Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything?

Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers.

Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls.

I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand.

This is why PC stats should've always taken priority.

A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything.

"Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in.

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.

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.

LOL you obviously read the forums much more than you play.

You'd be surprised, Seymor is on for at least 4 hours daily from my experience.

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.

Here is why you are wrong:

Pub players suck.

Solo players play pubs.

There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time)

You could never design a game that is supossed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together.

If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first.

Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer.

CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools.

There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did.

If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them.

A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything.

"Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in.

In a perfect world we would have gates up in roadways with high HP that tanks could knock down to allow infantry through, AI or capsuleer operated drones would be flying around attacking the other team's infantry that the tanks could fight against, and limits would be put on where vehicles could be spawned to prevent tower rail sniping.

Objectives would hold strategic value. Points would not only control Null cannons, but also operate weaponry that auto-fired on troops moving up, requiring a tank to push in on it, using itself as a shield for troops hiding behind it! And other points would control AV weaponry that required infantry to push on it so that vehicles could get close and crash in the gate for them!

Towers would scrape the sky and the capture point would be in the center, allowing you to push from the bottom or fly to the top and fight your way down! Battles on seas of lava set up on huge harvesting rigs where the battlefield breaks apart under you as you fight to gain control of the rig for you alliance's harvesting rights!

Perhaps those of you moving to Legion might see all of that one day...

There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did.

If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them.

((Very good stuff quoted above))

I would add some ideas
- Logistic vehicles with most powerful scans but with very limited arc

- Pre-defined (or maybe user defined) minefields to limit areas of HAV operation

- Predefined anti-infantry minefields onto assault obective which specially fitted HAV could clear for infantry
Example

- AA vehicles if aerial warfare ever gets updated (Legion?)


gonna continue this at later date...

I'm only mirroring the sentiment I perceive of the community. I assure you I assume no entitlement.

Here is why you are wrong:

Pub players suck.

Solo players play pubs.

There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time)

You could never design a game that is supposed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together.

If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first.

Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer.

CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools.

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.

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..

This is why PC stats should've always taken priority.

All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine.

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.

There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did.

If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them.

the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest.

you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation.

What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game?