DUST Search - [WARNING] Radical ideas about vehicles inbound

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[WARNING] Radical ideas about vehicles inbound

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16354	Posted - 2014.12.31 03:20:00 - [3] - Quote Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2750	Posted - 2014.12.31 05:43:00 - [4] - Quote 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. Closed Beta Vet. Until you know the pain I live with, you'll never understand why I see man the way I do.
Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2341	Posted - 2014.12.31 10:46:00 - [5] - 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. 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. General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16357	Posted - 2014.12.31 11:35:00 - [6] - Quote 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. *"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 335	Posted - 2014.12.31 15:19:00 - [7] - Quote ANIMATIONS 1. That is because the sentinal is tactically bypassing there weakness of being slow - Fair play to them, availible counters are other vehicles and AV, rarely a problem these days 2. HMG is used in a HAV because it has more range and is more accurate than the blaster and is more reliable in CQC with AV 3. They jump because they can, in PC its not just to protect KDR its so they can call in another vehicle quickly or maybe help out on the ground until they next die and can get a vehicle in, only in pubs is it to protect KDR SEAT TIMERS 1. Pilot suit should be 0 2. It slows down the ability for shock transport from any kind of DS or vehicle in general and gives a few precious seconds for the enemy to prepare 3. A better idea and the only reasonable idea that i have heard is that with ground vehicles the vehicle has to come to a complete stop, aerial vehicles excluded CAPACITORS 1. Already asked for 2. Infantry do not have capacitors 3. Capacitor is not stamina 4. Copy and paste from EVE CREW SERVICE 1. All or none - I can say this about tiercide - ADV/PROTO vehicles for all - All or none 2. If the pilot is the driver then he needs a second person to operate the main turret - several problems with this, if he has 2 secondary turrets on then he needs another 2 people - more problems 2a. Who skills up for the main gun? - Well its the pilot even tho they will never use it and same for the secondary guns - The gunners themselves do not have to even bother with spending any SP at all 2b. Who pays for the vehicle? - Pilot again 2c. Will it takes 4 AV players to kill the vehicle with 4 operating it? - If any of you say no this then its unbalanced because you say '1 to combate 1' your words not mine 2d. If the Pilot suit allows the pilot to control all then would it require 4 AV to take down the vehicle with 1 pilot in a pilot suit operating this? Im sure infantry and AV would cry at the thought but you cannot expect a 4man vehicle to be taken out by anything less than 4 AV if we follow the general rule that AV abide by, 1 to 1 so scale it up and its 4 to 4 2e. Will pilot suits all stack with each other if a 4man vehicle all had pilot suits - stacking penalties would apply meaning that 4th person would be able to not use a pilot suit - It should stack since they are all linked into the vehicle 2f. You say 1 Pilot suit to operate the vehicle which then ends up needing 4 AV to take it out because that would be unfair if it required less than 4 AV to take out a 4man vehicle - How can you solve this without punishing the 4man vehicle or the 1 pilot who wanted to skill into the Pilot suit? - It really looks like you cannot 2g. Also if its required to have 2 players not in Pilot suits use a vehicle with a turret attached then you are punishing those who do not have pilot suits but also you are making them a requirement at all times to have someone they do trust not to screw things up and to be on at the same time so they can use what they have skilled into - Its like a scout needing a second player to use a rep tool because they havnt skilled into logi yet DAMAGE ZONES 1. WOT model - Problem is with WOT they have penetration values for the ammo, in DUST no such values exists and they do x amount of damage 2. If parts are supposed to be able to be targeted then does that mean that each part is partly seen on the outside of the hull? Such as ammo storage for example which is generally in the vehicle and protected 2a. If each part of the vehicle is able to be hit then whats to stop from just whacking the main turret? 2b. If each part of the vehicle has its own HP then how it is repaired if damaged? 2c. If each part of the vehicle has its own HP then the hull HP is seperate then are the HP values combined for the total HP of the vehicle? 2d. If your hull reaches 50% of its HP left the turrets do not randomly explode and become useless and neither do other parts of the vehicle, this is a terrible idea - The infantry equivelent would be if you are down to less than 50% of your overall HP your gun stops working and at 25% your legs stop working and you fall over - In WOT your hull can be down to 10% of its overall HP yet your crew is alive and all your modules are still working - Remember as you said earlier 'All or none' because a rail round would ripe your torse in half and a missile would split you up into little pieces and i would like that feature PASSENGER COMBATANTS 1. Aimed weapons prefered PILOT SUITS 1. If the Pilot suit only have 1 vehicle slot then what is the point? 