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)
Foundation Seldon Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 637	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:36:00 - [121] - Quote Big Burns 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? Because HAV take a lot more isk and SP to use. The same could have been said for pre-Uprising Dropships (before the ADS variant was introduced) which required at least 2 people to operate effectively and had cost about the same as current tanks do now. Ultimately it comes down to tankers not wanting to engage in teamwork in order to effectively operate their vehicles. I'm not suggesting that this is an inherently good or bad thing but it is what it is. Saga v. Methana Balance
Smooth Assassin Stardust Incorporation IMMORTAL REGIME 1385	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:41:00 - [122] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. inb4tankerrage. Look above, theres already tanker rage. *Assassination is my thing.*
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2335	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:45:00 - [123] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. Pushing this post so that it's on the last page of the thread instead of the last post of the second-to-last page, for relevance. Super /thread Nerdier than thou
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1951	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:50:00 - [124] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. Yes, because "in the short term" means never, ever, ever. lol Arzadu Akbar Motherfuckers!!!! Closed Beta Bittervet Bomber
Clone D 368	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:50:00 - [125] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. 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. .
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2337	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:55:00 - [126] - Quote Clone D wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. 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 shtload of power. ............................................________ ....................................,.-'"...................``~., .............................,.-"..................................."-., .........................,/...............................................":, .....................,?......................................................, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:"........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ .............`~.*-,.....................................\|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................\|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,__......`,................................. ...................`=~-,,.,............................... ................................`:,,...........................`..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_..........._,-%.......` ..................................., ULTRA FACEPALM. The analogy DOES NOT MATTER. The result, the change that you're asking for, has been REJECTED. EXPLICITLY. Regardless of how I, and they, feel about balance, CCP has already said that this is not the balancing route that they're going to take. Nerdier than thou
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2337	Posted - 2014.04.29 20:57:00 - [127] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Yes, because "in the short term" means never, ever, ever. lol It doesn't mean never ever, but it means that this thread is nothing but pointless drivel. Further discussions are useless- CCP is aware of this option, and is "intrigued" by it. Nerdier than thou
Clone D 368	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:00:00 - [128] - 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? .
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1355	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:25:00 - [129] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Zaaeed Massani wrote: Awry Barux wrote: This has been suggested 1000 times. CCP has already said that they do not intend to implement this. ^ Blue Tag Link or GTFO? Here you go. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1847233#post1847233 CCP LogiBro wrote: Changing HAV control scheme to a LAV-like control scheme - Thread It's always been an intriguing idea, one that's been floating around for a while. However, we don't have any plans to do this in the short term. /thread, shut up, all of you. The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:48:00 - [130] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two

Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2345	Posted - 2014.04.29 21:57:00 - [131] - Quote True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. ^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules! Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do. Nerdier than thou
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9907	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:44:00 - [132] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. ^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules! Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO, basic should be doing maybe 180-200 per missile), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do. These moderate rebalances for AV, combined with the return of armor repairs as an active module, NOT an always-on passive module, will likely be sufficient to bring V/AV into balance. At the very least, it's a good starting point that is unlikely to cause major balance issues, like we have seen in the past. Yes I cannot deny that Swarms scale poorly per tier......something like a 53% increase from STD to Proto......thats not even remotely right, a rebalancing of this is require taking the STD damage up to a proportionate level damage per volley is absolutely necessary. I am not wholly sure about the PLC.... Would not large magazine capacity suit better? Or is its primary functionality supposed to be that of an arcing RPG round? AV grenades certainly do not need a full 50% buff, certainly some tweaks to their damage models may be required, but no so much so fast without testing or community feed back. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2698	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:53:00 - [133] - Quote Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 22:55:00 - [134] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2354	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:00:00 - [135] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Awry Barux wrote: True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. ^ this guy knows what he's talking about it, especially active armor repair modules! Though, three things do need a straight up buff: swarms need to not scale stupidly (6 missiles all tiers, +5% and +10% damage for ADV/PRO, basic should be doing maybe 180-200 per missile), and the PLC needs a straight up damage buff to bring its DPS in line. AV grenades should perhaps be buffed by 50% so that the two we carry now are equivalent to 3- AV grenades alone should be sufficient to destroy an unfit LAV, which they currently cannot do. These moderate rebalances for AV, combined with the return of armor repairs as an active module, NOT an always-on passive module, will likely be sufficient to bring V/AV into balance. At the very least, it's a good starting point that is unlikely to cause major balance issues, like we have seen in the past. Yes I cannot deny that Swarms scale poorly per tier......something like a 53% increase from STD to Proto......thats not even remotely right, a rebalancing of this is require taking the STD damage up to a proportionate level damage per volley is absolutely necessary. I am not wholly sure about the PLC.... Would not large magazine capacity suit better? Or is its primary functionality supposed to be that of an arcing RPG round? AV grenades certainly do not need a full 50% buff, certainly some tweaks to their damage models may be required, but no so much so fast without testing or community feed back. I suppose I agree that my suggestion for AV grenades would be too much. Perhaps carrying capacity should be returned to 3? In any case, their one useful role IMO was dealing with BPO LAV spam, and they are currently useless for that. I'd like them returned to that role. As for the PLC, I like it working as a one-shot-at-a-time high-alpha weapon. It currently just doesn't have the damage to back up that role. Though, really I'd like to see assault and breach PLC variants, with the assault having lower damage but multiple rounds per clip, and the breach having an even longer reload time but even higher alpha. Either way, some sort of change needs to be made to the PLC to provide some reward to offset how hard it is to hit anything other than a stationary tank at point-blank range. Nerdier than thou
