DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6044	Posted - 2014.12.29 17:44:00 - [601] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. I can't sing enough that this is what I'm hoping for. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4240	Posted - 2014.12.29 19:05:00 - [602] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1417	Posted - 2014.12.29 20:12:00 - [603] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: A necessary reminder, those who are not going to read the proposal and have nothing constructive to say, should not comment in this thread. Thanks. Dude, you haven't replied once on this thread. Guess it shows us how much CCP cares about vehicles- the real bloodline of this game. Wow. This post totally isn't arrogant, self-serving and dismissive of the majority of the playerbase at all. When everyone enters dust, at least they people I know, they all say "OMG dude the vehicles are so cool. The fittings and everything. I wanna fly that thing brooo, that tank looks so epic and strong." only to figure out how sh*tty vehicles are and switch over to infantry forever turning into infantry scrubbery. Not saying i'm not one of those guys because I totally am Infantry scrubbery. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 665	Posted - 2014.12.29 20:39:00 - [604] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Madatory Vehicle crews are not on the table and this thread is supposed to talk the tanks we want to re-introduce, not the personnel requirements to man the thing. Frankly i find some AV fears more conspiratorial than anything. As long as we get the fitting requirements right, i don't think AV needs a major overhaul. I would like to see pokey's updated numbers though. Forgive me for the slow update in that regard. I'm juggling several projects at once such as PC redesign, as well as Holiday family stuff. I will try to get some updates out as soon as I can. You can take it easy man, its not your actual job. From what i can glean, you've got the best compilation of ideas pitched here. Once it gets a bit streamlined hopefully we can put together a new feedback thread. This one has gone slightly off the rails. no pun intended. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2343	Posted - 2014.12.29 21:24:00 - [605] - 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6057	Posted - 2014.12.29 22:20:00 - [606] - Quote 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? EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 665	Posted - 2014.12.29 23:15:00 - [607] - 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? Asking to call off the HAV reintroduction because of two guys you cant get along with, is counterproductive. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2343	Posted - 2014.12.29 23:44:00 - [608] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16344	Posted - 2014.12.30 07:02:00 - [609] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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). Do it. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6068	Posted - 2014.12.30 08:59:00 - [610] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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). While I vehemently disagree with you on crews that doesn't mean that I don't think your other ideas might not have a couple potential gems. Throw em out. You might have something Rattati can use. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 324	Posted - 2014.12.30 13:35:00 - [611] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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). 1. I would reply to your other wall but since your are going to make a thread i will take it apart then 2. Cherrypicking? You mean looking at the flaws and problems of a propsed idea is now cherrypicking? Looks like anyone who disagrees with you is now cherrypicking and also has to be someone else, i think you are getting paranoid
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6069	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:03:00 - [612] - Quote It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 324	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:05:00 - [613] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6071	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:21:00 - [614] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:03:00 - [615] - Quote Come on people, let's throw some more numbers around, make more spreadsheets. If you've got ideas, share them regardless of how you think they'll be reacted to. I think the Marauder class HAV should have transport capacity and be extremely resilient to AV fire practically requiring a couple of dedicated footslogging AVers to take down...the tradeoff would be greatly reduced firepower and lower mobility (Put a Drake on treads). I think that the enforcer's should have the massive firepower necessary to quickly take down a Marauder, but be vulnerable to being peppered down by even small-arms fire, but have higher mobility to make up for it. The Marauder threatens the infantry or breaks through their lines, the Enforcer cleans up the Marauders, the MBTs can fit to perform either/or something in between. Oh, when are we gonna see a return of the BlOps tanks? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 328	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:14:00 - [616] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. 1. I also do what you just described 2. I use lists to get to the point and explain my reasons, i do this for the ADHD people who fall asleep or get distracted by a button when reading walls of texts