1a. If the Pilot suit has more slots for the suit itself than for the vehicle then again what is the point? 1b. Why does the Pilot suit have more slots for the suit than it has slots for the vehicle? Im not fighting outside the vehicle thus i do not need shield extenders and armor modules 1c. The Pilot suit should be totally for the vehicle and not infantry and any slots should be for the suits vehicle modules that will allow you to enhance it in different ways SKILLS 1. X% per level to PG/CPU for example are core skills - I have them in EVE, i have them in DUST for my infantry player, why are pilots punished? 1a. Infantry do have more skills which are useful than pilots - If both are supposed to be playstyles then both should have useful skills and skill bonuses no matter what they do, treating pilots like second class citizens doesnt help 2. EVE - The skill list is massive in EVE - Really a copy and paste from EVE would solve alot of problems regarding useless skill books which open up modules and nothing more - If i skill into something in EVE i generally get a useful bonus and if not its tied to the hull, some skills just help improve what you already have access to thus the tree is deeper and you always have something to skill into VEHICLE LOCKS 1. Steal PS2 version of locking
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2652	Posted - 2014.12.31 18:43:00 - [8] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Animations (Entry/Exit) No, because video game. Capacitor Infantry will want it nerfed day-one because we'll be able to manage it expertly and not a single pilot will die to AV that day. Crew Service No, because video game. And like Lazor said before me, if mandatory, that one suit is controlling all the turrets. It'll give incentive to fit two small turrets. Damage Zones No, because video game. Passenger Combatants We had turrets removed because of stupid blue dots firing our turrets and getting us seen on the tacnet. I refuse to allow them to get in my vehicles again. Pilot Suits No, terrible ideas to have disadvantages. Why bother wasting SP in the first place into them if you're getting penalized for a bonus you want? One of the worst ideas I've ever seen regarding vehicles. Racial Parity Not concerned Skills Overhaul We know, we know, we've been screaming this for a long time, you're late to the 'vehicle skills on par with infantry skills once again' train. Vehicle Locks It's already not a requirement anymore to have to have small turrets on a tank. It would be great for dropships however. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2348	Posted - 2014.12.31 21:27:00 - [9] - 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
PLAYSTTION F0RSAKEN EMPIRE. Smart Deploy 397	Posted - 2014.12.31 21:39:00 - [10] - Quote LOVE IT. but this isn't gonna happen for a few years. Ive wanted different armour thickness and penetration forever, and weak spots like the back or turret ring that could stop a part of the tank working. and how about the turret blowing right off! Gassault Calogi - Ranked #763 on the forums `- Open Beta Vet - 33mil sp - - GFC, GJR Approved -`

Lynn Beck Delta Vanguard 6 2342	Posted - 2014.12.31 22:59:00 - [11] - Quote 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. I agree wholeheartedly on that first bit on crew separation. I would be fine with it, if they released it as a type of new tank- a AHaV, say, one that has 2/4 slots, and has all manner of extr buffs, but the gunner/driver are separated, and costs immensely more Isk(like 3m a hull) and is (i'm being extremely optimistic here) is a fresh model, with maybe 30% extra size and has 3 smalls and a Large. General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation'
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16365	Posted - 2014.12.31 23:09:00 - [12] - Quote Lynn Beck 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. I agree wholeheartedly on that first bit on crew separation. I would be fine with it, if they released it as a type of new tank- a AHaV, say, one that has 2/4 slots, and has all manner of extr buffs, but the gunner/driver are separated, and costs immensely more Isk(like 3m a hull) and is (i'm being extremely optimistic here) is a fresh model, with maybe 30% extra size and has 3 smalls and a Large. I was actually having waking day dreams about the SHCV (Super Heavy Command Vehicle) as literally a building sized vehicles with 30,000 eHP, slow as all hell, many many module slots, and fixed angle (low traversal angle) Large Turrets which actually requires a crew of 3-4 to pilot at all. Costs would be well up into the tens of millions and they could be used for any number of things from Siege Machines, to Triage Command Points, and back to Anti Tank Bastions. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
a brackers Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 89	Posted - 2015.01.01 01:47:00 - [13] - Quote I really like some of these ideas. Also, the way I read it the pilot suit will directly interface with the vehicle, meaning the pilot effectively controls all the turrets in whatever vehicle they are driving. Is this correct. I also think this will be good as it increases control over the vehicle, but still will not be as good as dedicated gunners using these. The only part I do not agree with is I do not think hav and ads should lose pilot control over the gun. Also a suggestion is maybe only release cal and gal pilots and give them bonuses when piloting a vehicle of their own race. Proto dropship pilot The sandbox shooter
