DUST Search - Tanks: Separate Driver From Main Gunner

All Channels

General Discussions

Tanks: Separate Driver From Main Gunner

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Clone D 315	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 - [31] - 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. .
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:23:00 - [32] - Quote 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. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Avinash Decker Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 113	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:25:00 - [33] - Quote Until there is vehicle locking which there isn't , and until the driver doesn't contribute all their isk , sp , and time investing in a tank while the gunner didn't I see these idea being not good.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:28:00 - [34] - Quote Avinash Decker wrote: Until there is vehicle locking which there isn't , and until the driver doesn't contribute all their isk , sp , and time investing in a tank while the gunner didn't I see these idea being not good. Its never going to be a good idea. No successful shooter with acclaimed vehicle mechanics has broken up piloting and gunning.....why? Because doing that simply is not enjoyable....for anyone. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:29:00 - [35] - 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.
MINA Longstrike 573	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:29:00 - [36] - Quote 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 Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1333	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:36:00 - [37] - Quote Tanks are clearly too strong at the moment; this is evident from the need to arbitrarily limit them in Ambush. At some point CCP will nerf them and they'll become too weak. Then the cycle will begin again. The HAV / AV balance will swing back and forth forever, as far as I can tell, because it is simply impossible for CCP to find a middle ground that both sides are happy with. This is because tank drivers believe they should be more powerful than infantry, because of ISK spent and "its a tank". Infantry, on the other hand, see one player with a massive speed, HP and DPS advantage over other players, in a game where the most scarce resource in any battle is the 16 players per side. The OP is a sensible suggestion for how to break this cycle, by balancing HAV vs AV around 3 players on each side. I agree, however, that CCP are very unlikely to implement it. Enjoy the merry-go-round RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:37:00 - [38] - 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.
Autoaim Bot514 The Hetairoi 91	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:38:00 - [39] - Quote This would actually empower tanks. You get a second pair of eyes, and 2 brains operating a vehicle. One driving and managing modules, and the other concentrating on shooting.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2093	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:46:00 - [40] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1334	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:49:00 - [41] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: You're playing a Scifi game which has tech thousands of years more advanced than current tech. Deal with it. That is in no way a valid game balance argument. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2851	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:50:00 - [42] - 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.
Izlare Lenix Arrogance. 524	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:51:00 - [43] - 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 Are you seriously comparing a titan to a tank? A titan costs roughly 80bil ISK, which even in EVE is a boat load of isk. More than most players could even come close to. It takes years to train to fly one and months to build. Most importantly you will NEVER see a player solo in a titan, unless they are complete idiots. Titans are only used when there is a massive fleet to support them. Tanks on the other hand are cheap, even by dust standards. They are easy to train, easy to use and do not require support. Tankers feel it is fair and balanced that it requires teamwork to kill them. Yet they cringe at the very idea of a tank requiring teamwork. This proves tankers want their easy mode to stay a solo mode, regardless of how unbalanced it is. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.
Byozuma Kegawa Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 243	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:07:00 - [44] - Quote Back to the issue of tanks and gunners you have to understand that practically all of those other FPS mentioned the tanks are a fixed spawn. They will almost always spawn where they spawn (unless a troll on the other team takes them all and hides them in their base). As such there is no personal risk in it's loss. So in those games it makes sense to have the gunner and driver as separate roles to promote teamwork. In Dust there are NO fixed spawn vehicles. None. Every vehicle was bought and paid for by a player. As such each one is a personal investment and the last thing they likely want is to lose it because they switched to the turret only to have some random player jump behind the wheel and drive it off into the sunset (forgegun fire/redline). The teamwork dynamic is still there as anyone can switch to AV without too much trouble forcing the tanker to maintain a support presence. If vehicles in Dust were a fixed spawn I'd be all for driver and gunners, but they aren't so having the roles be made distinct would be a detriment to those who want to drive tanks.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9852	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:17:00 - [45] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: 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 No we cried because there was no viability to vehicle. If you have not seen the recent report on the monthly purchases of HAV you would see that several months prior to 1.7 the monthly sales will in the low thousands..... AV could very easily and game breakingly deny all vehicles their basic roles from positions that were entirely impossible for vehicle to strike back at, all the while retaining the basic rendering issues at 50+m. When you cannot see where you are being AVed from you cannot counter it, now you all render, so we can hunt you down and counter you. Tankers never QQed for the simplification for modules and fitting, all tankers wanted pre 1.7 was durability fitting our role....which we did not have. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Cotsy The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 17	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:05:00 - [46] - Quote 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? Louis C.K. of course, of course. This has been suggested a few times before, it only makes sense. Although you fail to provide any other reasons only than it makes sense, the idea of 2 people in a tank to operate turret and to drive, it great. If it takes 3-4 people to take down a tank, why is only 1 person occupying their efforts? In a 16v16 match, 3 tanks could occupy a lot of people's effort. It creates a numbers unbalance, regardless of the strength of the tank being OP are not. Number wise, dealing with a tank should be reflective of the tanks strength, but any reasonable person can see a tank would require more than one individual to operate. You can also add modern day tanking, modern day aviation, etc... As examples of how these vehicles should be used and would naturally be used in the future.
