|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2846
   |
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Cue the tanker QQ
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2847
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 20:41:00 -
[2] - 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.
Good, now tell that to all those tankers who said it should require people working together to destroy them "Because Im in a tank"
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2847
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Supernus Gigas wrote:Delta 749 wrote: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. Good, now tell that to all those tankers who said it should require people working together to destroy them "Because Im in a tank" I don't speak for those tankers, but the fact of the matter is if you can't solo a tank, that's you being ****** at AV. I lone-wolf pretty much all the time and the only tanks that I have a hard time soloing now are Triple Rep Madrugars, but that's a different problem on it's own. It doesn't take teamwork to take out a tank, it just makes it easier.
Ah that old fall back excuse that ignores the things that are broken with AV
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2850
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Clone D wrote: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.
Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets......
I just want to point out that in Battlefield my anti tank weapon does not take up my primary weapon slot and blasting a tank treads immobilizes it IE proper balancing factors and not being able to repair all damage away while people take pot shots with ridiculously ineffective gear
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2851
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Delta 749 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Clone D wrote: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.
Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets...... I just want to point out that in Battlefield my anti tank weapon does not take up my primary weapon slot and blasting a tank treads immobilizes it IE proper balancing factors and not being able to repair all damage away while people take pot shots with ridiculously ineffective gear That depends on where you hit it though. A standard tank in BF 4 could take two or three rockets , depending on the weapon which fired it before being into immobilised state, requiring another rocket or two depending on which armour side you hit. Might take 1 shot to immobilise and tank with a shot to rear armour...... in same way you can 2 shot a tank with a rear shot.
The point isnt how many shots it takes to destroy the tank but that your overall effectiveness isnt inherently gimped if you choose to engage one and that by immobilizing it you reduce its threat level as opposed to hitting the enemy in the back once and him activating his reps while you recharge or relock and popping his after burner to zoom off out of range and to safety
One is an example of something being dangerous but having weaknesses that can be exploited, the other is an example of broken BS and personally I would much rather have the first in this game
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2851
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Stupid Blueberry wrote:Clone D wrote: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. Capsuleers perform the jobs of whole crews when operating their ships. That is only for Frigates. Doing the entire process of a Titan would kill a Cap (probably). No. That is for literally every capsuleer ship in eve, *even titans*. It may take a years worth of real life training time to be able to undock like that, but it is doable by a single individual
The capsules reduce the number of crew needed but those ships still have a crew
Hell you can just type "do capsuleer ships have crews" and the first thing that pops up is an Eve forum thread discussing and confirming yes those ships have crews
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2851
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Delta 749 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Clone D wrote: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.
Why does an LAV require a separate driver and gunner, yet an HAV does not? While not a bad idea....I feel the results would be as follows. You either get a breed of Super Tanker where the accuracy of a player decicated to gunning and not drive further ruins the infantry experience.....or you kill tanking altogether. Personally the latter seems more likely. I don't have anyone who will always jump on my main turret nor can I trust a blue dot. Other games like BF3, BF 4, Starhawk, War Hawk, Starwars Battlefront allowed vehicle based players to drive and use their main turrets...... I just want to point out that in Battlefield my anti tank weapon does not take up my primary weapon slot and blasting a tank treads immobilizes it IE proper balancing factors and not being able to repair all damage away while people take pot shots with ridiculously ineffective gear You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it.
You know the counter argument to that is weapons tech advances more rapidly than defensive tech so we should be popping tanks with ease
But hey, the tankers cried because being vulnerable to a handful of weapons was a grave injustice
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world.
|
|
|
| |
|