DUST Search - Why all vehicles should be removed..

All Channels

General Discussions

Why all vehicles should be removed..

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 05:52:00 - [1] - Quote Seriously.. What is their role? In a pc fight all vehicles ever do is drive around the map taking out all the turrets raking up points and avoiding the battle up to mid-end game and even then they are of not much help. They just farm wp safely in professional matches for an ob... In pubs? What is there role? Seriously? They have never been balanced at all... They are either OP or UP. No proto versions yet we have proto weapons. How the hell are we supposed to achieve true balance like that? Heavy suits = tanks. Primarily defensive guard units. Logi = Support players. They can range from medics to uplinkers to scanners ect. Assaults = your killers. Scouts = your speed kings. They can easily and quickly get from point to point to both attack or defend. They also favor a stealth style of gameplay. Commandos = good for av as you can hold another primary weapon. Also good for snipers to have another primary weapon. But also good for a variety of roles. Those who know how to play them to their potential are usually quite skilled. At least this is how I see it but tanks?? gets hit by one swarm launcher, goes to run and hide wastes time repping and waiting for modules to recover. Why not keep defending? "Because I dont wanna lose millions of isk QQ. So I am going to hide for half the game because I am risking so much and not really help out at all. I can't do much of anything to help out at the objectives unless I am OP and can destroy eveyrthing in my sights. Vehiclists are some of the biggest babies....But these are just my opinions. I am open to your thoughts. Are you a vehiclist? what is your role on the battlefield? What do you believe your role should be? Can you succesfully fill your role? How do you help the gameplay of an actual match? this is your one chance to prove me wrong. I am listening...
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 06:19:00 - [2] - Quote All of these responses and I still have not received any answers to my questions... I bolded them for a reason. I am giving you guys a chance to state your case. If this is the best all of you can do then it only reinforces my belief that they should be removed.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 06:46:00 - [3] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: Djinn SouI wrote: All of these responses and I still have not received any answers to my questions... I bolded them for a reason. I am giving you guys a chance to state your case. If this is the best all of you can do then it only reinforces my belief that they should be removed. I would answer seriously, If I could take you seriously. Cause you're not Soul. It doesnt matter who I am. CCP will probably read this and see that not one single person can provide one counter arguement. My questions are very simple and I answered them for every other role.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 07:15:00 - [4] - Quote Ace Boone wrote: ADS play a key in removing high-ground presence, keeping AV busy and being pesky as ** to deal with. LAVs get people from point to point in pubs. Tanks are pretty much useless. You only use tanks to kill other tanks or to help support homepoint. They have their small uses, but their not really..useful. The blasters need to be fixed. The dispersion rate just makes it..not fun. It needs to be very effective in CQC, but the dispersion rate increases with range. It's a ***** tank for Chirst's sake, but it's like a spray gun in close quarters. And remove militia tanks. If tanks are good, they should be expensive. There shouldn't be a tank less expensive than a proto suit. I agree with this 100%. They are useless. I don't see why tankers don't want to come here and answer my questions on what they believe their role should be and if they are able to do it right now. They are too raged because I said to remove them to provide any kind of feed back. Perhaps they know what I say is true but they should also know that this is their chance to tell CCP what should be done to tanks to give them an actual role.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 07:15:00 - [5] - Quote Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: Djinn SouI wrote: Quasar Storm wrote: Djinn SouI wrote: All of these responses and I still have not received any answers to my questions... I bolded them for a reason. I am giving you guys a chance to state your case. If this is the best all of you can do then it only reinforces my belief that they should be removed. I would answer seriously, If I could take you seriously. Cause you're not Soul. It doesnt matter who I am. CCP will probably read this and see that not one single person can provide one counter arguement. My questions are very simple and I answered them for every other role. Good Lord, look up almost everything that has been said over the past year. Must we repeat the same stuff in yet another thread? It's beginning to sound like a broken record and I gave up records thirty years ago. It's all mp3 now baby! sounds like a simple copy and paste job. Too bad not one single person has still not provided one actual use for them.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 07:16:00 - [6] - Quote Joel II X wrote: I dodged a few words here and there and just went for the bold words, and stopped when I read "vehiclists". Um, no. "Operative" should be used when speaking (or, in this case, typing) about different type of vehicle users. The most constructive feedback I have received so far. +1
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 07:31:00 - [7] - Quote TIGER SHARK1501 wrote: Djinn SouI wrote: All of these responses and I still have not received any answers to my questions... I bolded them for a reason. I am giving you guys a chance to state your case. If this is the best all of you can do then it only reinforces my belief that they should be removed. No desire to convince you. Take away something like this and its more of a watered down shooter. lol I really love how not one single tanker can defend themselves from a few simple questions.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 97	Posted - 2015.01.06 08:57:00 - [8] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sure tanks don't currently have a role. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have one. That is also why I asked what tankers believe their role in the battlefield should be.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 98	Posted - 2015.01.06 09:00:00 - [9] - Quote sir RAVEN WING wrote: Surprised True hasn't came climbing out of his golden HAV dreams. Here, let me give you a reason. ADS: To destroy uplinks and those who will lay more. DS: To transport players from A to B and sometimes to R. (Rooftops :p) HAV: To suppress infantry, destroy vehicles that pester their team and such. LAV: To transport players from A to B. Also for fun. I am a Calscout Knifer so HAVs are kinda important to me. They help their team feel bulletproof and run into doorway where I wait, and when they fail, they become a tasty snack. Removing them would destroy this whole ecosystem. EDIT: He has... but was very disappointing. Thank you for your response. Finally got someone who is trying. If HAV's role is to destroy other vehicles then do you think it should be easier for them to target dropships? I mostly just see take out other tanks or lavs.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 98	Posted - 2015.01.06 09:03:00 - [10] - Quote Bethhy wrote: Soul \o/ Hi.

Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 101	Posted - 2015.01.06 09:32:00 - [11] - Quote Bethhy wrote: Turret Structures getting a health buff was a start... It lets tankers have a place of contention.. And some time and an actual need if a turret is manned as it can wreck an entire area... The problem? Turrets are put in some of the worst stupidest spots that could of been thought of..... It's like who put them there never really saw the game in action... If there was only a Few Static Turret Infrastructures on the map, but put in very very effective general high traffic locations... Then these turrets had relative decent A.I that tracked Vehicles primarily but otherwise infantry too..... Then infantry would be forced to use tankers or sacrifice significant Infantry to AV aspirations... Turrets should be check points in maps... For both Infantry and Vehicles... They should be points of contention just like a CRU or supply depot... Then have Turret Infrastructures Be able to be called in by players for a set amount of war points.... Allow Turret installations to have fittings and be purchasable on the market... This would cause a need in tactics for Tankers in general to properly push a majority of objectives.... Or points of interest... Also would allow them to have a cost reduction depending on how the performance is balanced. Give us Racial Large Weapons on Turrets... Amarr Giant Lasers, Minmatar Artillery... etc. I agree. This is the best and most unique response I have received by far. Turrets are even more worthless as they are now but all your suggestions are good.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 101	Posted - 2015.01.06 09:33:00 - [12] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: Bethhy wrote: Turret Structures getting a health buff was a start... It lets tankers have a place of contention.. And some time and an actual need if a turret is manned as it can wreck an entire area... The problem? Turrets are put in some of the worst stupidest spots that could of been thought of..... It's like who put them there never really saw the game in action... If there was only a Few Static Turret Infrastructures on the map, but put in very very effective general high traffic locations... Then these turrets had relative decent A.I that tracked Vehicles primarily but otherwise infantry too..... Then infantry would be forced to use tankers or sacrifice significant Infantry to AV aspirations... Turrets should be check points in maps... For both Infantry and Vehicles... They should be points of contention just like a CRU or supply depot... Then have Turret Infrastructures Be able to be called in by players for a set amount of war points.... Allow Turret installations to have fittings and be purchasable on the market... This would cause a need for Tankers in general to push objectives.... Also would allow them to have a cost reduction depending on how the performance is balanced. Give us Racial Large Weapons on Turrets... Amarr Giant Lasers, Minmatar Artillery... etc. I have never given the turrets really all that much thought Same here but perhaps it is time we start.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 102	Posted - 2015.01.06 16:15:00 - [13] - Quote Nirwanda Vaughns wrote: Just from Ambush, not the game. Why is it such a huge thing that us infantry just want a game mode we can go into without having to p**s about dodging a python missile spamming. the devs have said they can't split amb/oms and there was a vote which players voted for vehicles to be emoved yet CCP caved in and kept it as is. either that or Gallente Plasma Forge Cannon, somehting that gives a damage bonus towards shields as a viable anti shield vehicle weapon. hell give it the same stats as the caldari Forge guns but just the damage profile/proficiency of Plasma weapons (+10% shields -10% armour, +3% per level shield damage) You make a good point. Just wish others could do the same for their counter arguments. 90% of the responses so far have just been QQ.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 110	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:24:00 - [14] - Quote Bump. This thread started off slow but It has really become quite interesting. I want the discussion to continue. Consider me intrigued.
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 113	Posted - 2015.01.14 19:16:00 - [15] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: I like the WP cost for vehicles. It doesnt have to be much, but it would justify the buffing of vehicles as they would be more 'valuable'. LAVs and DSs would keep their 'free' cost as some people need the help traversing the field. ADSs and Tanks would cost WP so that it is clear that you are and infantryman first, then a pilot. Depending on the WP cost we could have the ISK cost of ADSs and Tanks go down Hell ***** no. Why should I have to pay a WP cost when my role ingame for the most ppart is to be a ***** pilot? Maybe a wp cost for special types of vehicles with upgrades ontop of what is already available?