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 2598	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:08:00 - [47] - Quote Cotsy wrote: Although you fail to provide any other reasons only than it makes sense, the idea of 2 people in a tank to operate turret and to drive, it great. If it takes 3-4 people to take down a tank, why is only 1 person occupying their efforts? In a 16v16 match, 3 tanks could occupy a lot of people's effort. It creates a numbers unbalance, regardless of the strength of the tank being OP are not. Number wise, dealing with a tank should be reflective of the tanks strength, but any reasonable person can see a tank would require more than one individual to operate. AV is not that linear. If 3 people are required to take down 1 tank, then 3 people would be required to take down 2 tanks. Sure... not simultaneously but it's not like that second tanker is just all of the sudden immune to the AV from those first 3 people. The numbers start to change a bit when you get up to 5-6 tanks though, by that point I would say you need at least 5-6 AV to be able to just alpha down that many tankers.
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 1234	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:13:00 - [48] - Quote Separate a heavies ability to move and fire, and you have a deal. This is one of the more ******** ideas the forums spit out from time to time. The problem has been that large blasters shouldn't have been made to kill infantry in the first place. Large turrets should be for killing vehicles, and small turrets should be for killing infantry. The only issue with making the large blaster an AV weapon is the lack of things for them to shoot. Other than blaster tanks and the occasional drop ship, there's really nothing else for AV to kill. Once they release all the types of vehicles (MAVs, heavy drop ships, etc.) then we need to rework large blasters into AV. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:14:00 - [49] - 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. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:18:00 - [50] - Quote Alaika Arbosa 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. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:20:00 - [51] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa 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. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... So a solo playstyle should be encouraged in a squad based game that rewards teamplay? EDIT: Also, True, I know that you are social enough to have at least a few people lined up that could help you form a crew. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:23:00 - [52] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa 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. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... So a solo playstyle should be encouraged in a squad based game that rewards teamplay? Hardly, the fitting of modules and turrets that encourage crewing and HAV should be incentivised, while building tanks for solo play de-incentivised, though the primary controls and operation of the vehicle should always be in the hands of the primarily pilot. Perhaps small turrets become better Anti Infantry Weapons, while all Tank Turrets become AV weapons, making tanks the primary top tier ground based AV weapons, requiring gunners to protect them from infantry. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:34:00 - [53] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa 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. Every role has a suit, where is the Tanker suit? Tanks are a piece of equipment, one that takes a single player and multiplies their combat efficacy/survival many times over. I could agree with you if people spawning into matches in tanks was a possibility, it isn't. You spawn into a match in a dropsuit and summon your tank, you donot spawn into the match in a tank. IMHO, this would be a good buff and would help to quell some of the AVvHAV QQ since it would cause balance, multiple people needed to destroy the HAV and multiple people needed to effectively utilize the HAV. Then you effectively kill and entire playstyle..... I cannot wait on people half a world away to be online so I can fight in a game of Dust...... So a solo playstyle should be encouraged in a squad based game that rewards teamplay? Hardly, the fitting of modules and turrets that encourage crewing and HAV should be incentivised, while building tanks for solo play de-incentivised, though the primary controls and operation of the vehicle should always be in the hands of the primarily pilot. Perhaps small turrets become better Anti Infantry Weapons, while all Tank Turrets become AV weapons, making tanks the primary top tier ground based AV weapons, requiring gunners to protect them from infantry. Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9857	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:38:00 - [54] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:47:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9862	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:50:00 - [56] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1940	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:09:00 - [57] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Can you honestly tell me this stop start combat would be enjoyable? Which is why IMHO, it is a better idea to separate the Driver and Main Gunner. It allows both functions to be performed at the same time though it requires more than just one puppykicking jackass with a mouse and keyboard to execute. Note, I am not saying that you are a puppykicking jackass, though we both know that there are more than a few in this community. Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Lynn Beck Wake N' Bake Inc Top Men. 1577	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:19:00 - [58] - Quote Make large blasters have less range, and make them Anti-tank. Small blasters gain a Cone of fire, and a flat DPS buff. Small rails are pinpoint accurate, and are given a slight Damage buff. Missiles should have their splash radius increased, but damage decreased. Instead of missiles 'aiming' off center, they curve mid-flight. Large missiles should reload Cyclicly, like a shotgun. Large rails should have their RoF dropped significantly, in addition to a 10-15% damage nerf. Rebuff range to 400-450z General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 1235	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:23:00 - [59] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Ok, so what if it was made so that the controls for both were in the hands of the "Main Operator", though they were only allowed to do one or the other at any given time. Do you want to move? Yes? Well, then you can't shoot. Do you want to shoot? Yes? Well, then you can't move. Main Operator can do both, though can only do one at a time, not both at the same time. A valid suggestion....but that simply does relegate combat to "I saw you first so please die for me". I am simply for a Tank Model that removes Anti Infantry turrets, especially the large blaster. How? If you're moving, you can continue to move out of the LOS of the firing tank. If you're firing, you can shoot at the moving HAV and hope you can kill him before he can swap and kill you. I don't understand how you feel that it relegates combat to "first see, first kill" though I do agree with you that Large Turrets should be totally incapable of AP fire (except for really obvious cases like "He was standing on my HAV right in front of my Turret"). Large turrets shouldn't be incapable of AP. Small turrets should just be better at it. That's what you get!! - DA Rick
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 567	Posted - 2014.04.29 00:28:00 - [60] - 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. 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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.