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2699	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:04:00 - [136] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. I would like to querry that point, if you don't really care about kills, what do you care about? What drives a tanker to kill so many people? Money, winning? What defines the difference in kill importamce to a tanker? Out of intrest, no insult intended. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9909	Posted - 2014.04.29 23:08:00 - [137] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: True Adamance wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. I would like to querry that point, if you don't really care about kills, what do you care about? What drives a tanker to kill so many people? Money, winning? What defines the difference in kill importamce to a tanker? Out of intrest, no insult intended. I tank for fun..... well more specifically than that for the play style they have and used to have. I personally never thought I would be a vehicle person, but I like the slowed down and tactical approach you have to take when going up against strong tanker opposition. Positioning, Fire Power, Module Activation and timing, etc. I can't speak for all tankers, but to me things like Kills and WP mean so little, for me its all about ISK destroyed vs ISK lost both in a tank and on foot.. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1359	Posted - 2014.04.30 09:03:00 - [138] - Quote True Adamance wrote: R F Gyro wrote: The way I read that is they are interested in the idea, but its not something they are planning to do in the next few releases. I can understand that, as it would be a significant change. In the short term I imagine there's more HAV nerfs coming up though. Capping them at 2 per team in Ambush is a pretty clear acknowledgement that CCP accept they are too strong at the moment. Unless tank drivers start thinking about options that are relatively balanced they are simply going to get ignored in the discussions when the real fix does happen. Dude we have half a dozen tankers who have been for months discussion balanced options and out of the box suggestions while taking on board the suggestions of other well thought out AV suggestions. Sorry, should have been more explicit there - I was responding to one specific person, not saying that tankers in general aren't discussing sensible options. Quote: However we are invalidated by the sheer number of thread of poorly thought out calls for nerfs by biased and pissed of AVers and Infantry. For Chirst's sake we DONT NEED NERFS, instead we need rebalances..... I agree that rebalancing is required, but I'm still seriously concerned that balance isn't possible because there is no consensus on what "balanced" means. The best that CCP can do with the current approach is make sure that both sides of the debate are equally unhappy. I'm also not going to accept an unsubstantiated "we don't need nerfs" on this. Of course tankers tend believe tanks shouldn't be nerfed. That's basic human nature. But CCP did feel the need to apply a sledgehammer nerf to tanks in Ambush by limiting the number to 2. Quote: Perhaps altering Modules cool down timers, altering their effects, making Armour Repair modules active, Turret tracking alterations, damage efficiency modules depending on where tank is hit, AV damage efficiencies and functionality, etc. NOT hard nerfs or buffs to anything. I'm personally not arguing against any of those suggestion, I just don't think it will be sufficient. I think we (tankers, infantry and CCP) need to address the fundamental issue that the most limited resource in Dust battles isn't ISK or SP, it is number of players: there is a hard cap of 16 on that for each side. Any solution that allows one of those 16 to be fundamentally better than the others isn't going to be balanced. Most tank/AV discussions I've seen seem to be largely about how much better than an infantry suit a tank should be. If the tank-AV game is balanced on number of players, then that means that a single AV player, who's job is to kill vehicles, should generally be expected to kill a single HAV. That means that tanks (HAVs) don't work as "awesome masters of the battlefield", which I think is a loss to the game. That's why I'm suggesting MAVs take on the solo role, so that HAVs can retain their awesomeness, while remaining balanced in terms of player count. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2706	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:03:00 - [139] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: True Adamance wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Its a 'good' idea, but it just wouldn't work in practice. Unfortunately. As I have said and always lived by. Teamwork should be optional, but not compulsory It does however say something about the power of tanks if this idea comes up so many times. As for LAV's I would rather Scout Lav's be replaced with Breach lav's that have 2 seats and the turret tethered to the drivers controls, but it can't rotate. I find that most people complain because tanks can get kills easy....... but most tankers really don't care about kills....... it's only infantry that do. But undeniably Tanks have too much leeway right now. I would like to querry that point, if you don't really care about kills, what do you care about? What drives a tanker to kill so many people? Money, winning? What defines the difference in kill importamce to a tanker? Out of intrest, no insult intended. I tank for fun..... well more specifically than that for the play style they have and used to have. I personally never thought I would be a vehicle person, but I like the slowed down and tactical approach you have to take when going up against strong tanker opposition. Positioning, Fire Power, Module Activation and timing, etc. I can't speak for all tankers, but to me things like Kills and WP mean so little, for me its all about ISK destroyed vs ISK lost both in a tank and on foot.. Fair enough, although I would like to point out its much the same for some infantry players, killing is a means to an end, the problem more so with tanks is death. At least the gratuitous amount of death a tank so often symbolises. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Orin the Freak The Solecism of Limitation 817	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:06:00 - [140] - Quote I support this idea, for the simple fact that, currently, tanks are basically giant dropsuits you call in. One man controlling a giant gun, with thousands of eHP, and the fastest run speed in the game. huge hitbox, and poor non-linear movement, but i'd say thats a fair tradeoff for the best DPS in the game. If your argument is "but in all the other games, tank turrets are one-man!", then my counter argument is, those games don't have maps where 85% is flat/open terrain, and the tanks in those games don't typically wield fully-automatic blaster turrets that spin almost as fast as a dropsuit.

Jason Pearson State Terrestrial Mercenaries 4252	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:30:00 - [141] - Quote So am I getting my SP back because of you mugs or what? King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician Vote me for CPM1!
Ceadda Sai Legions of Infinite Dominion Zero-Day 12	Posted - 2014.04.30 10:44:00 - [142] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: i want infantry to be multi maned as well separate legs from arms and head Start9. Let's wait and see who gets it first. Forge Gunners: Now this is a gun for going out and and making people miserable with.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2482	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:02:00 - [143] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: R F Gyro wrote: Void Echo wrote: If it were implemented tanks would die off literally because they surve no purpose anymore and their practical use would no longer exist. Dropsuits should also have this done, one person controls movement, one person controls aiming and the other person controls firing, if you want tanks to require 2 people to drive, then dropsuits should require 3 people to use as well. Don't be silly. Gyro, it is the only argument they can come up with, at least that doesn't include faeries and magical HAV bunnies. keep telling yourself that bub, I'm coming back into tanking when I log back into the game, so watch out. I still have all of my experience of tanking before 1.7 hit so my awareness and reaction times have not been lost. To separate the seats would cause a very bad outrage and cause tanks to disappear because the lack of an incentive to use them anymore. everything in this game is made to be used fully by a single player, with their respective roles and differences of course. I'm actually advocating now that AV be returned to pre 1.7 effectiveness so that the scrubs can be eliminated and those of us veteran tankers can stand out away from that crowd. that was it will take skill to be a tanker again. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Clone D 379	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:12:00 - [144] - 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. .
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 509	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:12:00 - [145] - Quote Idiot idea since it would basically require players who wanna use tanks to also buy headsets to coordinate the driver with the gunner and vice versa. Creating a game mechanic that pretty much negates a particular playstyle unless the player buys third party hardware is a textbook definition of bad business.
Alex-P-Keaton Kramer Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 147	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:15:00 - [146] - Quote the mtac's should be like megazord's from mighty morphin power rangers that take five people to operate, one for each leg, one for each arm, then a fifth person who im not sure what they do EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM9liWZMfPk i like to go to craigslist and look at the personal ad's transexuals put up
Void Echo Total Extinction 2483	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:17:00 - [147] - Quote Clone D wrote: 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. that makes no sense whatsoever for it to be implemented in the first place. for ADS you have a gun to use, it isn't a large turret because one wont fit. LAVs aren't made for attack purposes, they were made for transportation purposes which is why they only have a single small turret and nothing else. Tanks were made to fight and anyone in them wants to fight. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1266	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:32:00 - [148] - Quote Clone D wrote: --- snip of non-tanker QQ and the whining chorus of LAV drivers --- We just got rid of you useless Blue Berries. No sense in putting more dead weight back in. WoT has a crew, virtual BTW just computer bits. That is all we need. Too many Blues stealing tanks because CCP/Shanghai won't implement a squad lock or the EVE based you cannot drive what you are not skilled in to. Now they waste ammo, overheat guns and have no concept of not giving away your position. Blue berries are 99.999% useless, so look in the mirror and realize we do not want You in our tank. I have asked for a switch to kill all the Blues in my tank. Then I can recall it and swap it out. There is no other way to keep random Blues from losing the tanker his ride. The reason the LAV has a separate gunner is because the LAV needs to haul three people. Now imagine CCP/Shanghai's control schemes being used to control the wildly flipping gyrating LAV, aiming the weapon and firing at the same time. That would never happen. What would work would be to slow the LAV down to 1/3 the speed of a HAV. They are only 1/4 the size of the tank, that should work and the driver could aim the weapon. Or use his own FG like they have been doing since Dust began. Why don't you share what you like to use for weapons, suit and vehicles? Then 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. And so it goes.
Clone D 379	Posted - 2014.04.30 18:42:00 - [149] - 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? .
BDiD HEAVY LOGISTIC OPERATIONS 0	Posted - 2014.05.01 02:36:00 - [150] - Quote I have proto av, except swarms. Know why.... There broken. Since i can remember. Only true av is jihad jeeps. Sad but true.



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.