|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2329
   |
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
If they're a "sidegrade" rather than an "upgrade" why not give us racial parity among vehicles instead?
Dust514/Legion should be a(n):
[_] Arcade Lobby Shooter
[X] Sci-fi Military Sim
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2339
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2339
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 18:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You are aware that you can dance between shots of a large blaster, right?
It's doable in a sentinel. 1. Thats because the L Blaster has dispersion and that it is down to luck if your shots actually hit, accuracy is longer a factor when using blasters its the same weakness for tank as panzerfaust trooper were for tanks in WW2. give rail turrets and the forge gun dispersion as well and they wont be able to snipe infantry at long range but still be able to hit vehicles. small blasters **** infantry when youre in range. they can jump all they like and it wont save them EDIT: tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops 1. What range is that then for small blasters? 1m? the dispersion is terrible for both turrets and the blasters range is pathetic, how are my gunners supposed to keep AV off me when they can barely hit 100m let alone 150m?
Small Rail Turrets
/argument
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2340
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 19:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion. 1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV 2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else
1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle).
2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created).
Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2341
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 22:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:My only objection to this idea of mandating crews is the fact that the pilot shoulders the entire burden of risk.
The pilot has to pay for the HAV.
The pilot sucks the ISK loss if it explodes.
The secondary reason I say screw that is that direct neural interfaces are a thing in the EVE universe, and Despite what people seem to dream, making a tank work is far simpler than trying to neurally control a Kilometer-long battleship, or five kilometer long supercap.
Even in EVE frigates, which are vastly larger, more powerful and complicated than HAVs require a live crew (besides the capsuleer) of ZERO.
There is no risk/reward or lore justification for forcing HAV pilots to accept that they are going to be at the mercy of whatever blueberry idiot hops in, or that they cannot operate the vehicle they dumped ASSLOADS of SP into without two or three more bodies.
You say it's not a nerf, I say that as long as tanks are personal assets and NOT corporate/battle assets that the pilots do not have to pay for your crew idea should be discarded.
Well, someone needs to pay for the HAV, who does it, IDGAF.
I have always been of the opinion that skills should be disconnected from fitting and connected directly to usage. This way, Corp Directors could purchase and fit Vehicles to be distributed to individual crews of operators.
I've already addressed your secondary reason in my proposal regarding the as-of-yet unreleased Pilot suits. The neural interface that capsuleers have with their ships are facilitated by their pod (which unless I am picturing scales wrong, is roughly the size of a LAV). If we take that connection and boil it down to just the necessaries, I think the pilot suit could be a good representation of "just the necessaries".
I never said that they should be at the mercy of whatever idiot blueberry who hops in, when have I ever opposed the inclusion of Vehicle Locks? The answer is never, in fact, I support it with likes/posts whenever it has been brought up.
I will be the first to admit that the ideas I have about vehicles are vastly different from what we have currently. People resist them because they've grown too accustomed to running around in their STARTER_FITS or Sentinels solo tanking when my ideas would allow them to do the same thing they are used to now with the minor exception of being required to be in a(n as-of-yet- unreleased) Pilot suit.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2342
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol
Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2342
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 02:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:would i be able to operate all three turrets if i wore a pilot suit? if not then we dont need it lol Why not? I mean, they're little more than ether currently. I don't see that as being unreasonable. That one turret on the mantlet could always be made into a coaxial gun so that the Large Turret is designed for anti tank combat and the small can be used for anti infantry but never both at the same time. Kind of like side arms.
Sorta I guess, I pictured it more like swapping seat, though IDK why you couldn't just be third person over the main turret the whole time while cycling through each turret.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2343
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Lazer Fo Cused wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:
EDIT:
tanks cant operate effectively without infantry support. they never have. yet we want them to be solo machines in dust that do everything on their own with zero support. i see heavies die all the time because they didnt have a logi. it should be the same for tanks being overrun by AV troops
Speak for yourself, I still think that they should all be Crew Served unless you're in an (as of yet unreleased) Pilot suit which would allow you to control all aspects of the HAV in a solo fashion. 1. Infantry cant deal with HAV how they are now, i cant see them agreeing to use 3 AV to take down a 3man HAV 2. Crew service brings up too many problems anyways, the only playstyle in which you need another 2ppl to use your 30mil SP and 700k vehicle where as i can solo in my 30mil SP infantry style and not need anyone else 1. Then they deserve to be roflstomped by the rolling abomination that the fully crewed HAV would present (despite what some would say it is NOT a nerf, if anything requiring Crew Service would be a massive buff to the playstyle). 2. You're assuming that one person with 30m SP into HAVs and one person with 30m SP into Infantry are on equal footing on the battlefield and they're not at all. The HAV is a battlefield tool that greatly increases the battlefield potential of the individual piloting it (regardless of how many SP they've devoted to them). Encouraging people to pursue this as a solo endeavor (by making turret slots removable) was a bad idea to begin with though the early tankers cried incessantly and vehicle locks were apparently too complicated. We're all lying in the bed that they made for us (and surprise surprise, they're not here now to deal with the monster they created). Crew Service (and letting go of the misguided notion that HAVs do not exponentially increase an individuals battlefield potential) solves these problems. 1. They used to get rolfstomped by HAV drivers in the past when infantry refused to bring out AV or even skill into it, wasnt the pilots faults but infantrys, CCP answer was to nerf everything into the ground to make it easier for infantry 2. A player with 30mil SP into infantry is alot more versatile than the 30mil pilot 2a. The HAV is not a battlefield tool, its the individuals tool, it is something they skilled into to use, it costs ISK for them to use and because it costs ISK and SP they can fit it how they like it, small turrets are pointless and generally useless now and no one uses them in PC because it means you have to gimp the tank - I have not once seen a 3man HAV in a PC because it is not done and not worth it but as usual back in Chrome days i did use a 3man HAV but infantry cried that i was too powerful as usual so HAV have been nerfed - 16v16 isnt worth it to have 3ppl in 1 vehicle when 1 AV can kill it outright 3. Crew service just means you need 3ppl just so you can use what you skilled into and bought which effectively no longer makes it a viable playstyle at all because its the pilot which need to put all the SP/ISK into something that they cannot use if they are the only one on - Its such a bad idea 4. You dont use vehicles do you?
1. Not my mistake, theirs.
2. This is a red herring, it is not the infantrymans fault that the "pilot" chose to hyper focus on despite knowing the limitations regarding vehicles. What is the saying? Overspecialize and you breed in weakness?
2a. You just want to hang on to the brokenness that are the vehicles we have currently don't you? So it isn't worth requiring more than 1 person for an HAV because 1 non-specified AV can kill it outright but it's ok to demand that it take more than non-specified AV to kill your solo pwnmobile? #loldoublestandardmuch?
3. There you go assuming that Crew Service wouldn't be accompanied by other changes to vehicles in general. In your haste to deride the idea you fail to consider that it might be accompanied by other changes to vehicles in general that would further increase the buff while spreading the cost.
4. Currently? No, I have no SP in vehicles currently. Does this mean that I have never had skill points in Vehicles? No. Does this mean that I never plan to reacquire skill points in Vehicles? Again, no. I have extensive experience with LAVs whether as a troop transport or as a RE delivery system, minor experience with HAV (I've used them a bit though not regularly in a long while) and little to no (very old as well) experience with dropships. I have never paid a terrible amount of attention to vehicles in Dust since we've only got half of them.
As Tefsa said, debating Crew Service is not the point of this topic. I made a statement and allowed myself to be drawn into a debate about it, for that, I apologize though this does not mean that I am swayed in opinion, just that I will refrain from diluting the true purpose of this thread with my opinions on Crew Service.
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2343
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 23:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Hey Alaika you're arguing with a wall.
Neither Laser or Spkr are ever interested in actual debate and discussion on vehicle balance. for them it's the DOMINATING GODS OF THE BATTLEFIELD or it's not being done right. It's kinda entertaining to poke them but ever since they came into the thread nothing useful has come of the discussion.
So I think Rattati should honestly shelf bringing any HAVs in, old or new until people learn to play nice and quit biting the hand offering stuff.
Their elitist attempts to drive out anyone but their definition of "real tankers" (read: the two of them) because they don't want the rest of the playerbase, who will be affected by any buffs to vehicles as well, to be able to weigh in, so they come in and rather busily try to shout everyone down, act toxic and completely derail the thread, which they have succeeded admirably at.
And this is pretty typical behavior.
Fun, huh?
Yeah, loads /sarcasm
TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if Laser was English/Takahiro (I see some of the same cherrypicking techniques in his arguments)....
I think that if I actually organized all of my collected thoughts on vehicle redesign it might be something people would be more interested in (a lot of it is stuff we've been asking for for a while now).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2354
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 15:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic.
Let's take the immobile tank as an example.
Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation.
There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot.
But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required.
I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG.
Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams.
Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls.
I think you're on to something here.
Roll Vehicles back to Chromosome values (tweaked by the things that have been learned since then) as well as rolling back some of the bad ideas that were developed along the way (like removable secondary turrets).
Only other thing that would be a "Must Have" if you ask me is Racial Parity among Turrets/Vehicles (even if they're reskins with individualized bonuses).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
|
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2361
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 14:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
I never said all of them, just the armor values being tied with resistance.
That aside, the game somehow with all that is still fun. having a brawl with other tanks there is solid (althuogh Soviet tanks are OP as ****).
That's just how their armour was. Shoot low to the tracks and to the rear of the vehicle with either the standard German Rounds or the M61 US rounds. Usually gets me an ammo rack, or engine fire.
This game sounds cool, I am downloading it now....
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
2381
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 13:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Auris Lionesse wrote:
marauders... well thats self explanatory.
in eve a marauder is a battleship with a bastion module.
make them a bit slower and give them an immobilizing bastion module that increase defense and allows them to effectively be a larger turret for point defense. set it up on a road, the tank lowers, its armor plates move a little to create full coverage and then its a larger unmoveable turret as long as the modules active.
otherwise they should just be very slow moving high hp.
I pictured this happening and a gunloggi turning into one of the Caldari large turrets from Closed Beta.
Also, I disagree that Bastion Modules are nonviable in Dust, though I do not think they should be looked at until later (get racial parity first, then Enforcers/Marauders included/balanced and then worry about breaking them again with specific modules).
Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks)
^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
|
|
|
| |
|