Ghost Kaisar
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
8843
   |
Posted - 2014.12.15 16:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.
Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)
To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.
In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.
It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.
This is what I want.
Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman.
Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe.
Nobody messes with my family
|
Ghost Kaisar
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
9038
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 01:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Ghost Kaisar wrote:My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.
Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)
To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.
In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.
It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.
This is what I want. Do want to point out Ghost that in BF 3 and 4 Tanks did/do have coaxial machine guns on their turrets for anti infantry work, and any direct hit with the shell was always a OHKO. I've played a lot of BF in my hiatus from Dust and honestly I find even as the main pilot I have significantly more anti infantry and destructive power both vs vehicles and structures.
Comparing Dust Vehicles with BF vehicles is a terrible conversation to have. Mainly because BF has a FAR better vehicle/infantry balance, and they actually have a role. Armor is fantastic at suppressing targets by destroying cover and letting the top mounted gunners sweep the field with HMG fire. In BF, Armor and Infantry SYNERGIZE with each other to form a very deadly fighting force.
Onto Dust though: What role should heavy armor have? The first role, of course, is ANTI-ARMOR. These things are made to ruin every other vehicles day. Their SECONDARY role is anti-infantry. They SUPPORT infantry advance, they don't spearhead it. And they shouldn't.
Onto Turrets: I'm fine with Large Rails instapopping infantry. I'm not saying we should remove that aspect. Anyone who lands a direct shell kill in BF DESERVES the kill, same in here.
What I'm mainly talking about here is the Large Blaster and Large Missile. Large Blaster needs bigger, more powerful blasts with slower ROF. Like a 12 round clip or something with large, slow moving rounds that HURT. They receive minor splash damage but they get their old accuracy back. Since its a large, slower moving round, it will be possible to hit infantry, but it shouldn't be a shooting gallery.
Yes, we have coaxial turrets. Personally, thats a terrible decision on the tankers part. You already have one on your tank, just put someone in there to gun it. You'd be better off running some guided shells or staff shells.
However, if Dust players want a co-axial Blaster or Rail, I say let them have it. Make a module slot that activates and lets all turrets track on one target. Would be interesting, to say the least. Hell, make it a trademark for the enforcer or something.
Anywho, about Large Missiles. I've always loved these things. Personally, I think they need a larger clip, less damage, and more splash. They should be good at assaulting entrenched positions by sustained missile barrages from a distance. Now, you aren't going to be killing them (If they're smart enough to move out of the dead zone), but you can support infantry via suppression. It is the best form of offense against armor tanks due to the large sustain damage from a distance. They can just keep throwing missiles down range and pummel through even the tankiest tank through sheer damage in the clip.
In my mind, the blaster should be the DPS king, Rail is the burst king, and Missile is the sustain king. All of them are primarily anti-vehicle weapons, but have limited Anti-infantry capabilities.
To round out vehicles, I would also want to include a form of MAV that specializes in anti-infantry operations (Much like the IFV from BF), which would in turn be weak to armor.
So, you could have an armor fighting force if you wanted to, but it would require multiple vehicles with roles that overlap. IFV for infantry, and HAV's for armor. IFV would probably feature a Mobile CRU, throw in a Logi LAV and BAM you have some sick Vehicle action on the battlefield.
But that's probably asking for too much out of dust... 
Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman.
Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe.
Nobody messes with my family
|