Void Echo Total Extinction 2754	Posted - 2015.01.01 02:15:00 - [14] - Quote 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. Closed Beta Vet. Until you know the pain I live with, you'll never understand why I see man the way I do.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2350	Posted - 2015.01.01 03:43:00 - [15] - 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
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 137	Posted - 2015.01.01 03:51:00 - [16] - Quote Requiring crew for combat vehicles is all well and good for games where the vehicles are supplied on-map...but for when one player has to shoulder the entire cost of the vehicle, I don't think that crew service is a good idea (I say combat vehicles because I classify the LAV and generic Dropships as scouting and transport vehicles, not combat primary...while the ADS is a combat vehicle and puts the main turret under pilot control). If a LAV is released with a primary combat roll, it should gain a forward facing, driver controlled gun. 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 16367	Posted - 2015.01.01 03:59:00 - [17] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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. Perhaps but that would essentially limit the class to those in corps with players willing to gun..... perhaps that's how you see it. That could be fine. I know I'd never come back to Dust. Already too many other games that do tanks better. I also have the cover of actually playing what is currently the best tank simulator game out so no one can say I don't want a realistic game. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1435	Posted - 2015.01.01 07:18:00 - [18] - Quote Sooo, nerfs to vehicles? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 337	Posted - 2015.01.01 14:55:00 - [19] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: ANIMATIONS 1. I hear that JLAVs are cheap from pilots but infantry say 'sandbox' - HMG and LAV is 'sandbox' then SEAT TIMERS 1. Pod in EVE is one with the ship until they need to GTFO, same with vehicle until they need to GTFO 2. Should be 0, miss the drop and you are thrown off course in a high speed vehicle and if its aerial then you can miss by alot more 3. More work for next to no gain CREW SERVICE 1. Fine by me but the merc has to have long arms to reach around the seat and into the back to operate it 2a. WRONG - The pilot has to skill up the turret, if the pilot does not then that fitting will be invalid and you cannot deploy invalid fittings into the battlefield 2b. WRONG - The pilot has to pay for it, yes they can accept donations but its stops with the pilot who has to purchase the fitting 2c. So 4 AV to kill a 4 man vehicle 2d. So Pilot suit helps control all of the vehicle even if it requires 4 to use and you do agree that it would take 4 AV to take down a vehicle with 1 pilot in a Pilot suit 2e. Cloak is a module which requires high PG/CPU and bonuses are applied to specific ships for cloaking, Pilot suit is a dropsuit in which if 4 can enter a vehicle then 4 should be allowed in with 4 Pilot suits 2f. You already answered this - 4AV to combat a 4 man vehicle/1 Pilot suited pilot 2g. To equip and use the rep tool its 1 person, you misunderstood, you want 2 non pilot suited mers to use the vehicle at anyone time, thus with the rep tool it takes 2 to operate ie use it, 1 to pull it out and the other to hold it - Basically you are asking pilots not in pilot suits have someone else to help use a playstyle that they have skilled into - If the vehicle is driver and gunner the driver has to be skilled into everything to use it yet according to you they will need a main gunner if they do not have a pilot suit thus forcing the driver to always need a second person, how is this hard to understand? DAMAGE ZONES 1. Trello is terrible idea to begin with and allows bad ideas to be allowed to be posted with no discussion 1a. Penetration values cannot be added when damage is just applied to shield and armor with no accout or even numbers to angles and thickness of armor 2. In vehicles with turrets they will have ammo storage, they do in EVE 2a. Better have improved turrets then 2b. So boosters which have 40sec cooldown times better be good then if i need that 1 booster for several things 2c/d - Your opinion is not a get out of discussion card, you want it so certain armor thresholds = damage to various compenents of the vehicle, your dropsuit is far more flimsy so fair is fair you should agree to this and that your gun gets damage and you cant walk PILOT SUIT 1a/b/c/ - Infantry modules do not effect vehicles so they would need a new set of hybrid modules and more dropsuit slots do not help a dropsuit that is made for interfacing with a vehicle SKILLS 1. No it doesnt, if i skill up Stamina mods for my infantry suit it doesnt mean that i wont use stamina mods and also giving out vehicles to corpmates is something which is rarely done in PC and even so if they dont have the core skills they dont get the benefit anyways, sure they can use the modules but they are less efficent in every way - Ideally i would have EVE where you have no skills you cant get in and use it because its my vehicle specced for me via SP LOCKING 1. Solo lock/squad lock/no lock
