropship or LAV.
We really need to get in all six of our tanks every match.
Thank you!
- DDB
Haha! Rarely do we "Tank Stomp", and typically when provoked(As in the other side wants to play tanks)! Teamwork and coordination are a ***** I know!
-DDB
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Thumb Green
Mannar Focused Warfare
Gallente Federation
815
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 15:48:00 -
[99] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
Why can't infantry be happy with the changes they forced on CCP?
No matter how many times you say that or variants of it; it won't make it true and it only goes to show just how full of sh!t you are. Anyone that was here before the 1.7 update knows it was the "real" tankers like yourself that were constantly whining so much here on the forum about their tanks being too expensive & too weak and AV being OP.
You were pathetic before but if you are going to keep trying to say that what happened with tanks and AV is something infantry players actually asked for; well then, you're just beyond pathetic. Hell, you're starting to make Michele Bachmann look like a reasonable person in comparison to you.
Support Orbital Spawns
|
Yan Darn
Forsaken Immortals
Top Men.
277
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 16:04:00 -
[100] - Quote
Thumb Green wrote:Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:
In RL infantry fears tanks. In this game infantry fears tanks. I believe CCP captured the essence of that relationship perfectly.
In RL tanks fear infantry as well. In this game tanks currently do not fear infantry; not so perfect after all.
^
It's the simple truth that tanks are best at anti infantry and anti vehicle. Whereas infantry is effectively anti-infantry only. I don't see multiple infantry needing to co-ordinate a counter attack as being a viable threat.
I use the now infamous 3 RESs and flux combo for over confident MLT tankers, but even that requires someone else to keep the tank distracted and some luck with the REs actually attaching.
You probably don't know me. But next time you get gunned down or exploded by a Valor scout...check the name.
|
|
|
CLONE117
True Pros Forever
698
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 16:28:00 -
[101] - Quote
the small blaster turret sucks on godly. takes the entire clip just to kill a suit. large blaster doesn't take as much ammo but it takes around20 or so for moving targets like infantry.
on the other hand the large blaster is fairly easy to avoid getting killed by. if anything infantry should fear it should be the rail turret. its far easier to kill forgegunners and ppl that pop in an out of cover with em. with blaster its next to impossible. its more suitable to attacking targets that have poor cover or are out in the open and due to the decent rof its a great suppression weapon. ive been able to give enough cover firing to assist in capturing points. so im asisting my team. the problem is those who misuse the vehicle only to try to get as many kills as possible. doesnt really work out for them if they got some1 better skilled gunning for them though.
i dont have any problem with tanks. ive been hit by some swarms where id have to run on the first hit though. and its hard to escape with that little bug where u get magnetized to an object of some sort.
the only really tough tanks for me when i av is a perma hardened maddy or gunlogi. i sica or soma i can handle no problem.
though my idea on doing away with the hardener cycling is to just making activating one hardener of the same type activate all other hardeners of that very same type. lets say player has 3 armor hardeners. activating 1 will activate the other 2 at the same time. could also give em the side effect of slowing them down to make things a little more interesting so they rnt used as get away devices. |
Poonmunch
Sanguis Defense Syndicate
806
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:03:00 -
[102] - Quote
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC wrote: I dont think rl has **** to do with our fake space man game, thqt being said one correction, the best way to kill a tank is not another tank, its with an AH 64 McDonald Douglas Apache Helicopter, thats what they were made for. Huuuuurrrrrrrrrrahhhhhhhhhh
The Apache is all good.
But consider my buddy the Warthog (AKA the A-10 Thunderbolt 2) for a moment.
Munch
Munch for CPM 1 Campaign Headquarters
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |