DUST Search - [request] tanks role: supression

taxi bastard wrote:

JARREL THOMAS wrote:

I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here

Summary:

instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase
But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks.

tanks already for fill this role well, until a counter is fielded i.e. AV or another tank then they are themselves suppressed until the threat is neutralized.

combined arms working as intended.

i am at a loss to understand what you are suggesting on the roll side? as for tanks being stronger........ they are very cheap unless pimped to the max for their potential threat on the battlefield. god mode is a bad thing and so is too much power in the hand of 1 player when in such a limited number of people battle.

Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles?

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 385	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:36:00 - [1] - Quote I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here Summary: instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks. Caldari Loyalist Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles?
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1460	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:38:00 - [2] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here Summary: instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks. You, stop trying. CCP don't care about us. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 385	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:40:00 - [3] - Quote Sir please step away this is a no troll zone. Caldari Loyalist Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles?
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1460	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:44:00 - [4] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Sir please step away this is a no troll zone. Starting a vehicle thread- you are just asking for trolls. I'm just warning you, It's hopeless. CCP Rattai started a thread about vehicles on December 15 and hasn't replied once. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 385	Posted - 2015.01.04 19:46:00 - [5] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: Sir please step away this is a no troll zone. Starting a vehicle thread- you are just asking for trolls. I'm just warning you, It's hopeless. CCP Rattai started a thread about vehicles on December 15 and hasn't replied once. And just as I said in general discussions I'm fully prepared. Caldari Loyalist Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles?
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16415	Posted - 2015.01.04 21:57:00 - [6] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here Summary: instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks. The idea of suppression does not mean that tanks would not and should not have the ability to destroy over ground vehicles and installation as is arguably the primary role of the tank. I have no doubt that suppression can be achieved by making all Tank turrets fire slower, more powerful rounds with AoE splash damage, the idea being to reduce the severe impact of tanks on infantry gameplay while retaining some means of engagement between the two, as well as to deal small splash damage values to encourage infantry to find cover for a short period of time. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
taxi bastard Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 273	Posted - 2015.01.04 23:12:00 - [7] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here Summary: instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks. tanks already for fill this role well, until a counter is fielded i.e. AV or another tank then they are themselves suppressed until the threat is neutralized. combined arms working as intended. i am at a loss to understand what you are suggesting on the roll side? as for tanks being stronger........ they are very cheap unless pimped to the max for their potential threat on the battlefield. god mode is a bad thing and so is too much power in the hand of 1 player when in such a limited number of people battle.
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 390	Posted - 2015.01.05 00:31:00 - [8] - Quote taxi bastard wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: I had good success with this post in general discussion and I want to bring it here Summary: instead of tanks being on the field to kill other tanks or be blown up by av which is redundant. I would like them to be more of a surpression on enemy troops giving a distraction and or defense against enemy infantry but of course there will still be av tanks and av but a bit harder to destroy maybe making the shield boosters actually shield boost and give gal tanks a cpu/pg increase But definitely some nerfs of cal tanks or standardization of gal tanks to sheild tanks. tanks already for fill this role well, until a counter is fielded i.e. AV or another tank then they are themselves suppressed until the threat is neutralized. combined arms working as intended. i am at a loss to understand what you are suggesting on the roll side? as for tanks being stronger........ they are very cheap unless pimped to the max for their potential threat on the battlefield. god mode is a bad thing and so is too much power in the hand of 1 player when in such a limited number of people battle. Well if these new tanks are released what I said would be invalid but if not it should'nt be ignored because as it is there is a clear imbalance. Caldari Loyalist Why should infrantry that don't own vehicles can't balance their own mechanics, balance vehicles?


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris