DUST Search - Vehicle specific quotas

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicle specific quotas

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10344	Posted - 2014.04.08 00:30:00 - [1] - Quote The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank, and having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense to be for balance. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIn++æ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Eko Sol Strange Playings 139	Posted - 2014.04.08 00:32:00 - [2] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank, and having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense to be for balance. The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months.
Necandi Brasil DUST BRASIL S.A Proficiency V. 849	Posted - 2014.04.08 00:33:00 - [3] - Quote Agreed, I think 16 players is too los player count to have 6 tanks in the field... This number should increase to 64 players to see a balan+ºed match for 6 tanks in the field DUST BRASIL DIRECTOR I NEED RAIL RIFLE BPO's 1bil each
fragmentedhackslash Arrogance. 247	Posted - 2014.04.08 00:38:00 - [4] - Quote Goof luck with that. Pain is just weakness leaving your body. Every day is a holiday. Every meal is a feast.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10344	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:05:00 - [5] - Quote Any more thoughts? Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
EternalRMG KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND Lokun Listamenn 824	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:09:00 - [6] - Quote In ambush its reasonable to have 2 vehicles, as there are no supply depots no installations and no other objective but to get kills. In dom and skirmish the quota is good at 6 you know why? because most maps have indoor locations that the tanks cannot reach, have supply depots everywhere, have railgun installations and have objective that must be hacked and normally in these gamemodes there is always counte-tankers, those who choose the Railgun to keep enemy tanks at bay. these counter tankers make it really balanced BPOs for Sale Dust Player Since: July 2012 Best Assault Dropship Pilot in the Game
Supernus Gigas sNk Syndicate 719	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:13:00 - [7] - Quote Eko Sol wrote: The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months. I never liked that idea. It completely alienates lone wolf players and players that don't have a mic. Teamwork should be recommended, but never required just to play the game even casually. *FIRE UP THE HEAVY MEAT GRINDER! WE'RE HAVIN' CLONE BURGERS TONIGHT, BOYS!*
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10345	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:18:00 - [8] - Quote EternalRMG wrote: In ambush its reasonable to have 2 vehicles, as there are no supply depots no installations and no other objective but to get kills. In dom and skirmish the quota is good at 6 you know why? because most maps have indoor locations that the tanks cannot reach, have supply depots everywhere, have railgun installations and have objective that must be hacked and normally in these gamemodes there is always counte-tankers, those who choose the Railgun to keep enemy tanks at bay. these counter tankers make it really balanced Turret installations an be destroyed in seconds by tanks, and cannot be replaced, while tanks can be replaced once destroyed. You strongly underestimate the amount of open space on the maps. Click the stickied posts for images of the maps as reference https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=1350 . Infantry shouldn't have to be cowering inside buildings the entire time anyway. There is no justification why one team of 16 should be able to have 6 tanks out at once. Like I explained in the OP, it takes about 2 players to fight a single tank, having 6 tanks would force the other team to overextend themselves if they want to deal with the tanks, which ensures the victory of the team with the tanks. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 5019	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:23:00 - [9] - Quote Can't get behind this one, sorry. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Odigos Ellinas Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 68	Posted - 2014.04.08 02:38:00 - [10] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank, and having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense to be for balance. Your are forgetting that the main AV in the game is a Vehicle. Your team can call 6 HAV as the enemy can.All hardeners are basically the same except the timers. And militia railguns are good enough to destroy gunlogis and madrugars. In the LP market you can get Madrugars and Gunlogis without SP. Today i he'd really great fun with a friend in a AV starterfit and my Federal Madrugar. We where driving around and hunting HAVs he popping out of my HAV with the swarms to finish them off and take my kills. The only problem i see with Vehicles are the armor repairs. They work like the reptool before 1.7. Reducing incoming damage and repairing without any delay.

