DUST Search - Why all vehicles should be removed..

Djinn SouI wrote:

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...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1234	Posted - 2015.01.07 01:26:00 - [91] - Quote 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 This is supposedly a sandbox game: why shouldn't someone be allowed to be a vehicle pilot first and foremost? Are fighter pilots, with all their training, supposed to fight as a riflemen before they can get in their planes and put that training to good use? Do tank commanders and gunners have to run around, get shot at a bunch before they're allowed to get in a tank and blow **** up? Essentially no. Most armies have basic training to give every the, well, basics and to get everyone into the chain of command: but a specialist is not treated the same as a generalist, they are used in the speciality first and foremost, because what's the point otherwise? In essence, why must someone be forced to run something they're not necessarily good at (some people just can't do FPS very well, but they might take to flying or tanking like a duck to water) in order to do what they want? What balance does this acheive, but potentially make those vehicles more powerful and make stomping even more severe? Need 1,000 WP before you can call down your tank? Good luck when you've got a squad and a half of proto stompers kicking your teeth in with their four, new and improved tanks! Let's flip the tables: why shouldn't you be forced to run Scout/Light suits until you've earned enough WP to be allowed to use a Medium? Then use that Medium to be allowed to deploy a Heavy? Quite frankly, if you've skilled into something and paid to own the suit, you shouldn't be restricted in whether you're allowed to use it. I have issues with allowing proto in Pubs (mostly because this seriously hurts NPE and also makes Pubs vastly less interesting) but considering we have the lowest tier of everything the notion still applies: why, if you've spent your SP on something you want to do, would you not be allowed to use it? If you can't balance it before needing WP to call it, it's most certainly not going to be balanced with a WP requirement! Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
TIGER SHARK1501 Savage Bullet 94	Posted - 2015.01.07 04:02:00 - [92] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CrotchGrab 360 wrote: Djinn SouI wrote: Seriously.. [/b] I hate vehicles because they ruin my high kill games, scrubs always pull out vehicles when they're getting stomped. Awwwwwwwwwwwww XD lol I must agree with Speaker. A proto stomper crying because they feel they're getting stomped on. That's comedy.
jane stalin Ametat Security Amarr Empire 82	Posted - 2015.01.07 09:03:00 - [93] - 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. vehiclist does sound wrong but if it is acceptable to call someone who plays the violin a violinist then I accept the word vehiclist as someone thatuse vehicles. PS if you happen to be a child of mine that has not been born at the time of typing this and you are reading this in the distant future I completely retract the given statement above, I will disown you if you use such a stupid word.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2681	Posted - 2015.01.07 11:01:00 - [94] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Okay, but adding proto vehicles equals one of two things: either AV balance remains the same and the vehicles receive an irrelevant increase in statistics making the proto not worth having, or proto AV is rebalanced to the dramatically more durable vehicles (I mean, proto infantry can have fully twice as much HP as STD) and STD vehicles get royally screwed. I suppose the answer is to do the latter, but make the PRO vehicles cost millions upon millions, and make proto AV cost a proportionate amount. Or **** tiers tiercide. Look where tiericide landed us Godin......... Tiercide hasn't happened yet for infantry, and has always existed for vehicles. I don't see what you mean by that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5583	Posted - 2015.01.07 13:48:00 - [95] - Quote As someone that gets bored unless I'm flying my Assault Dropship through tons of AV and getting into the occasional 1v1 with a good Fore Gunner, I don't think I'd describe myself as a pansy. What pisses me off is that instead of dueling Forge Gunners, now all there is are scrubs with easymode Swarms just filling the sky with fire-and-forget no-skill seeker missiles. Bring skill back to AV. Nerf Swarms. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Jathniel G I A N T 1401	Posted - 2015.01.07 15:14:00 - [96] - Quote Bethhy wrote: (..properly gave a brief but accurate history of HAVS and DS...) You gotta understand probably most the guys playing Dust today, started in Uprising or at the very end of Chromosome. They're not familiar with what was envisioned or implemented before. They don't understand how big the maps really are, and that Dropships were going to be carrying players across very great distances (like in Arma 2 or 3). They don't understand that HAVs (especially old school Marauders), were END GAME HAVs, that had like 10x and 12x SP cost (and that's why they were lethal and hard to kill). They probably don't even know that MCCs were designed to move between objectives and theaters of operation. If Dust players today, KNEW what us closed beta "bitter vets" knew, they would not settle for Dust as it is right now, and they would take the OP's words more seriously. Retired