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6080	Posted - 2014.12.30 18:18:00 - [617] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: It's cherrypicking when you pick out only things you don't like and ignore every other relevant thing in a post. So yes, you cherry pick. There's enough examples on the forums that anyone not utterly monofocused on one party line could spot. 1. So again pointing out flaws and problems is cherrypicking? you do know then you also cherrypick if we follow your definition of cherrypicking difference is I'm capable of acknowledging valid points and ideas not in absolute lockstep with my own. And I explain with reasons why I disagree, not with truncated, childish lists bereft of context. 1. I also do what you just described 2. I use lists to get to the point and explain my reasons, i do this for the ADHD people who fall asleep or get distracted by a button when reading walls of texts If a person't too ADHD to read a paragraph, then he's too ADHD to provide a coherent and useful opinion actionable in the game. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2014.12.30 20:00:00 - [618] - Quote Blub click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2921	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:44:00 - [619] - Quote Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6088	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:53:00 - [620] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD best proposal yet. I think we have a winner. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:59:00 - [621] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD Needz moar Dakka, but oderwize Rait Propah 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 16351	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:06:00 - [622] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Gentlemen, a moment of your time. I believe I have found the answer to our conundrums... Tank (Fast - Light) - 1 Shoota' (1 occupant) - Some armour BIG Tank (Regular - Medium) - 2 Shoota's (2 occupants) - More armour SUPA MAMMOTH TANK (Slow - Heavy) - 1 SUPA Shoota (3 Occupants) - 2 Shoota's - MEGA ARRMUR - MEGA SHEULD Needz moar Dakka, but oderwize Rait Propah You gitz iz bein' stupid! We need moar flashzez! Moar shoota's, and moar dakka! We need STOMPAz! - Deth Kannon - Supa Rokkit - 5 Big Shoota's - Crusha Ball - an a Red Paint Job cuz the Red unz go fasta! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:50:00 - [623] - Quote Moar 40k references? MLT HAV - Predator STD HAV - Leman Russ Tank Marauder - Land Raider G Enforcer - Immolator C Enforcer - Ravager? Hammerhead? 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 16357	Posted - 2014.12.31 11:40:00 - [624] - Quote Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6107	Posted - 2014.12.31 12:12:00 - [625] - Quote problem is whenever someone suggests making enforcers light HP, big gun, people start absolutely sh*tting kittens saying they'll be useless and wanting them to be able to take lots of hits. I don't think people are on the same sheet of music when you say "Glass cannon." But on the other hand, I don't forsee anyone making the easy to annihilate hulls cheap, which is the POINT of glas cannon stuff economically. Lots of cheap tanks with big guns usually trumps a few heavy tanks with good armor. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 335	Posted - 2014.12.31 14:17:00 - [626] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6113	Posted - 2014.12.31 15:48:00 - [627] - Quote Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2652	Posted - 2014.12.31 18:45:00 - [628] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6122	Posted - 2014.12.31 19:29:00 - [629] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. Just because you hate fun doesn't mean everyone else does. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2014.12.31 23:15:00 - [630] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: True Adamance wrote: Again want to point out if Rattati cares where he can take inspiration from in terms of tank design. The WW2 American Tank line up is brilliant. M4 Sherman Medium Tank (Standard Hull) is the perfect example of the Madrugar in many respects. It's got thick armour, a competitive main gun, and fair mobility capabilities in terms of weight to power ratios. The M41 Walker Bulldog (Enforcer) is a thinly armoured tank with a big gun that uses sabot ammunition. Was one of the fastest tanks the Americans developed during the time but only had a maximum armour thickness of something like 32mm at its strongest point. The M106 Heavy Tank (Marauder) was an armoured behemoth and carried on of the largest cannons of the era while having an effective armour thickness on its glacis plate of almost 300mm being impenetrable to most smaller calibre weapons at longer ranges. 1. WOT/WW2 does not work in DUST - These tanks were created this way because of the era at that time - Penetation values of the ammo for example to thicker armor on the front turret means that the tank was going to be used hull down and bounce rounds of it 2. DUST is shield and armor - But you cannot bounce rounds, you cannot angle your tank so your treads get hit but you take no damage, you cant go hull down and let the turret bounce a few - damage is damage in this game, what it does it what it delivers 3. Glass cannons - TD or light tanks, TD massive frontal armor sloped to bounce rounds, light tanks fast and hard to hit - DUST glass is glass, you cannot bounce rounds only absorb damage, less HP = dead 4. WOT to DUST - Only way is to use skills/skill bonuses - For the enforcer to be like the TD because its a tank it needs to have more damage for its main turret to act like a TD, maybe have longer range too, also for it to be like a TD the turret doesnt move or it does very slowly in comparision to a normal tank and that it has more resistance at the front, weaker at the sides and at the back weaker still but between the TD there are variations such as the Hellcat 60kph or the Jpanther with strong frontal armor sloped or the AT7 with 200mm frontal armor not sloped but thick enough to stop most things My only points of contention are numbers 1 and 3... 1. Why wouldn't WW2 examples work for the time/place of DUST 514 (at least as abstractions to give us a general idea of how the different HAV hulls should operate) 3. Why not give Enforcers massive resitances to the front? they can give a decreased resistance (or negative value) to a weak point on the back, why not strengthen the front? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!