DUST Search - [WARNING] Radical ideas about vehicles inbound

Void Echo wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Lynn Beck wrote:

Void Echo wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit.

this

HAV (Pilot/Main Gunner/Secondary Gunner): 3/1/2

I will never agree to that though, it completely kills the reason to skill into tanks at the primal level.

Thats the timer bit, so you're saying the only reason tanks exist Atm is for people to jump out of them instantly and kill them with a YesRifle?

The crews bit is about how Driver/Gunner should be separated from each other, and only Driver can activate reps/move.

And that's the only bit of contention I have. I think its fine to have a timer between embarking and disembarking. I've even suggested that myself a couple of times where using the pilot suit provides the additionally benefit of interfacing with vehicle systems faster and allowing for faster embark, disembark, and recall times.

However the issue here with crews is on of necessity and the simple question is "Is it truly necessary" to separate Operator and Gunner roles. Certainly one could argue that it is more realistic from a certain operational stand point and in many respects I am a real stickler of authenticity and realism however the counter argument I would make is simply.

"How enjoyable and practical is it for one player to field a 500,000 ISK vehicle and have to rely on another player for basic functionality?"

Honestly not very. I could easily walk right out of this game is something like this were implemented, not because it is necessarily a bad idea but because its not necessary.

Almost every other game out there now or that has been out in the last ten or so years has managed to consolidate in a fair and balanced manner the role of vehicle operator and primary gunner usually allowing for the additional seat of secondary gunner on most battle tanks.

Battlefield Series, Starwar Battlefront Series, Planetside Series, Warhawk Series, heck even War Thunder Ground Forces essentially a Tank Simulator that is more realistic that World of Tanks consolidates these roles for that full functionality is the hands of the vehicles primary operator.

However in almost every one of those games the Tank is typically loaded out for an anti vehicle/installation role.

In Dust we have yet to establish that role. Perhaps in Dust tanks simply will not do that (to the detriment of the class/role as a whole) and will instead function in an anti infantry role.... who knows right now with Rattati not offering insights into his own threads.

Regarding the specific locations on a tank I have a few ideas of justifications for the race specific weak points and where they should theoretically be.

Madrugar

- Weakness on either side or rear of the HAV Gun mantlet (assuming the mantlet is properly attributed to the HAV)
- Weakness between the segmented tracked sections against angular armour
- Weakness at the rear radiator where armour is weak and fragmentation that damages the critical systems occurs

Gunnlogi

- Weakness against the thin lower plate that protects the tracks on the segmented sections.
- Weakness against hits to the gun barrel/ forward mantlet
- Weakness to the rear shield generator and radiator where projected shielding is thinnest.

Of course these could be adjusted. A lot of tanks actually have incredibly thick forward plating on the glacis plate which makes them damn near impossible with conventional weapons to penetrate while other lighter vehicles are much more susceptible to damage to critical sections like that and are awkwardly designed to survive hits to regularly targeted areas.

What he said...