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.01 18:43:00 - [20] - 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. Says the guy that stopped tanking. 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. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.01 18:54:00 - [21] - Quote 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 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 16375	Posted - 2015.01.01 19:14:00 - [22] - Quote Spkr4theDead 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. Says the guy that stopped tanking. Says the guy who has never wanted to tank in the first place..... *"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. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.02 00:13:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead 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. Says the guy that stopped tanking. Says the guy who has never wanted to tank in the first place..... Never wanted to? Are you drunk or something? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5552	Posted - 2015.01.02 04:59:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit. We need that too, True. Tanks in this game are basically like giant Slayer suits. Their power should come from cooperation between at least two players. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16385	Posted - 2015.01.02 07:09:00 - [25] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can agree with everything here except for the crews bit. We need that too, True. Tanks in this game are basically like giant Slayer suits. Their power should come from cooperation between at least two players. That's fine but there is not reason that the main gunner and pilots have to be separated from one another in order for this to function properly. For a very long time many games have been able to share the roles of tanks between one main gunner and pilot and a secondary Gunner. This is seen throughout the genre of FPS, and more importantly in successful or widely like shooters, both first and third person and from Battlefield to Warhawk..... I am a huge proponent of having people within my vehicle to support my own gameplay as well as using crew slots to support allies gameplay. Throughout 1.7 until the Rouge Wedding I was rolling as an APC for the Amarr FW teams despite being better suited to roll the extra repper and of course I like the organisational aspect of it. However I am against forcing any vehicle role in this game to require more than one person to achieve a basic functionality. It is simply not a good way to balance the role or make the role enjoyable to players coming into the game. I ask you Mobius how does this make the vehicle classes more enjoyable? How does it make these classes have a greater presence on the field? Why does it lock out individual players from the role? Why shouldn't we be able to play a mechanized roles in Dust 514 that we can in any other? Now I've spoken at great lengths about how I am convinced and wholly supportive of making vehicles Large Turrets into primary Anti Vehicle Weapons and adjusting those weapons so they can still have an impact on infantry units but not be used in such a way as the weapon itself is used more for anti infantry than Anti Tank/Installation/Objective as is usually the case for tanks in most other games. I would also additionally suggest that for tanks since I cannot comment much on the other roles they either require on a mandatory level fit a small turret in order for another player to provide a level of anti infantry fire, or that the vehicle player switch out to that turret rendering him immobile and unable to use modules. However if I were to suggest these things I have no doubt dropshippers would whine their arses off about tanks having realistic damage models against lightly armoured aerial vehicles not designed to take a tank round, I am sure HAV pilots would ***** about having to rechamber a round every time they fire their main gun with meaningful reload times of at least 3.7 seconds, but balanced out by fair splash and alpha values. There are very interesting nuances between positive realism and negative realism. I doubt it very much if dropshippers or tankers would like to suffer from one hit kills when a round has been deemed to penetrate a critical area much in the same way as I doubt many vehicle users would have the patience or the allies knowledgible enough to be trusted as a co-pilot. I know I don't have anyone I could regularly play with or gun for me. Does this mean I am effectually and very arbitrarily kicked out of Dust 514 as a result? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2350	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:15:00 - [26] - 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 - [27] - 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
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 341	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:58:00 - [28] - Quote 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6129	Posted - 2015.01.02 15:19:00 - [29] - Quote 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. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2654	Posted - 2015.01.02 19:44:00 - [30] - 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. Planetside 2 I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.

-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris