NO NO MAGIC GRENADES!

STATIS WEBIFIERS!

They are beams of energy similar to the rep tool which hold/ nullify the momentum of objects.

Webbifiers would be terible in this game. You have to think about what counter would you have. Webs plus scanners would make the game impossible to play.

I think a better solution for tanks would be a slow down effect based on the amount of armor left. Or equipment that causes the modules ot overheat faster.

I was considering the reasons why I fail to kill a tank more than half of the times I attempt it, and something about the way EVE works occurred to me. In EVE, you have warp interdiction, preventing your foe from escaping when the know they can't win. In DUST, we usually don't kill tanks because they can run away and regenerate.

What if we had a Stasis Grenade, or a Stasis Webifier Launcher?

Make it have fairly limited ammunition, have a fair splash range, and be worth sacrificing a light damage or grenade slot for.

It would deal a relatively small amount of damage, and it would snare infantry and tanks differently.

Infantry are slowed by 25% and cannot regenerate stamina when caught in its effect.

A tank's speed would be reduced by 50% or so and it would halt the cooldown of its active modules while active.

Thoughts?

it should just be the av grenade. slows vehicles downs.

I was considering the reasons why I fail to kill a tank more than half of the times I attempt it, and something about the way EVE works occurred to me. In EVE, you have warp interdiction, preventing your foe from escaping when the know they can't win. In DUST, we usually don't kill tanks because they can run away and regenerate.

What if we had a Stasis Grenade, or a Stasis Webifier Launcher?

Make it have fairly limited ammunition, have a fair splash range, and be worth sacrificing a light damage or grenade slot for.

It would deal a relatively small amount of damage, and it would snare infantry and tanks differently.

Infantry are slowed by 25% and cannot regenerate stamina when caught in its effect.

A tank's speed would be reduced by 50% or so and it would halt the cooldown of its active modules while active.

Thoughts?

tanks are fine as they are. I easily, while on the ground or in my rail tank, can kill 5-10 tanks per match. Use a forge gun or railgun.

people in general need to stop trying to be a one man army

I was considering the reasons why I fail to kill a tank more than half of the times I attempt it, and something about the way EVE works occurred to me. In EVE, you have warp interdiction, preventing your foe from escaping when the know they can't win. In DUST, we usually don't kill tanks because they can run away and regenerate.

What if we had a Stasis Grenade, or a Stasis Webifier Launcher?

Make it have fairly limited ammunition, have a fair splash range, and be worth sacrificing a light damage or grenade slot for.

It would deal a relatively small amount of damage, and it would snare infantry and tanks differently.

Infantry are slowed by 25% and cannot regenerate stamina when caught in its effect.

A tank's speed would be reduced by 50% or so and it would halt the cooldown of its active modules while active.

Thoughts?

your not suppost to take a tank on by your-self and win, you have to communicate and work with your squad or team.

You're not supposed to be able to operate a tank by yourself either. Most tanks require a crew of at least four (commander, driver, gunner, loader). If tanks in Dust are advanced enough to be operated by a single person, then AV weapons can be advanced enough for one person to pose a threat to them.

You have a point, for sure. That's why I was suggesting it be a light weapon with limited ammo. You have to sacrifice quite a big of tactical versatility in order to use one.

You're not supposed to be able to operate a tank by yourself either. Most tanks require a crew of at least four (commander, driver, gunner, loader). If tanks in Dust are advanced enough to be operated by a single person, then AV weapons can be advanced enough for one person to pose a threat to them.

]Yes, but in real life the tank commander can shoot the Blue Berry in his empty head and kick his useless hide out into the Dust below his tank.

He won't lose his tank because some scrub or griefer has jumped into a small turret and prevents him from calling in a tank that fits the changing battlefield conditions.

I didn't run small turrets in the beginning of 1.7 because they are not worth it. The SP cost is IDENTICAL to large turret SP and they produce not only meager damage but open the tank up to Blue Belles that know nothing about tanking.

And they never have a mic. Ever.

Before 1.7 20-30% of my tank losses were Blue Belle caused. I am glad they are gone, they are worthless.

... blah blah blah EVE blah blah blah EVE blah blah blah ...

It's not magic, it's gravity. Silly Amarrians don't understand anything these days.

It's not magic, it's gravity. Silly Amarrians don't understand anything these days.

You don't have a Push To Win button that works on tanks. Get a tank. That works, very well. Don't like that. Use a squad. Worst thing for a tanker is a squad of AVs with mics and knowing what they are doing. Luckily for us, those are few and far between.

You mean like tankers?

Tanks should absolutely take multiple people to kill. But they should require small turrets, and people to man them, in order to fend off infantry. I want large turrets to be kings of AV, and have tanks rely on small turrets for AP.

This sounds nice, but:
What is a tank good for, then?

Serious question. The baseline gameplay here is infantry. Infantry does everything.
Tanks can't do many of the things that infantry can (like hacking).

If you make the large turrets AV only and require small turrets for AP, you are better off with just keeping to infantry gameplay, unless small turrets are highly OP.
You won't need a tank unless someone with a three-man tank crops up. And then you can just as well counter that thing with a three-man AV team or one of the large turrets that would actually exist unmolested in a game where tanks don't appear in every match.

People forget that killing is not the goal of the game. It's just a mean of achieving it.
Tanks can't achieve the goal. That's what their balance as one-man-armies is based on. They can't enter complexes and they can't stealthily cap CRUs behind enemy lines.

I was considering the reasons why I fail to kill a tank more than half of the times I attempt it, and something about the way EVE works occurred to me. In EVE, you have warp interdiction, preventing your foe from escaping when the know they can't win. In DUST, we usually don't kill tanks because they can run away and regenerate.

What if we had a Stasis Grenade, or a Stasis Webifier Launcher?

Make it have fairly limited ammunition, have a fair splash range, and be worth sacrificing a light damage or grenade slot for.

It would deal a relatively small amount of damage, and it would snare infantry and tanks differently.

Infantry are slowed by 25% and cannot regenerate stamina when caught in its effect.

A tank's speed would be reduced by 50% or so and it would halt the cooldown of its active modules while active.

Thoughts?

These would be small turret slot devices with equivalents of EVE-type EWAR functions. The tradeoff is that except for ADS, the driver can't operate the movement of their vehicle and the turret at the same time. A tank driver might switch to a small turret, but the vehicle would be without a driver at that point.

In theory, I'd like proper function of the turret to require skill investment by the turret user as well as opposed to just the person who owns the tank.

Not all EWAR types fit well with the systems we have in Dust, but with some adjustment we could get a basic four types out:

Stasis Webifier
A stasis web turret would be a "relatively" short range turret that would apply a temporary slowing effect in pulses. The other option would be to "slow" based on a constant beam, but it seems from a latency standpoint - a debuff requiring a certain distance and periodic "refreshing" would make more sense. I'm not certain if there should be some sort of "resistance" module to this effect directly, or if boosters/speed modules would just be a natural counter. Tiers of the turrret can increase the range, snare effect, or both. [proposed for Minmatar]

Energy Vampire/Neutralizer
There are two possible functions/approaches here. Vehicles in Dust don't have "capacitors" per se, so the analogy isn't 1:1. However, I'll attempt to describe both scenarios. In both cases, the impacted is modules that have some cycling (duration/recharge):
--Energy Vamp: A Vampire turret, once in effect, would do two things: For the user, it will increase the duration of any currently cycling module, and reduce the recharge rate of any currently recharging module. For the target, the opposite will happen: their module duration is reduced, their recharge is increased. Given the "vampire" effect, the user only gets the "bonus" if the target has modules of that type. An enemy vehicle with only passive modules would be unaffected. This effect serves as balance of sorts to the strength of active modules.
--Energy Neutralizer: A neutralizing turret would have the same negative impact on the target as the "Vampire" turret, but would provide no buff or bonus to the user.
----In both cases, it's a similar pulse effect, and in the Vampire case the user would have a buff for the same period of time that the target had a debuff. Tiers/skills could impact turret range and degree of effect. Both types of turrets aren't necessary here. [in EVE, this would likely be an Amarr skill...]

Tracking Disruption
A tracking disruption turret would have the similar pulse effect of other turrets. In this case, the functionality is to reduce the turret turn speed and effective range of an opponents' turrets. A tracking disrupted vehicle would have a harder time turning its guns to bear on a target, or might suddenly find their shots unable to register on the distant allies of the person doing the disrupting. Damage is unaffected here. There's some possible utility herein for some kind of module that increases tracking to compensate, or a module that provides resistance therein. The pulse effect, like other EWAR, requires refreshing. So, after a time gap, the vehicle would be in the clear functionally. Tiers here can increase the degree of the effect, or increase the range of the turret. [would be Amarr in EVE...]

Sensor Dampening
Sensor Dampeners would be a temporary reduction in effective range/coverage of a vehicles active/passive sensor system. This means, no color change on reticle. No display of the name of target. No reds/blues on Tacnet. There's two ways to do it with respect to limiting the range. You could either "reduce" their effective range (targeting/names/dots still show up in close proximity to vehicle), or turn it off completely. In either case, like the other Ewar, it would work in pulses. So, a vehicle that escapes/flees would have their sensors back online after a given amount of time. In this case, Tiers/skills can impact: the degree of reduction(if it's isn't total), length of sensor hit, and range of turret. [proposed for Gallente]

In all cases, the small turret focus is to increase the need/desire for an actual crewed vehicle. The desire to require skilling by the turret user instead of just the driver/vehicle owner is also an effort to make EWAR something that requires focus and effort to get mileage out of.

An obvious observation here is that I didn't assign a Caldari EWAR, and was unclear on the Amarr. Not all EWAR in EVE can directly apply here because there is no target-locking in Dust outside of Swarms, etc. Capacitor Warfare and Tracking Disruption are both tradtionally Amarr EWAR staples, but one might need to be passed to Caldari balance-wise if no one can help me think of something more appropriate for them.

In any event, feedback is welcome. Thank you!

EDIT: (added a Caldari idea)

Jamming
A jamming EWAR turret would scramble FoF distinction on radar and target for the length of effect. Reds might turn blue, blues might turn red... or they might not. It's also possible that the names could get scrambled. However, if you still knew that X players is always a heavy, and you saw his name on a scout suit... you'd know it wasn't him. Would you know if it was an ally/enemy though? The idea is to raise chaos with your ability to determine enemy from friend for the length of the effect, but it doesn't otherwise impact your vehicle. For obvious reasons, this is most damaging in games where friendly-fire is enabled. [proposed Caldari]

This sounds nice, but:
What is a tank good for, then?

Serious question. The baseline gameplay here is infantry. Infantry does everything.
Tanks can't do many of the things that infantry can (like hacking).

If you make the large turrets AV only and require small turrets for AP, you are better off with just keeping to infantry gameplay, unless small turrets are highly OP.
You won't need a tank unless someone with a three-man tank crops up. And then you can just as well counter that thing with a three-man AV team or one of the large turrets that would actually exist unmolested in a game where tanks don't appear in every match.

People forget that killing is not the goal of the game. It's just a mean of achieving it.
Tanks can't achieve the goal. That's what their balance as one-man-armies is based on. They can't enter complexes and they can't stealthily cap CRUs behind enemy lines.