|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Clone D
314
   |
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
The tank driver and main gunner should be two distinct functions and therefore two separate positions inside of a tank. So a single operator would either drive or use the main gun, but not both simultaneously. Thus to drive and fire the main gun simultaneously would require two crew members.
.
|
Clone D
314
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this.
inb4tankerrage.
If there are that many people that support this concept, then this post should get a lot of likes.
.
|
Clone D
314
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Supernus Gigas wrote:No. I mean come on seriously? Do people even think about the complications of their convoluted ideas? ******* Christ.
edit:: Let me elaborate on why this a a terrible idea.
What does this solve? Nothing. Now in order for a tank to work it needs too people to operate at the minimum. So what? All you've done is make it so two coordinating people with mics are needed to operate a tank. It's still the same tank. Still the same level of difficulty to take down. It solves nothing.
"But tank spam!"
But shut the **** up. Tank spam is so overblown it's ******* ridiculous. In the past MONTH of playing Dust I have encountered tank spam literally three times. THREE matches out of several hundred had tank spam. The average for me is around ZERO to TWO tanks per match.
Not to mention lone wolf tankers are ******.
People without a mic are ******.
Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role.
One issue that this idea addresses is a disproportionate amount of HP, damage and speed granted to a single player. If two people operate a tank, then it significantly reduces the HP and damage per player.
The game is obviously already a perverted simulation of war anyway with many weapons being rebalanced and having limited amount of grenades because people aren't having fun with too many grenades. So it seems that the game is not approaching realism, but some idea of persistent player frustration that CCP would like to offer to the world.
So from a standpoint of fun alone, the community has made it quite clear that there is a problem with tanks. Why CCP would ignore that outcry and yet focus so intently on balancing the infantry gear is beyond me.
I don't understand what you mean about "the complications of this convoluted idea" so if you wouldn't mind expounding, I can respond to that. If you're referring to the communication between driver and gunner, my response would be that the tank is perfectly playable without communication between them, just as the LAV is perfectly playable although the driver and gunner are separate.
.
|
Clone D
314
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Supernus Gigas wrote:if you can't solo a tank, that's you being ****** at AV.
My technique is fine and I can solo a tank, but think in terms of resource allocation. All of a sudden, I have to drop everything I'm doing, go grab an AV suit and focus my attention on a tank, while a single person in a tank disrupts the entire team in the area. That's too much power per player. Everyone knows it and has complained about it. It's time that CCP took some action to remedy the disproportionate amount of HP, damage and speed granted to a single tanker.
.
|
Clone D
315
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Not to mention, that's MY isk invested in a tank I HAVE to share with someone else just to use.
Agreed, but remember that you would still be able to use the tank for the many wonderful benefits that a tank provides, just not use the gun and drive simultaneously. It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you.
.
|
Clone D
330
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 00:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thurak1 wrote:Supernus Gigas wrote:... Teamwork should be recommended, but NEVER required just to play a role. YES And i would say the same for the ANTI vehicle roles! why should it take multiple AV players to counter 1 tank effectively? If you want to survive against a proto AV player of any type it should require good fittings on the tank AND smart driving. Right now it does not require either 1 AV player vs 1 tank = 1 laughing tanker.
Agreed.
.
|
Clone D
338
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 01:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Clone D wrote: It would still serve as a protective sheath by which no harm can come to you. Tankers do not tank because of this but for the reason that is their love for vehicle usage and the support factor .
The tank is the shark of the land. In no way is it a support role. It is a massive hunter killer, which happens to have stealth properties in this game.
.
|
Clone D
338
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 01:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
calisk galern wrote:trust me I kill 10+ tanks a game every game. consistently without fail.
I am a proud supporter of this behavior! My best regards to you.
.
|
Clone D
349
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 16:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind.
Dropsuit Class: Demigod
Armor: 2500
Shield: 2500
Movement Speed: 80 km/h
Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon
Damage: 1250
Splash Damage: 250
Rate of Fire: 3 per second
However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank.
A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power. Typically, they gang up now to cover each other which only magnifies the problem.
.
|
Clone D
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 20:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
The link above is considering the LAV Analogy Argument ...
... but now we have the Dropsuit Analogy Argument:
Clone D wrote:If I requested a new class of dropsuit with the following specs, the community would tell me that I am out of my mind.
Dropsuit Class: Demigod
Armor: 2500
Shield: 2500
Movement Speed: 80 km/h
Weapon: Dual Shoulder Mounted Cannon
Damage: 1250
Splash Damage: 250
Rate of Fire: 3 per second
However, people who want a single-operator tank embrace the above idea because it is wrapped up in the form of a tank.
A tank should require a crew, otherwise you're just giving one person a sh*tload of power.
.
|
|
|
Clone D
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Awry Barux wrote:ULTRA FACEPALM.
Understood, it does not matter. But do we all agree that the dropsuit analogy argument is valid though, in terms of platos forms. The topology of the matter is that a single person is moving around the environment with vast power and that is the problem. How do you propose that we solve this problem?
.
|
Clone D
379
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course.
The tank could be used fully, but you'd have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive. Just as the LAV is used fully, but you have to change seats inside the vehicle if you want to fire the cannon or drive.
.
|
Clone D
379
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:... we could give suggestions and feedback about how to change your game so you suffer, spend tons of ISK and have less fun. Because that would be fun - for us.
I use a variety of dropsuits and vehicles during play. I play multiple roles, each based on the context of the battle. The dynamic nature of my style ensures copious amounts of creative stimulation. I don' think there's anything that you could do to disrupt my enjoyment of the game. CCP, yes. You, no
Also, I have so much ISK that I frequently give it away so that people can enjoy the game more. Do you need any to buy some tanks?
.
|
Clone D
383
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 11:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Racro 01 Arifistan wrote:lore/gamemechanics beat logic and rl comparison.
Agreed, the company that creates the game may defy logic at will. This thread is only an attempt to rally proponents of the argument and bring a constant reminder to the whimsical game developers. Perhaps a constant beating of the waves against the shoreline will eventually erode their pachydermic stubbornness. Bringing light to the darkest recesses of the universe; that's what this thread is about.
.
|
Clone D
384
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 12:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Restricting an armored vehicle design 20K centuries in the future to use modern methodologies is simply not understanding the environment we play in.
This game is completely contrived and arbitrarily regulated by capricious developers. It has been stated many times that the "In the future" argument does not hold any water around here. For instance, if soldiers could carry 12 grenades in a pouch in WWII, then I think we could at least match that in the future. But no, we are limited to 1 or 2. Restrictions are placed on the game under the guise of increasing balance and playablility.
.
|
|
|
| |
|