MetalWolf-Cell ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 22	Posted - 2015.01.07 16:29:00 - [97] - Quote I see HAV's should be powerful support platforms. The reason I say this is because when you normally see tanks, They provide suppression and high dps shells. Infantry can take cover behind a tank as small arms fire bounce off their thick plating. Also, usually when someone sees a mammoth sized vehicle role into the battlefield, people tend to a) panic or b) focus all of their attention on said vehicle, leaving them vulnerable to infantry men. They are also the strongest AV available if fitted correctly to do so, can provide artillery fire to blast large amounts of people in one area, while small turrets can catch people if not treading the field carefully, and just become a big ol' wall to block people from going in one direction However like True and other vets say...They don't act like Tanks...more like a MAV. Marauders in chromosome, were TANKS. Overpowered? a little bit, but they were tanks. very hard to take out, and with coordinated effort, could be destroyed. They cost a ton of ISK, and a lot of SP. if you lost these 3.5 mil tanks, a hole in your pocket you had. But with them gone, and now stuck with these tanks with odd mechanics, they Don't really behave like one. The Gallente HAV has a large AR on top of it. Usually you see Rapid fire turrets on smaller, nimble vehicles that can provide constant DPS while remaining mobile. Most large vehicles have slow, High damaging shells that either scare the crap out of people on the end of it's muzzle, or surpress a particular area from advancing. Caldari vehicles sort of behave like tanks but even then, They just don't feel like a tank at all and more like a fast death machine. HAV's in my opinion, should be sort of slow but very hard hitting. Having cannons to fire from a distance to warn people of their presence on the battlefield and be wary to come across it as it's secondary turrets can easily kill you. Be hard to destroy without coordinated tactics from AV or another tank, and depending on how it is fitted, either a glass cannon, or extremely tanky. It's role on the battlefield I'm saying, could be a large supportive platform that can KILL with large shells. ANYTHING should have a potential to kill. If logic entails, a scout should only be Intel and very little killing and a logi should only heal and provide ammo and less of killing potential. But of course, they have a potential to be deadly as well, such as a HAV should kill as well. But like I said, Vets and myself, should see the HAV with a role. Currently it's like CCP is confused on what it should be, which is understandable since Tanks like these are a little complex since they use to have multiple roles among the modules they had. But due to tiercide, they are pigeon holed into large dropsuits with large forge guns and AR's. I would like to see them as a very strong artillery support vehicle that can help punch a whole in organized defenses and cause chaos if left without counter attacks. However, that is just my 0.02 ISK DUST 514/LEGION
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 110	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:24:00 - [98] - Quote Bump. This thread started off slow but It has really become quite interesting. I want the discussion to continue. Consider me intrigued.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2700	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:40:00 - [99] - Quote Jathniel wrote: Bethhy wrote: (..properly gave a brief but accurate history of HAVS and DS...) You gotta understand probably most the guys playing Dust today, started in Uprising or at the very end of Chromosome. They're not familiar with what was envisioned or implemented before. They don't understand how big the maps really are, and that Dropships were going to be carrying players across very great distances (like in Arma 2 or 3). They don't understand that HAVs (especially old school Marauders), were END GAME HAVs, that had like 10x and 12x SP cost (and that's why they were lethal and hard to kill). They probably don't even know that MCCs were designed to move between objectives and theaters of operation. If Dust players today, KNEW what us closed beta "bitter vets" knew, they would not settle for Dust as it is right now, and they would take the OP's words more seriously. I think the Marauders were 12x multipliers during Chrome. But I think that's also when SP gains were still pretty high per match. I imagine they'll be 8x now due to 10k SP being a pretty high gain in one match. If vehicles are worth it, I'm dumping all my 71mil SP into them. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Bone Doc Commando Perkone Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:46:00 - [100] - Quote The only vehicles that dont have a role are tanks while LAV and dropships are pure transportation with minor firepower, the only time I ever seen a good role for tanks was back in closed beta when the massive installations had to be desroryed or captured in order for the game to proceed,everything since then has only made them death mahcines with no boundary outside of that. Maybe the game modes need to change in order to give the vehicles more purpose instead of changing the vehicle themselfs,idk just thinking to myself.