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10346	Posted - 2014.04.08 03:02:00 - [11] - Quote Odigos Ellinas wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank, and having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense to be for balance. Your are forgetting that the main AV in the game is a Vehicle. Your team can call 6 HAV as the enemy can.All hardeners are basically the same except the timers. And militia railguns are good enough to destroy gunlogis and madrugars. In the LP market you can get Madrugars and Gunlogis without SP. Today i he'd really great fun with a friend in a AV starterfit and my Federal Madrugar. We where driving around and hunting HAVs he popping out of my HAV with the swarms to finish them off and take my kills. The only problem i see with Vehicles are the armor repairs. They work like the reptool before 1.7. Reducing incoming damage and repairing without any delay. Tanks being the main AV is inherently problematic, something shouldn't be so powerful and/or plentiful that the oly way to deal with them is more of that same thing. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1537	Posted - 2014.04.08 03:36:00 - [12] - Quote If there are 6 tanks on the field, it does not take 12 AV players to stop them. Just take 3 AV players and they will pop them one at a time. You only need 12 AV players if you wanted to destroy all 6 tanks at once, which is a stupid waste of resources. 3 players with breach forge guns, shooting at the same time will instakill any unhardened tank and two-shot any hardened tank. I'm sure that those three players will bring down those 6 tanks fast. But otherwise, the tank quota should be 3 tanks per side. Then it's justifiable to have 3 AV infantry to take out one tank, because they'll just destroy one tank and move on to the other. Both sides have the same amount of ground troops. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
LittleCuteBunny 404	Posted - 2014.04.08 04:25:00 - [13] - Quote So long we can put REs in a LAV... no Retired.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 514	Posted - 2014.04.08 05:39:00 - [14] - Quote Pretty solid idea +1 Who cares what some sniper has to say
elric the enchanter xCosmic Voidx Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 365	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:40:00 - [15] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. You mean like this? Cosmic Void Minister of Silly Weapons Heinz Guderian predicted Tank514
The-Errorist 637	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:26:00 - [16] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Can't get behind this one, sorry. Why not?
Eko Sol Strange Playings 140	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:33:00 - [17] - Quote Supernus Gigas wrote: Eko Sol wrote: The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months. I never liked that idea. It completely alienates lone wolf players and players that don't have a mic. Teamwork should be recommended, but never required just to play the game even casually. I have to disagree. It's an MMO first. This is a MMO game first and a FPS second. It has no plot. It is 100% designed for PvP. This should be meaningless to players. If you are ONLY playing solo then you deserve the repercussion of any changes that get made that insist on teamwork. For the record, I primarily solo. Probably 60% of time. I accept that no squading up has a negative impact on me in some games.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10354	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:39:00 - [18] - Quote elric the enchanter wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. You mean like this? Damn, that's brutal Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1542	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:55:00 - [19] - Quote Eko Sol wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Eko Sol wrote: The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months. I never liked that idea. It completely alienates lone wolf players and players that don't have a mic. Teamwork should be recommended, but never required just to play the game even casually. I have to disagree. It's an MMO first. This is a MMO game first and a FPS second. It has no plot. It is 100% designed for PvP. This should be meaningless to players. If you are ONLY playing solo then you deserve the repercussion of any changes that get made that insist on teamwork. For the record, I primarily solo. Probably 60% of time. I accept that no squading up has a negative impact on me in some games. Wrong, this game is not designed to be 100% PvP. Although it's just that currently, there are plans for a PvE component as well. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 756	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:10:00 - [20] - Quote i have no major issue with tanks. only specific areas ill have a problem with but. id rather be up against 6 tanks rather than having to face another one of those stupid proto scrub stomp matches...1st off.. stupid and boring as hell..2nd. cant make any progress. and lastly. impossible to avoid.. unlike with facing 6 enemy tanks. im able to get around the map. i have some breathing room and plenty of places to take cover from tanks. and plenty of places to launch a counter as well. i can still make progress as well. they are merely an obstacle u will face in battle.. and its an easy to overcome obstacle as well. unlike those proto stomp scrub squads. my latest and possibly last ambush for the year involved going up against nothing but gk0s with proto combat rifles. yeah its really great that 2 tanks only extended the 20 second spambush match by ten seconds... mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2892	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:48:00 - [21] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank. Having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense for balance. EDIT: example of why its needed. elric the enchanter wrote: You mean like this? Saying that since it takes 2 AV to kill 1 tank means that it will take 12 AV to kill 6 tanks is STUPID!!! Are you a complete and utter moron? Focus fire you twit! Kill one, then kill the next, and then the one after that. 5 AV can take down 6 tanks in less than 3 minutes. I have seen this from the AV side and I have seen this from the Tank side. You just donGÇÖt get 5 AV working together very often. You will never need more that 5 or 6 AV though. Making such superfluous and ignorant arguments undermines the credibility of the AV side of the balance discussion. Shame on you! Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1967	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:50:00 - [22] - Quote It only requires one, you just can't suck. EDIT: I'm fine with that, as long as I get priority queues due to having more SP in vehicles than the average scrub. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Anarchide Greedy Bastards 1984	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:18:00 - [23] - Quote Yep, it's kind of ridiculous. I can't get an LAV to get around the map. Having no mobility, I get killed, then I get Spawn killed for the rest of the match... Weeeeee! ...and while my weapons seems only to tickle my enemies, my 1000 hp Commando is shredded in one sec by a scout with a submachine gun. Oh! ...and I can't trigger my Remote Explosives anymore when I'm wounded. It sucks. With the current build, my ability to die has reached new peaks! My alts: General John Ripper, Draxus Prime, MoonEagle A, Cat Merc, Long Evity, DeadlyAztec11 and Sinboto Simmons.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9342	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:44:00 - [24] - Quote Right so I'm going to not be able to run my play style because A.) Balancing is poor B.) Infantry whine and make no effort to counter HAV C.) AVers bar a certain few are garbage D.) Arbitrary restrictions not in keeping with EVE/New Eden's raison d'etre have been placed on gameplay "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Eko Sol Strange Playings 140	Posted - 2014.04.08 23:20:00 - [25] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Eko Sol wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Eko Sol wrote: The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months. I never liked that idea. It completely alienates lone wolf players and players that don't have a mic. Teamwork should be recommended, but never required just to play the game even casually. I have to disagree. It's an MMO first. This is a MMO game first and a FPS second. It has no plot. It is 100% designed for PvP. This should be meaningless to players. If you are ONLY playing solo then you deserve the repercussion of any changes that get made that insist on teamwork. For the record, I primarily solo. Probably 60% of time. I accept that no squading up has a negative impact on me in some games. Wrong, this game is not designed to be 100% PvP. Although it's just that currently, there are plans for a PvE component as well. EDIT: I said one thing but now I'm just going to state that your statement is contradictory. "Wrong, this game is not designed to be 100% PvP. Although, it's just [100%] PvP currently." So they never designed it that way it just showed up currently as 100% PvP and they have been working tirelessly since the trailer of the game over a year ago to get PvE? C'mon man. Your statement is just ridiculous. It is 100% a PvP game. It was designed 100% PvP but advertised differently. Reality is that the game is PvP only. Get over it.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1543	Posted - 2014.04.08 23:37:00 - [26] - Quote Eko Sol wrote: Harpyja wrote: Eko Sol wrote: Supernus Gigas wrote: Eko Sol wrote: The only change that I would humor is the concept that all vehicles that do damage requires a driver and a gun operator. I believe it should take 2 people at a minimum to operate a tank and 2 pilots to operate an ADS. Although I believe this I don't want them to make any more changes to the game. Leave it as it is and work on bugs for the next 6 months. I never liked that idea. It completely alienates lone wolf players and players that don't have a mic. Teamwork should be recommended, but never required just to play the game even casually. I have to disagree. It's an MMO first. This is a MMO game first and a FPS second. It has no plot. It is 100% designed for PvP. This should be meaningless to players. If you are ONLY playing solo then you deserve the repercussion of any changes that get made that insist on teamwork. For the record, I primarily solo. Probably 60% of time. I accept that no squading up has a negative impact on me in some games. Wrong, this game is not designed to be 100% PvP. Although it's just that currently, there are plans for a PvE component as well. EDIT: I said one thing but now I'm just going to state that your statement is contradictory. "Wrong, this game is not designed to be 100% PvP. Although, it's just [100%] PvP currently." So they never designed it that way it just showed up currently as 100% PvP and they have been working tirelessly since the trailer of the game over a year ago to get PvE? C'mon man. Your statement is just ridiculous. It is 100% a PvP game. It was designed 100% PvP but advertised differently. Reality is that the game is PvP only. Get over it. No dude, there will be a PVE component. And it likely will be an alternative form of gaining SP, ISK, or both instead of fighting other players. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32 Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2896	Posted - 2014.04.09 13:58:00 - [27] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank. Having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. EDIT: I do realize that it could take far less than 12 players if they all focus on a smaller number of tanks at a time, but its still large reallocation of forces for the team with AV, which will cost them in objectives, and anti-infantry. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense for balance. EDIT: example of why its needed. elric the enchanter wrote: You mean like this? Let me see if I can respond to this without showing my exasperation in quite so explicit terms. If it takes 2 AV to kill 1 tank that does not mean that it would take 12 AV to kill 6 tanks. In fact if 2 AV can kill 1 tank, they could in theory kill all 6 tanks, 1 at a time. Practically, 2 AV would usually not be able to kill 6 tanks because the tanks would gang up on them and kill the AV repeatedly. However, 5 AV can kill 1 tank in a second, each only needing to take a single shot. Then their second shot can take out a second tank. If the tanks are all within range and not behind cover, 5 AV can take out 6 Tanks with only 6 shots each. They would not even need a Nano Hive. You would never need to have 12 AV on one team. Even if the other team was able to have 16 tanks, you would not need more than 5 or 6 AV. I am sorry that I made disparaging comments about your intelligence earlier. I was in an excessive state of exasperation, having seen this argument made in the past, and when I saw your post my patience ran out. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10364	Posted - 2014.04.09 20:30:00 - [28] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. In such cases, it would require at least 12 players on the other team to play AV to successfully stop them, since it takes about 2 AV players to stop 1 tank. Having 12 players on a team of 16 end up on AV duty means that the enemy will completely dominate on anti-infantry, and on capturing objectives. It should not be possible to have 6 tanks on a 16 player team. EDIT: I do realize that it could take far less than 12 players if they all focus on a smaller number of tanks at a time, but its still large reallocation of forces for the team with AV, which will cost them in objectives, and anti-infantry. Lowering the vehicle quota would solve this issue, but would be far too restrictive; LAVs and dropships would be needlessly restricted just to limit the amount of tanks on the battlefield. A smarter solution is needed, which is why I propose that there should be vehicle quotas specific to vehicle types. Example: HAV limit 2, dropship limit 3, LAV limit 4. Seriously, 1 LAV is not as tactically valuable as a tank, yet they each draw equally from the same resource pool; that doesn't make sense for balance. EDIT: example of why its needed. elric the enchanter wrote: You mean like this? Let me see if I can respond to this without showing my exasperation in quite so explicit terms. If it takes 2 AV to kill 1 tank that does not mean that it would take 12 AV to kill 6 tanks. In fact if 2 AV can kill 1 tank, they could in theory kill all 6 tanks, 1 at a time. Practically, 2 AV would usually not be able to kill 6 tanks because the tanks would gang up on them and kill the AV repeatedly. However, 5 AV can kill 1 tank in a second, each only needing to take a single shot. Then their second shot can take out a second tank. If the tanks are all within range and not behind cover, 5 AV can take out 6 Tanks with only 6 shots each. They would not even need a Nano Hive. You would never need to have 12 AV on one team. Even if the other team was able to have 16 tanks, you would not need more than 5 or 6 AV. I am sorry that I made disparaging comments about your intelligence earlier. I was in an excessive state of exasperation, having seen this argument made in the past, and when I saw your post my patience ran out. Apology accepted, and I do see your point. The god-king KAGEHOSHI absolves your transgressions. I still think it should happen though. Do you think there's ever such a thing as too many tanks? because I think there is, and its certainly less than 6. I would feel differently if this game was a true MMO with open worlds and massive player counts, but 6 tanks on a 16 player team is too much. Do you think its fair that 6 LAVs and 6 tanks are equivalent in tactical value? because if not, I don't think it is right that they should draw from the same resource pool since it will mean there is one strategy (lots and lots of tanks) that is generally always preferable. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
elric the enchanter xCosmic Voidx Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 368	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:46:00 - [29] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: elric the enchanter wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The current state of vehicles is such that it requires at least 2 AV players to take down one tank. The current vehicle quota theoretically allows for 6 tanks from one side to to be out at once; I have experienced this occurrence at least twice in the past. You mean like this? Damn, that's brutal HaHa yes it was brutal, but funny at the same time. As I state in the description, hadn't squadded with many of those players before and don't remember many using a mic. As a result I didn't know our combined AV capabilities. Tried myself a few times but gave up when it became economically non-viable. In contrast, just played a match with a squad consisting entirely of corp members, all on comms, where another team tried a similar tactic. This time, we had 3 players who had specced into reasonably decent tanks so, combined with 3 of us AV-ing on foot, we were able to counter the threat. The vid was really to highlight how it feels to be thrust into a match like that and not have the same degree of co-ordination. Cosmic Void Minister of Silly Weapons Heinz Guderian predicted Tank514
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 523	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:59:00 - [30] - Quote Odigos Ellinas wrote: Reducing incoming damage and repairing without any delay. This is just not true and statements like these , need to be checked and put in their place . There is a pause every time one takes on damage and there is not an " immediate " reaping process once damage is taken . Edit : Requiring two players to operate a Drop ship or a Tank is against customization and would kill the role . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.