DUST Search - On vehicles

All Channels

General Discussions

On vehicles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 372	Posted - 2014.12.14 21:19:00 - [31] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Quasar Storm wrote: True Adamance wrote: Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP. That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design. Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP. No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry. I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank. Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well. Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60. The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV. I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi. Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV. Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff. This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs. I do not necessarily feel any buffs besides fitting capacity is required for the standard Madrugar. Otherwise it just comes down to a rebalancing of modules. - 180mm Reinforced Armour Plating - Active Armour Reps - Standardised Armour Hardeners @ 30% - Damage Controls - Heat SInks All of those are essentially armour buffs. But even assuming they returned...... Armour HAV cannot be allowed to retain 1200 Shields and 4000 base armour EHP. That would then make them too powerful as well. Hell even the old values of 3625 are a little much. But 3400 isn't far off for armour values. As to your assertion that Shields would be weak under my model..... no they would not be. They would resist the same amount of damage, they can regenerate the same amount, they can still be fit out well......BUT they cannot have all of these things at once. A Passive Tanked Gunnlogi could have armour 8.5-9.5 K EHP BUT would not have powerful regenerative capacity. Instead they would forsake than for a constant regeneration of between 45-60 per second......whereas an active Tanked Gunnlogi would have prolific Shield Regen based around the use of Boosters and most likely have a constant passive regen of 30-40 per second but access to multiple shield booster modules. The same would be true of Armour HAV. They would have comparatively more eHP on a passive tank but no reps, and on an active tank access to multiple repppers but less static eHP as they must fit 120mm plates. In Vehicle use there have to be checks and balances. We cannot have everything, we must give something up for the power we gain in one area over others. Moreover if Rattati is serious about vehicle rebalances then I can forsee a great value in having these two school of vehicle use. Passive would be better in squadrons backed up by Logi and Actives would be better for solo use and more skilled tankers. I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use. Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15873	Posted - 2014.12.14 21:27:00 - [32] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use. Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great. Considering these values considerably little has to be done. No HAV even exceeding a 5 slot tank under the design ideals can amass more than 11,000 eHP and that is a passive tanked Surya with no capacity to self repair I have already proposed the values for Reinforced 180mm plating at 2146,2448,and 2750 (Basic to Complex @ a rate of 302 extra armour and 2% mobility penalties per tier to a total of 15%) Many of the old values can also remain to same. So only a turret rebalance is really required but even then engaging a Passive Tanked Armour HAV would not be overtly difficult give its heavy armour penalties and inability to repair. It would simply require the correct turret or deployment of your weapon.....which is to avoid to avoid a brawl. CCP cannot implement higher tier tanks under the current model. It simply will not work. The Sagaris will simply be a batter Gunnlogi and nigh unkillable, the Surya will be slightly less crap an Armour Tank but not able to directly engage or deal with a Sagaris. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:00:00 - [33] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: ... tl, dr AV is a deterrent, not the Highlander of the battlefield. We don't want to be Highlander either. I just want to pound on tanks and send their pilots back to the clone vats. Occasionally I'd like to be able to use a good blaster turret to wipe out infantry, because it's fun, and it's great fun when you realize that 6 people took out AV just to get you. Even better when you're just using a rail to destroy installations. I'm not bothering them, but they're bothering me. So that's when a LAV comes out, and that's when infantry comes on here to cry. You don't want us to slay you and send you back to the vats? If you see a rail tank taking out installations, leave it alone. It'll save you ISK. Don't really care what you said, it was probably all flatulence. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:09:00 - [34] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: how can you expect physics to affect infantry but not vehicles. i shouldn't have been surprised to see a 1 sided argument from you your examples are 1) a car hitting a soft unarmored target. if that was a statue made of steel the approx size and weight of a dropsuit that vehicle would be destroyed also. if that vehicle hit a wall it would be destroyed, if that vehicle hit another vehicle it would be destroyed. Yes, a car hitting a soft target will utterly obliterate it. Except, cars in the future weigh a lot more, with a sufficient powerplant to get them moving, so no, that vehicle will not be destroyed hitting a dropsuit. 2) as for the guy getting crushed. well its all all down to ground pressure. dust vehicles don't slowly run over a soft target exerting its whole weight on one spot. its spread out. this is the reason tanks don't just sink into the ground. you can run over someones legs with a tank and not break a single bone. What "ground pressure?" Tanks today weigh around 60 tons. I'm betting a Madrugar weighs something like 150 tons, if not more. They don't travel slow, they travel fast. Yes, they do exert their weight on a spot. They don't sink into the ground because it's a video game. Name me one game where a tank sinks into the ground, and no, a tank going into deep water on Battlefield doesn't count. hit a reinforced object like a wall and that tank is going to take huge damage. i have seen it before in RL a tank hitting a rock and virtually splitting in This literally is not possible. Are you implying that US tanks are designed and built in China? Because that's where I'd expect such useless pieces of scrap iron to be made if you're implying that a mere rock could actually crack a tank hull. 2. i know what you are going to say and that this is not rl and we have shields etc. well so do dropsuits and physics is real. you can't have real physics for 1 thing and make up the rest for yourself. Just because a dropsuit has shields doesn't mean it will be protected from vehicles. Again, see the video from Meet Joe Black. That's what happens to a person hit by moving cars. i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way. We do have physics, except when we go over rocks, our vehicles lose their physics and go crazy for a second or two, before leveling out again. so that means a swarm hitting a flying vehicle will violently shake it, a rail hitting a tank will slow it down and shake it throwing off its aim slightly. vehicles colliding will destroy each other or have them sustain hugh damage Swarms already rock the hell out of dropships, so do forge guns, railguns, missiles and plasma cannons. The tracking computers in tanks 20,000 years in the future will be far better than what we have today, so no, tanks won't get rocked. also why do you feel the need to always blame the infantry. you reap what you sow. you constantly place vehicles above all other playstyles like they are the most important things and i know you will turn this into me being anti vehicle like you always do but i never have been. i'm anti players with your attitude in every role that that thinks they are something special and that every other players views are irrelevant. I blame infantry because you're the reason we're in the bottomless pit we are today. Of course I place vehicles over all else, because that's what I want to do. Drive around in my tank, and crush other tanks. Who the hell are you to decide how I can do that, how fast I can do it, how far I can do it, and how much damage I'm allowed to deal to do it? Where's the rest of the "vehicles must die to my AR" cheerleader squad? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:11:00 - [35] - Quote Hakyou Brutor wrote: Can I get a tl;dr? There isn't one. It's a vehicle thread, and CCP and the CPM are asking for input. What I wrote is a lot of input. I'm not writing only 1000 characters and leave it at that. I've been doing this for too long to write so little about the path I want to take in Dust. I don't want to do infantry, I want to do vehicles, and there's no damn good reason why my voice should be silenced. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:13:00 - [36] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Hakyou Brutor wrote: Can I get a tl;dr? It's speaker dude, you can pretty much assume any posts by him on the matter of tanks is along the lines of, "Buff tanks, nerf infantry, I want to survive longer and kill faster. You don't deserve to kill me, it should take a coordinated effort." When CCP was nerfing the TAR rifles and Cal logi, everybody screamed that that was the end of Dust. There's still thousands of people playing every day, and a lot of the same people from that time. They're still here through the flaylock and fused locus grenade nerfs, too. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:22:00 - [37] - Quote Zepod wrote: 1. FGs Destroy Vehicles in 1 Hit; Sends DSs Into Orbit. No, forge guns are not powered by a capacitor, because vehicles don't have one. Forge guns are jury rigged mining tools; railguns destroy starships. 2. Firing 20GJ & 80GJ Turrets Kills The Pilot Then why don't forge guns kill the user? Actually, Pilots are supposed to be a deterrent. No, because that would make vehicles completely and utterly useless, every single person that plays Dust that has SP into vehicles would get another respec and completely drop vehicles, or they would biomass their characters and play other games. Why would CCP completely alienate part of their community? We're already hanging on by a thread as it is, they don't want to cut us loose completely. This isn't Call of Duty 514 or Infantry-only 514. It's Dust 514, and if watch any of the old videos, vehicles had a huge presence in them. Go to Call of Duty if you want to ruin a game for someone, stop ruining this for pilots. Unless you're fighting a Sica with Base HP, that's not happening. Dispite you and ES's claims, this has been proven several times by multiple people. Then again you're both terrible tankers so I wouldn't be surprised if a MLT Swarm Launcher 1HK'd you. Armor tanks with base HP, and it could probably be done to shield tanks with base HP as well. And who are you calling a terrible tanker? Have you seen me in a tank? Have you been in a tank? Do you have any idea how hard it is to use a tank now? Have you lost 1.2mil ISK in a single death? Have you had more than half your SP into vehicles? No? Then stop talking about something you have no idea about. And no, swarms can't OHK anything in the game. -10/10 Surely someone who's calming to know the actions of a community as a whole would have evidence to back it up, right? Not everybody has a workhorse computer with a capture card. No, I don't have video of me playing. And if you say you want to see video of me, how about you buy me a capture card for Christmas? And no some cheap POS either, I want something in my PCI slot that is better than average, but doesn't use too much power. I run AMD, so there's enough heat. Here's a new member for the He-man Vehicle Haters Club. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:27:00 - [38] - Quote How about some comments on the meat of my posts, instead of nitpicking the other things I wrote? I notice those decrying this post didn't comment on any of that. Probably because they don't have any argument against ADV tanks having more slots, and vehicles as a whole having useful passive bonuses. No argument about the core skills, either. You took my general thoughts and ran with those, instead of commenting on the more important things. But that doesn't surprise me, because you cry "it shot me, nerf it" on here and get what you want. Petulant little children. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Vitharr Foebane Terminal Courtesy Proficiency V. 2097	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:45:00 - [39] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: But that doesn't surprise me, because you cry "it shot me, nerf it" on here and get what you want. Petulant little children. isnt that what you're doing now? as far as V/AV goes it is impossible to discuss until we have anti shield AV Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando V, Logistics IV I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:54:00 - [40] - Quote Vitharr Foebane wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: But that doesn't surprise me, because you cry "it shot me, nerf it" on here and get what you want. Petulant little children. isnt that what you're doing now? as far as V/AV goes it is impossible to discuss until we have anti shield AV That's up to CCP, not me to speculate on. Make a thread appealing to Rattati about that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1554	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:03:00 - [41] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I laughed at it. He won't get a like because he keeps trying to force some old meme into relevancy. It was also the only thing in this thread that I have enough time in the ******* day to read. I've fought you, you're alright. You're no Duna. Pride of Amarria. I am a hero to the Amarrinese.
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:06:00 - [42] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I have an alt that is dedicated to vehicles that i have not bothered with since they gutted vehicles into what we have today. I can't express enough how pitifully basic and stupid i find vehicle play now and it quite literally disgusts me. Any nub can be good in vehicles now, it's a no brainer joke to play. It literally disgusts me. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:12:00 - [43] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I laughed at it. He won't get a like because he keeps trying to force some old meme into relevancy. It was also the only thing in this thread that I have enough time in the ******* day to read. I've fought you, you're alright. You're no Duna. Actually no, i just enjoy k den, it is good for you. You may as well have called him a scrub as he is not as good as another scrub...... If you think duna is that good then you must also be a scrub as he wasn't that good when tanks required skill but he is very good now that any scrub can do well in them. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:18:00 - [44] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I laughed at it. He won't get a like because he keeps trying to force some old meme into relevancy. It was also the only thing in this thread that I have enough time in the ******* day to read. I've fought you, you're alright. You're no Duna. Duna, you mean the same guy that only uses a blaster tank, and when he does lose it, jumps out in a scout suit and cloaks away to save his KDR? I go down with my ship. Duna is a nonfactor. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:22:00 - [45] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: RemingtonBeaver wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I laughed at it. He won't get a like because he keeps trying to force some old meme into relevancy. It was also the only thing in this thread that I have enough time in the ******* day to read. I've fought you, you're alright. You're no Duna. Duna, you mean the same guy that only uses a blaster tank, and when he does lose it, jumps out in a scout suit and cloaks away to save his KDR? I go down with my ship. Duna is a nonfactor. Any decent tanker used to find joy in bullying duna and his bumchum blacl heart. Now they are legends........ K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1556	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:30:00 - [46] - Quote It was a joke. I put the little devil face there, I thought..... places head on keyboard hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyhyybggg Pride of Amarria.* Wheeee!
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 442	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:31:00 - [47] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: It was a joke. I put the little devil face there, I thought..... *places head on keyboard hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyhyybggg Pics or it didn't happen. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 128	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:33:00 - [48] - Quote Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?" Don't get me wrong, I love tanks...but as they are now, they're pulling double duty. Until we get some sort of Infantry Fighting Vehicle for the tanks to blow up, tanks will largely only be relevant to other tanks (assuming that they actually make the tank turrets you know, designed as tank turrets)... I think we need to introduce the MAV, or at the very least, a variation of the current HAV hulls designed to be close infantry support...something with extremely high EHP and Regen that provides bonuses to infantry around it, and functions as a re-supply beacon and transport for them (see this thread)... And yes Adamance, I believe we all know about the fitting disparity between Armor and Shield Tanks, although I disagree with the statement that no vehicle should have both High EHP and High Regen, since there is a third factor to base measures off of: Firepower...I'm fine with a vehicle having high amounts of all around general tanky-nes so long as they sacrifice their firepower to achieve that end (see passive regen based brick fit drakes in space...I know they're not really a viable PvP fitting, but they're a cheaper representation of what I'm talking about (not to mention they actually sacrifice their firepower compared to something like a passive Tengu)) Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (by definition of tank)...but they we currently need a reason for them to exist other than to kill each-other Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15901	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:47:00 - [49] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?" No that's very much the opposite. It's more that we completely at this time lack any semblance of role. "The issue is that when tanks do help infantry, the other infantry whine that HAV are OP, and the friendlies whine that the HAV stole their kills..... When we want to drop other vehicles AV whine that their role is not THE most effective means of dealing with vehicles, and other vehicles complain that we ARE the best means of destroying other vehicles....." What do tanks do when there is this double standard? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:50:00 - [50] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?" Don't get me wrong, I love tanks...but as they are now, they're pulling double duty. Until we get some sort of Infantry Fighting Vehicle for the tanks to blow up, tanks will largely only be relevant to other tanks (assuming that they actually make the tank turrets you know, designed as tank turrets)... I think we need to introduce the MAV, or at the very least, a variation of the current HAV hulls designed to be close infantry support...something with extremely high EHP and Regen that provides bonuses to infantry around it, and functions as a re-supply beacon and transport for them (see this thread)... And yes Adamance, I believe we all know about the fitting disparity between Armor and Shield Tanks, although I disagree with the statement that no vehicle should have both High EHP and High Regen, since there is a third factor to base measures off of: Firepower...I'm fine with a vehicle having high amounts of all around general tanky-nes so long as they sacrifice their firepower to achieve that end (see passive regen based brick fit drakes in space...I know they're not really a viable PvP fitting, but they're a cheaper representation of what I'm talking about (not to mention they actually sacrifice their firepower compared to something like a passive Tengu)) Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (by definition of tank)...but they we currently need a reason for them to exist other than to kill each-other I love making other tanks burn. They should also have an anti-infantry role. But then it turns into a tank v tank battle anyway. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Jack 3enimble Titans of Phoenix 614	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:56:00 - [51] - Quote ... No Dealing justice with a swift punch in the balls, now in battles near you! Lord of the Links
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 07:27:00 - [52] - Quote Jack 3enimble wrote: ... No Call of Duty >>>>>>>>>>> I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15903	Posted - 2014.12.15 07:31:00 - [53] - Quote Jack 3enimble wrote: ... No In B4 World of Tanks <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, I currently play War Thunder Ground Forces which is arguably a more realistic simulator for tank combat and depicts what, in primacy, tanks were designed to do. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 239	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:23:00 - [54] - Quote True Adamance wrote: A triple rep tank is not following Gallentean lore. It was an exploit developed by players and masked as legitimate gameplay. No Gallentean ship will ever use triple reps. Maybe 2 at best. One Ancillary and one standard. 1. An exploit is being able to shot someone with a shotgun while still cloaked or placing an RE somewhere and killing the entire team - Fitting 3 reps is not an exploit if it can be done 2. In DUST Gallentean lore is reps, it is for suits hence why they have better passive reps to begin with and it would be the same for Gallente vehicles until we get drone and it would be pointless if it was the same as Amarr ie favouring brick tank

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 13648	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:38:00 - [55] - Quote I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 443	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:42:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. Please bring back all the vehicle modules and the logi vehicles. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 239	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:51:00 - [57] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. 1. The way i do see things it could go like this, Logi LAV/DS and also MAV and APCs which transport and support infantry become annoying to infantry thus you need a HAV to destroy them or put them off from annoying the point and then to clear the other HAV you need either another HAV or an Marauder/Enforcer HAV to clear the other HAV so escalation goes all the way to the top but also the lower tiered vehicles have some use in the match 2. With your idea the Marauder would be the infantry killer but also would require 2 other players in that HAV unless the large turret can kill infantry? Problem is Small turrets have a small range and generally cannot reach 200m out let alone 300m which is max range of a FG. which then also brings in the question of Tank Destroyer HAVs and also AV ie 3 AV to kill a 3manned HAV? 3. Will the TD HAV be specalized also?
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 621	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:14:00 - [58] - Quote Please stop saying AV is supposed to be a deterrent, because its not. It is designed to blow your tank sky high. Swarms can't hurt infantry, why should it only be able to scare you off until you have recovered and not kill you? Tanks do need to be made better, especially armour tanks. Also if you want to have sufficient AI capability fit small turrets, because if you want a main gun that wrecks both vehicles and infantry, you're being a douche. You wouldn't like it if an AR did full damage to your tank.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6323	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:22:00 - [59] - Quote ...So My peace is over.... Amarr Logi, Scout, Assault , Sentinel and soon Commando. Check MY loyalty Empress o7
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 619	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:27:00 - [60] - Quote We need gameplay modes like Skirmish 1.0 to restore the vehicle role. As long as vehicle users can't simply snipe the objectives, there will be a a strong element of mobile siege/transportation gameplay for vehicles, and close quarters assault/defense for infantry. Driving/flying in endless circles has always felt wrong. Conquest, blow up the fortress, destroy a series of ground objectives, or anything like Skirmish 1.0 is essential for any modern FPS. We spend entirely too much time in redlined battles waiting for timers to run out. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG [CEO of Terror]



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Pride of Amarria.

Pride of Amarria.