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2694	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:59:00 - [101] - Quote 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? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Djinn SouI Molden Heath PoIice Department 113	Posted - 2015.01.14 19:16:00 - [102] - 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?
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5664	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:13:00 - [103] - Quote Djinn SouI wrote: 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? No. You shouldn't be forced to play as infantry just to have access to the vehicle that you chose to specialize for. Imagine a squad of 6 Proto Scouts goes running around with shotguns until they have enough WP, then calls in their full vehicle quota and keeps any other players from getting enough WP to call in vehicles. Putting a WP cost on vehicles has the potential to make battles in Dust even more one-sided and pointless. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1298	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:20:00 - [104] - Quote 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 Might as well throw a WP cost on spawning in a heavy suit considering how advantageous it is to run Dual tanking is for bad players. Come play a better game.
Hakyou Brutor Bad Intention 1927	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:55:00 - [105] - Quote remove av, it's the only reason tanks are so bad fixed you're welcome, world you might be talented, but you're not hak rekt
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 3052	Posted - 2015.01.18 16:15:00 - [106] - Quote Sometimes I worry about this community, I really do. You can all think what ever you want to think but in my opinion, vehicles used to be fine, fun and had a place in the game. Back in Chromosome..... remember those days? Blaster tanks dealt with infantry, Railgun tanks dealt with blaster tanks as well as being great vs installations and dropships. Now if your team doesn't make use of installations then that is your problem. Vehicles used to have variety and the pilots would regularly roll with gunners. Missiles needed a little adjustment but we did finally get that. Modules required management and judgement to use correctly. Everything got nerfed, changed, messed around with and look what happened.... tank useage has gone down the pan and we get posts like this calling for them to be removed. I have often read on these forums that people dont want to turn this game into an infantry only COD clone, however the reality is that we have slowly been doing this. What's the way to make things good again? Lets have some good ideas and discussion instead of absolute bullshit moaning. Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Beld Errmon Nyain San 1818	Posted - 2015.01.18 17:26:00 - [107] - Quote The game was so much better in chromosome, except for a brief period when ADS became good (before everyone noticed atleast) and then the railgun on the incubus suddenly became awesome, best time ever to be an ADS pilot, so glad I left before that changed. Its funny to see after all this time, this debate hasn't changed much, except for which side is crying at the time. Retired bittervet.
Helghus Resther Heisen Republic 60	Posted - 2015.01.18 18:05:00 - [108] - Quote Tell you what Djinn, you and Soraya can cry about vehicles' existence while CCP tries to work on... things important. Good day. The winner of this war will not prove who's right; only, who's left.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 305	Posted - 2015.01.18 19:03:00 - [109] - Quote Djinn SouI wrote: 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... Vehicles are stupid and boring right now, but they should be fixed, not removed. Games that get vehicles right like battlefield vietnam result in some of the most fun Ive ever had without your mom being in the room.
TIGER SHARK1501 Savage Bullet 120	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:36:00 - [110] - Quote Regardless to a vehicle's intended role if someone wishes to pilot one it us their choice. It's no different than if you choose to play an assault role.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16667	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:49:00 - [111] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Vehicles are stupid and boring right now, but they should be fixed, not removed. Games that get vehicles right like battlefield vietnam result in some of the most fun Ive ever had without your mom being in the room. Looks awesome..... love them single shot main guns. So satisfying to get kills with. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 533	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:39:00 - [112] - Quote To answer a bolded question from the OP: Well theoretically vehicles are the line breakers. Assume 2 squads of equal skill. One squad is defending an objective. One squad is assaulting. Due to the even match skill wise the assaulting squad may have trouble or be unable to break the defense. So in comes a tank. Either it A: Nabs a few kills, Suppresses a few defenders, and/or limits the defending team's ability to move around in their defensive positions allowing the attackers to get into more advantageous positions/drop artillery (MDs, Plasma cannons, Flaylocks, Fluxes, basically AE weapons) and break the line or B: diverts defensive manpower away from infantry defense to vehicles defense giving the attackers a window to break the line with temporarily superior numbers/efficient weapons. I'm not going to say it WORKS that way but that is how I think they are designed. Take that for what you will. /shrug
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2704	Posted - 2015.01.19 03:01:00 - [113] - Quote Djinn SouI wrote: 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? you, no. It makes ZERO sense, and on top that, it cuts off strategies where those are needed at any point. Just no. Also, powerup vehicles are a serious ** no. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pvt Numnutz Prophets of the Velocirapture 2037	Posted - 2015.01.19 09:56:00 - [114] - Quote Comparing vehicle roles to dropsuit roles is like comparing apples to oranges. Because vehicles and dropsuits are very different and play differently. While I agree we could use more roles for vehicles, especially logistics vehicles, I don't agree taking them out completely would solve that. The way I see it, Tanks: main battle tanks good for making pushes to break enemy lines and eliminating enemy armor. Dropships: logistic vehicles that are very versatile able to fit mobile CRU's scanners etc. Can carry a full squad into battle. Assault dropships: close air support specializing in strafe runs and quick insertions. Not as versatile as dropships but are more maneuverable and pack more of a punch. Lavs: light ground transport and scouting vehicle, used to move small teams around the map quickly with a turret for support fire. Tanks are better suited for offense. Using their high HP with mods to force an advance with incredible firepower. They can be mobile cover for advancing infantry too. Think of them like German or american tanks, designed to blitz the enemy. Defending is more of a secondary role as they can't stay engaged forever. Dropships are incredibly fun when used with teamwork and can provide a multitude of roles. Anti vehicle and air superiority and close air/transport support. They can scout positions before the main force arrives, deliver troops to advantageous positions and deal with those pesky uplinks. They can provide close air support for shock troops and infantry. The only thing dropships would need to better their role is larger maps where rapid redeployment becomes vital, add larger team sizes so commanders can free up some troops from the ground. Those two changes would show how incredibly useful the transport role of the dropship is. Logistics vehicles need some love...and need to exist, but in a more useful way. The logistics dropship would be awesome for this. Add in a mobile supply depot mod that restocks ammo and such in a radius when landed (no switching suits tho) with a built in cru and fit some vehicle rep mods on it and boom you have a sweet logistics vehicle. As to your "I can't do anything cause I don't want to loose millions of isk QQ" for dropships and to a lesser degree tanks, we don't even know we are in combat until we have to run. I'll be flying along happy as a clam and then suddenly a third or more of my shields are gone. The hit detector is telling me the opposite direction and I have a few seconds to react before I'm hit again. Its much better to run and save your two games worth of isk than trying to find a target somewhere on the map that is invisible to you. Disengaging and locating the threat is first priority. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need and early warning system for swarms. It doesn't have to give the direction, I don't need him to pop up on my screen. I just need to know there is a serious threat and that I am being engaged so that I can respond appropriately rather than running because I didn't know I was in a fight, I thought I was flying in a non contested air space. Pilots would be able to size up the situation and be more effective if we just knew what the situation was! A lot of the problems with vehicles can be solved rather easily with minor fixes. Master Skyshark rider Kaalaka dakka tamer


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

rekt

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!