Also, I thought he was agreeing eith the timers. I really dont care if timers get installed or not, but if you separate the seats, then the hav class becomes instantly extinct.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2347	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:54:00 - [1] - Quote The Whole Package Ok, so I know that CCP Frame made a thread just to say "Please do not make list of feedback and suggestions" and I also know that this thread is going to do exactly that however, IMHO, all of these come together to create "The Whole Package" and while some of them might work individually, they will all work best together. Animations (Entry/Exit) We've all seen the HMG Sentinel poofing out of his LAV mowing us/someone else down with his HMG only to poof back into his LAV and zoom off before receiving his comeuppance. There is also those who bail on their burning HAV just at the very last second to spare their precious, precious KDR. We also all know that entry/exit animations would change both of these practices. Each seat in each vehicle should have a seperate timer for how long it takes to enter/exit that particular seat. Each frame size should modify this timer (light frames should be able to get into/out of seats more quickly than heavy frames). For example: Dropship (Pilot/Gunner/Passenger): 3/.5/1(2 if side doors are closed) HAV (Pilot/Main Gunner/Secondary Gunner): 3/1/2 LAV (Driver/Gunner/Passenger): 2/1/1 The quoted times are for Light Frames, Medium frames take twice quoted and Heavy frames thrice. Players are unable to do anything aside from enter/exit once initiating the animation. They are still vulnerable to damage for as long as they are exposed to outside the vehicle. Each seat within the vehicle would have an internal swap time of 2 seconds. All of these numbers are simply for example Capacitor I never understood why we didn't get these from the start. We've got Infantry capacitors (stamina) but no Vehicle capacitors, which makes no sense to me at all. I recommend starting by copy/pasting the Stamina code to vehicles and giving all active modules a stamina cost (not my idea originally, I forget whose it was but I like it and agree). This idea immediately gives a method by which to balance "OP" vehicle mods by causing them to consume Cap. If we had vehicle capacitors to balance them with, IMHO some of the old "OMFG lolOP Vehicle Mods" could come back or be rolled back to previous OPness. It also paves the way for the eventual inclusion of Neut/Vamp mods/tactics. Crew Service Contrary to popular belief, Dust already has a Crew Service requirement, though only for LAVs. IMHO, consistency should be brought to the Crew Service in Dust, either require it for all or for none, no more of this cherrypicking bullshit. Each vehicle should have a single seat for the Driver, a single seat for each Gunner (Main/Secondaries) and (optionally) seats available for Passengers. All vehicles fitted with turrets (combat or logistical) should require minimum 2 players if they want to be able to move and rep/shoot at the same time (barring Pilot suits). This is the case for LAVs currently (as it has always been) and it should be the case for DS/HAVs as well. Damage Zones This is also something that we've already got to some extent (weakspot), though IMHO, it could be taken further. Every vehicle should have their own set of "weakspot targets" such as engine compartment, individual turrets and propulsion method. Each of these would be target-able separately from the overall hull eHP (though only with precision AV not fire and forget AV). Damaging different zones would have different effects on the vehicle, KO the engine compartment? There goes the capacitor. Break the tracks? That HAV isn't going anywhere until it is fully repped. Sick of being omgwtfpwned by the blasters? hammer the **** out of them until they're useless. Each zone would also be associated with a particular threshold of damage on the hull's overall eHP, less than 50% of your armor left? There goes your turrets since they're mangled. Less than 25% armor? There goes movement since your tracks are blown. Less than 10% armor? Prepare for total systems shutdown since your engine compartment has been breached and is leaking capacitor acid all over the ground below you. Passenger Combatants This is pretty much self-explanitory though to avoid confusion I will explain what I mean. If there are passengers in your vehicle (who aren't manning a turret or sitting in the pilot seat) and they have a clear view outside of the vehicle (sitting shotgun in a LAV, DS passengers), they should have the ability to fire at will on enemies that they might spot whether they are in another vehicle or foot mobiles. I want to say that all handheld weapons and grenades are fair game, though grenades might be pushing it. 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. 2347	Posted - 2014.12.30 23:54:00 - [2] - Quote Pilot Suits I've read Pokeys google Doc and I agree with much of what he has for Pilot suits though I do disagree with some of it. Personally, I think that they should have even less eHP than a Scout suit since in my view of them, they are directly connected to the Vehicles themselves. They would have the following fitting specs if it were up to me, 1 high, 1 Vehicle slot (in place of Light Weapon), 1 sidearm (just in case), 1 low (ADV gets +1 h/l, PRO gets another +1h/l) similar CPU/PG to Scouts. You wouldn't spawn into a battle in a Pilot suit and then call in your Vehicle, spawning in a pilot suit fit would cause you to be delivered to the battlefield by a bolas back at the blue foot spawn in the vehicle that was directly associated with that fit (either that or there could be a "motor pool" area back at the blue foot spawn where you'd spawn already inside your vehicles pilot seat). Pilot suits should not be entirely necessary to operate a vehicle, it should still be possible to do so without one though not in a solo fashion (see section on Crew Service). Pilot suits would allow players to share the same neural interface with DS/HAV as Eve Capsuleers share with their ships (LAVs are little more than jeeps useful for combat troop transport and are frankly beneath Pilots IMHO). Pilot suits would facilitate all of the current functionality that vehicle operators currently enjoy with the addition of the buffs from Pilot suit bonuses. Without a pilot suit, vehicles would still be an option though only through Crew Service. Racial Parity Do I really need to say more on this? I mean, we've been waiting so long that True has shown he isn't really all that adamant since he has given up and has started advising others to do the same. Skills Overhaul This is by far the most important thing necessary for the entire overhaul to work. All vehicle skills should be 100% totally disassociated from the ability to fit modules to vehicles. Skills shouldn't be a barrier to owning and fitting vehicles or calling them into battle. The ability to utilize a turret/vehicle on the other hand should be what is determined by skills. All skills should provide some form of bonus for taking them, these bonuses shouldn't have anything to do with fitting the vehicles themselves (e.g. no +X% PG/level, -X% CPU requirements/level skills) though should provide bonuses to utilization (-X% cooldown/level, -X% dispersion/level etc). If you aren't skilled to use a particular vehicle but are skilled to use turrets that are fitted to that vehicle, you'll be able to enter the vehicle (so long as it is not locked) though only into a seat which is associated with a Turret you are skilled to use. If you have no skills pertaining to turrets/vehicles at all, you are relegated to the life of a passenger (if the vehicle has the capacity for them). Vehicle Locks Personally, I think this will be cleared up some by the necessity of skills pertaining to the vehicle. However, I do believe that vehicles should be able to be locked by the operator/pilot. If you leave your vehicle unoccupied, it is fair game. If the operator/pilot is in it (by it, I mean, the "I make the machine move around the battlefield" seat), then by all means, they should be able to lock the entrances. 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. 2348	Posted - 2014.12.31 21:27:00 - [3] - Quote Void Echo wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit. this HAV (Pilot/Main Gunner/Secondary Gunner): 3/1/2 I will never agree to that though, it completely kills the reason to skill into tanks at the primal level. Ok, I would've though that the pilot suit considerations would've alleviated your Crew Service worries (given that I state plainly that Crew Service wouldn't be an issue for Pilot suits which I'd imagine that both of you would skill directly into). Laser wrote: Animations I used that example because it is the most common situation I've seen people complain about on the forums. I agree that under the current rules set it is fair play, though I do see it as something that is on the cheap side of fair play and it becoming a memory will improve the game for all involved. Seat Timers 1: I disagree, I picture them as being essentially one with the vehicle. If anything, I'd say that bailing would take at least as long as a heavy frame (if not longer since you're wired directly into the vehicle). 2: Passengers take the least amount of time to get in/disembark, I kept those numbers low for the exactly the situations you cite. 3: I like this idea though I still believe that there should be Animations/delays for swapping seats and entering/exiting vehicles. Crew Service: So are you saying that you support LAV drivers being able to control their small turret? 2a: Whoever will be using it. 2b: Whoever chooses to pay for it. 2c: Absolutely. 2d: Pilot suits should allow control of all aspect of the vehicle, despite this, they will be unable to multitask as efficiently as crewed HAV. While there will be inherent bonuses to using the Pilot suit (see below), you'd still be basically on par with a crewed HAV since you'd be getting bonuses that the normal suit crews wouldn't be getting. 2e: I was picturing Pilot suits as a 1:1 with vehicles, similar to cloaks in Eve, you don't put more than one on a ship. 2f: 4man vehicle > Pilot Offensive capability; 4man vehicle > Pilot Defensive capability. Situational awareness is the balancing factor here (as it is in so many other areas in Dust) 2g: Scouts do need a second person to use a Leash since they need a target. Yet another consideration you fail to observe, when (aside from AUR/Militia items) can any Infantry use anything they haven't skilled into? Are you saying skills required for thee (infantry) though no skills required for me (vehicle operators)? Damage Zones: 1.With a trello card dedicated to vehicle redesign are you saying that you'd be against the inclusion of penetration values?? 2: Did I mention Ammo Storage? 2a: Nothing aside from your teammates killing them. 2b: Local Reps, Logi with a Leash, typical means. 2c: No, I believe that I covered this in that if they aren't individually targeted they give their status effects at particular armor thresholds. 2d: You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. Passenger Combatants 1: Agreed. Pilot Suits: 1: I honestly thought I was clear on this, I guess I wasn't. The way that I pictured it is that you would fit your Pilot suit normally aside from the "Vehicle Slot". When opening the Vehicle slot to fit it, you'd get a list of all of your fitted vehicles. The one that you fit to the Vehicle slot is the vehicle that you'd be in when you spawned. 1a: Well, I thought about elaborating on this part but I didn't know if it would be too much or not. The basic thought I was having on the idea was that your fitted dropsuit modules could impact on your vehicle fitting due to the fact that you're wired into the vehicle and in constant neural interface with it. I wouldn't imagine that it would work for straight eHP mods (extenders, plates etc) or biotics at all though other things (damage mods, local reps, regs, rechargers and scan mods) would lend their suit bonuses to the vehicle as "capless" improvements. 1b: See above. 1c: Pilot suit is still a drop suit and not a vehicle, so it shouldn't be able to have vehicle mods fitted to it. Skills 1: for the simple reason that if they are connected to fitting it defeats the purpose of disconnecting the skills from buying/fitting the vehicles/mods and reconnecting them to usage. Reconnecting them will allow people to buy, fit and distribute vehicle to their corpmates. I would imagine that proliferating fitted vehicles that can only be used by those who are skilled in their usage would be a good thing. 1a: This is solved by your own 2 2: Agree wholeheartedly (though again, I disagree that they should be connected to fittings at all) Vehicle locks. 1: IDK WTF that is like. elaborate please? I may agree. Spkr, I'll address you once you actually read my post. When did I say anything about disadvantages for Pilot suits? 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. 2350	Posted - 2015.01.01 03:43:00 - [4] - Quote Void Echo wrote: True Adamance wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: Void Echo wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit. this HAV (Pilot/Main Gunner/Secondary Gunner): 3/1/2 I will never agree to that though, it completely kills the reason to skill into tanks at the primal level. Thats the timer bit, so you're saying the only reason tanks exist Atm is for people to jump out of them instantly and kill them with a YesRifle? The crews bit is about how Driver/Gunner should be separated from each other, and only Driver can activate reps/move. And that's the only bit of contention I have. I think its fine to have a timer between embarking and disembarking. I've even suggested that myself a couple of times where using the pilot suit provides the additionally benefit of interfacing with vehicle systems faster and allowing for faster embark, disembark, and recall times. However the issue here with crews is on of necessity and the simple question is "Is it truly necessary" to separate Operator and Gunner roles. Certainly one could argue that it is more realistic from a certain operational stand point and in many respects I am a real stickler of authenticity and realism however the counter argument I would make is simply. "How enjoyable and practical is it for one player to field a 500,000 ISK vehicle and have to rely on another player for basic functionality?" Honestly not very. I could easily walk right out of this game is something like this were implemented, not because it is necessarily a bad idea but because its not necessary. Almost every other game out there now or that has been out in the last ten or so years has managed to consolidate in a fair and balanced manner the role of vehicle operator and primary gunner usually allowing for the additional seat of secondary gunner on most battle tanks. Battlefield Series, Starwar Battlefront Series, Planetside Series, Warhawk Series, heck even War Thunder Ground Forces essentially a Tank Simulator that is more realistic that World of Tanks consolidates these roles for that full functionality is the hands of the vehicles primary operator. However in almost every one of those games the Tank is typically loaded out for an anti vehicle/installation role. In Dust we have yet to establish that role. Perhaps in Dust tanks simply will not do that (to the detriment of the class/role as a whole) and will instead function in an anti infantry role.... who knows right now with Rattati not offering insights into his own threads. Regarding the specific locations on a tank I have a few ideas of justifications for the race specific weak points and where they should theoretically be. Madrugar - Weakness on either side or rear of the HAV Gun mantlet (assuming the mantlet is properly attributed to the HAV) - Weakness between the segmented tracked sections against angular armour - Weakness at the rear radiator where armour is weak and fragmentation that damages the critical systems occurs Gunnlogi - Weakness against the thin lower plate that protects the tracks on the segmented sections. - Weakness against hits to the gun barrel/ forward mantlet - Weakness to the rear shield generator and radiator where projected shielding is thinnest. Of course these could be adjusted. A lot of tanks actually have incredibly thick forward plating on the glacis plate which makes them damn near impossible with conventional weapons to penetrate while other lighter vehicles are much more susceptible to damage to critical sections like that and are awkwardly designed to survive hits to regularly targeted areas. What he said... Also, I thought he was agreeing eith the timers. I really dont care if timers get installed or not, but if you separate the seats, then the hav class becomes instantly extinct. I have no doubt that the population of vehicle operators would go through a period of flux, though I think you're being a little melodramatic. 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. 2350	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:15:00 - [5] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Spkr, I'll address you once you actually read my post. When did I say anything about disadvantages for Pilot suits? You're sounding like everybody else on here, treating me like a child and second class citizen. I read the post, and responded how I saw best. I never said you said anything about disadvantages with pilot suits, you mentioned Pokey's thread with the Google doc, and in it, he put disadvantages while using the pilot suit. That is literally the worst idea I've ever seen for vehicles in any game with vehicles I've played. That means that a) nobody will skill into the pilot suit, and b) nobody will skill into the pilot suit. I hate to say it Spkr, but stop acting like a child and people will stop treating you like one. 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. 2350	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:33:00 - [6] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Animations I hear frisbee REs are cheap and they've been progressively softened from what they used to be. Personally, I saw their use in clearing rooms of Heavy/Logis as sandbox too. Seat Timers 1: Is this Eve or Dust? 2: Git Gud @ timing, I'm still getting the hang of it but I'm getting better at being the paratrooping MinSent. It'd be much easier if we got a better perspective though. 3: Why'd you suggest it then? Crew Service/Damage Zones/Pilot Suit/Skills Your answers to all of these make me think that you're just afraid of change and you want nothing more than to death grip the status quo as you're obviously unwilling to actually discuss any improvements to it. Locking I'm fine with that so long as the "I make this machine move around the battlefield" seat is occupied. I hope your New Year went well English. 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. 2351	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:46:00 - [7] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Animations I hear frisbee REs are cheap and they've been progressively softened from what they used to be. Personally, I saw their use in clearing rooms of Heavy/Logis as sandbox too. Seat Timers 1: Is this Eve or Dust? 2: Git Gud @ timing, I'm still getting the hang of it but I'm getting better at being the paratrooping MinSent. It'd be much easier if we got a better perspective though. 3: Why'd you suggest it then? Crew Service/Damage Zones/Pilot Suit/Skills Your answers to all of these make me think that you're just afraid of change and you want nothing more than to death grip the status quo as you're obviously unwilling to actually discuss any improvements to it. Locking I'm fine with that so long as the "I make this machine move around the battlefield" seat is occupied. I hope your New Year went well English. ANIMATIONS 1. RE were never made to be thrown like frisbees SEAT TIMERS 1. New Eden 2. No actual response to an actual point, if i would say git gud to AV they would cry and complain that im not discussing the point at hand like you are doing now 3. Im not the one who wants a 2second dely for doing basic things Crew Service/Damage Zones/Pilot Suit/Skills 1. All your requests are not thought out and you now seem incapable of even discussion of the ideas and various holes that i have put in them - You need to have an answer for some of these legitimate problems i have found and cannot hide behind 'opinion' and other BS reasons 2. I can tell that you do not use vehicles or even play PC - For one to suggest such a large list of requests it would be ideal if you have played all the game has to offer so you can understand how it would effect various areas of the game overall 3. I will end my discussion now - The answers i have recieved are a mixed bag of yes i agree, no and i dont want to discuss this anymore because they are my ideas and you cannot change them and lets ignore the big gaping holes that i cannot answer because i dont use vehicles 4. Happy new year paranoid chinaman The "holes you've put into my ideas" are all based on things not changing at all. If things aren't changing then how or why would my ideas need to even be put into context of the status quo since nothing would be changing and that is exactly what my ideas would be-- change? You fail to examine them without filtering them through your own little "mustn't change the status quo" POV. I do use vehicles, I use my BPO Methana to cruise around the battlefield hopping out occasionally to mow the clones with my HMG. 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. 2351	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:47:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The thing needed to make crews beneficial is... Higher player counts in battle. You can literally have five tanks with three man crews in play and one lonely blueberry. We don't have enough player count to mandate crews instead of providing bonuses for HAVING a crew. Good idea, I know that you and I don't see eye to eye on this matter, though you've brought a legitimately good and valid point, there should be an incentive to run a crew until we've got player counts that would truly support a mandate. 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. 2351	Posted - 2015.01.02 21:52:00 - [9] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Spkr, I'll address you once you actually read my post. When did I say anything about disadvantages for Pilot suits? You're sounding like everybody else on here, treating me like a child and second class citizen. I read the post, and responded how I saw best. I never said you said anything about disadvantages with pilot suits, you mentioned Pokey's thread with the Google doc, and in it, he put disadvantages while using the pilot suit. That is literally the worst idea I've ever seen for vehicles in any game with vehicles I've played. That means that a) nobody will skill into the pilot suit, and b) nobody will skill into the pilot suit. I hate to say it Spkr, but stop acting like a child and people will stop treating you like one. I'm not the one that acts like a child. I don't yell out "it shot me nerf it" on here like infantry does for months straight when it comes to vehicles. I can destroy anybody in the game, yet they all have trouble with terrible fit tanks with terrible pilots. It's not "damn, this guy here is so difficult to take out, it makes me angry." If they're having trouble using PRO AV against academy grads in Somas and Sicas, then the problem isn't with the vehicle. Problem is, they're not going against Academy grads with PRO AV and failing. They're going against cowards who've been playing the game for months (if not years at this point) who are simply using the HAV as a Slayer suit exoskeleton for their Starter Fit. Academy grads are so unskilled with vehicles that they are a non-issue (except possibly those who know what they are doing and are tanking on a smurf account). Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks) ^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2456	Posted - 2015.01.31 14:47:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Nice post, had I found it at a time other than 1AM I'd give it a proper response. But I'm about to pass out so I'll give a more in depth response tomorrow. One quick thing I will point out is that sadly Ratatti has already said he has no intention of implementing capacitors in the short or medium term. Also you can pretty much ignore 100% of what Spkr says and 95% of what Laser says (every once in a while he gets a few words in that have some merit). Responding to them just encourages their continued negativity. Yeah, I figured that out a little while ago. I had almost forgotten about this thread. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2459	Posted - 2015.02.02 22:53:00 - [11] - Quote While I was driving around today, I had another thought that I'd like to add here. It is probably pie in the sky (since AFAIK it would require new models) but I think it is a good idea and wanted to make sure that it was logged somewhere. Configurable Turret Mounts DS and HAVs should each have 6-8 Turret slots. These wouldn't be added slots for fitting turrets, they would be slots for positioning of the fitted turrets. The vehicles would still be restricted to 2 Small Turrets though would be able to select the positioning of the small turrets within the available spots. This would greatly expand customization options for vehicles We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..