tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you.

right?

nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom...

it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them.

let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust.


tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours?

LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives.

what do you do, tankers?

tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you.

Entitled little shitass, arn't you?

The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze.

GEKs were the red headed child of Dust

Logibros doing anything but support and gaining WPs were the red headed step child of Dust

Rail Rifles were the red headed step child of Dust.

What should we do with tankers? The same thing we do about infantry and any other opposition-destroy them.

The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze.

yes its true... there are quite a few gingers in the dust family....is there anything we can all agree on in dust that we should keep as is?

what do you do, tankers?

tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you.

Tankers provide infantry suppression, on-board spawning systems, and Anti-Aircraft capabilities.There are also builds that increase the Anti-Infantry efficiency of your team as well. In the right hands, they're basically makeshift APCs.

Why should they stay? Well that's an interesting question. Would could also ask why DUST isn't better without the conventional rifles, Sentinels, and nearly every item in the game.

The removal of HAVs would cause a negative impact on the AV Community, as we'd only have LAVs and DSs to fight. While this may seem beneficial to Infantry who aren't AV, it would essentially make the time and loads of SP spent into maxing out your AV skill and build worthless.

That's like having a Logistics unit, but removing Sentinels and Basic Heavy Frames. What are they supposed to do know?

Last I checked, tanks made people who rely on their suit stats, instead of skill, upset.
In other words, groups of players who attempt to protostomp by value of their gear alone were greatly deterred by tanks... but that was before the blaster was changed so it cannot hit a strafing STD heavy at 30 M out.

Only people who dislike tanks are those who cannot play the field.
Tanks have several HUGE giveaway notations, including, being visible from the map, changing the lighting in an area, and making a lot of noise that also indicates direction.

You can simply ignore tanks 90% of the time as infantry, unless it happens to be blocking your particular doorway. There is more than enough cover to do so on almost any map.

HAVs are just seriously missing a role.

[...]
TL;DR

Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment.

What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve.

Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more..

HAVs are just seriously missing a role.

I actually liked your post... you and true adamance are right.... wonder why ccp didn't give them a role?

Lets be honest here....HAV have no dedicated role..... in fact quite frankly they don't have a lot of anything to them right now.

Since the CCP Wolfman HAV "fixes" tanks have had no specific role on the ground, not customisation, no reason to exist other than to make the lives of infantry miserable.

As they are.....well Seymour you are right. We don't need tanks like this.

Vehicles that have their power curve based on the hull of the vehicle and not the players supporting skills, and or their skills as a player.

What HAV could be is what we should be considering.

I have always found that in Dust, as they were tanks provided a tactical objective/diversion for the enemy players. When an HAV was present on a map it was a threat, and one that forced players to look outside of their own small infantry run and gun sphere and at the wider battlefield. It forces players to consider the location, capabilities of the pilot, their own squads position, and our course their load out dictating a change to heavier weapons.

Also more importantly HAV and all vehicles really escalate the engagement.

While HAV do a reasonable job of achieving these battlefield changes it is their lack of a true role that caused them to receive so much hatred. They are durable, fast, and have heavy fire power all in one package, with powerful statistics as a basis and able to be improved a few skills that really sell for less SP than they deserve.

As I said before its what HAV could be that we should be considering.

HAV should be a choice, a highly SP invested unit and high ISK cost unit which provides and unparalleled platform for Anti Vehicle firepower over large ranges while being impervious to small arms.....but of course weak to hand held AV fire and installations.

Additionally HAV should have their generalist hulls broken down into more specific roles, increasing the number of hulls per race and also diversifying and specialising the roles an HAV can achieve in the field. Pre- 1.7 a tanker could specifically fit out a tank to fulfil any battlefield role.

Pre 1.7 I was fitting our Heavy Armour Combat Madrugars with massive HP values and active resistances, I also had fast moving light scouting tanks with low HP a scanner and a heat sink.

TL;DR

Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment.

What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve.

Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more..

Implying that this behavior is found only in PS3 titles.