DUST Search - just a vehicle turret idea

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

just a vehicle turret idea - prob not a good one

» 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)
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1902	Posted - 2015.01.15 00:57:00 - [1] - Quote seems getting the balance between effective infantry killing and effective AV killing on a vehicle versus the infantry versions is always going to be off. i think what we need is to separate the infantry killing tanks from the tank killing tanks and then give the av role back to the tankers and reduce light av to killing light vehicles. in doing this we will get a much better balance on the field which doesn't require infantry to stop doing everything to clear out tankers. my suggestion is make all current tank turrets av only. dont worry they will have reduced damage from all forms of light weapon av and remotes (excluding proximity mines or forge) so not going to be weak against infantry. now create a new turret mount which takes the main weapon slot. equip this turret and it will allow you to fit 2-4 small turrets to it depending on level. skills for this turret mount will increase effectiveness of small turrets in all ways. these small turrets will be very weak to tanks but great for anti infantry and light vehicles. rails mount 2-4 would essentially become AA guns (can look straight up 90 degrees from forward but not down) missile mount 2-4 would become light vehicle av (fast tracking short range) blaster mount 2-4 would become anti infantry guns (medium range, medium tracking) with this tanks have no worry from infantry av yet to go anti infantry they will be weak to av tanks. imagine a squad of tanks covering all roles with infantry in between in with the vehicles fighting away. 1 tank to do all tasks is not going to get any reasonable balance with infantry. All Hail Legion
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16588	Posted - 2015.01.15 02:12:00 - [2] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: seems getting the balance between effective infantry killing and effective AV killing on a vehicle versus the infantry versions is always going to be off. i think what we need is to separate the infantry killing tanks from the tank killing tanks and then give the av role back to the tankers and reduce light av to killing light vehicles. in doing this we will get a much better balance on the field which doesn't require infantry to stop doing everything to clear out tankers. my suggestion is make all current tank turrets av only. dont worry they will have reduced damage from all forms of light weapon av and remotes (excluding proximity mines or forge) so not going to be weak against infantry. now create a new turret mount which takes the main weapon slot. equip this turret and it will allow you to fit 2-4 small turrets to it depending on level. skills for this turret mount will increase effectiveness of small turrets in all ways. these small turrets will be very weak to tanks but great for anti infantry and light vehicles. rails mount 2-4 would essentially become AA guns (can look straight up 90 degrees from forward but not down,long range) missile mount 2-4 would become light vehicle av (fast tracking short range) blaster mount 2-4 would become anti infantry guns (medium range, medium tracking) with this tanks have no worry from infantry av yet to go anti infantry they will be weak to av tanks. imagine a squad of tanks covering all roles with infantry in between in with the vehicles fighting away. 1 tank to do all tasks is not going to get any reasonable balance with infantry. Eh...... *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 190	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:36:00 - [3] - Quote So infantry would have no way of effectively fighting back against HAVs and would have to rely on tanks to deal with tanks? Purifier. First Class.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16590	Posted - 2015.01.15 03:50:00 - [4] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: So infantry would have no way of effectively fighting back against HAVs and would have to rely on tanks to deal with tanks? Consequently Tanks would find it harder to deal with infantry. The ideal isn't a bad one however the suggested implementation seems iffy to me. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1250	Posted - 2015.01.15 05:05:00 - [5] - Quote The idea ain't bad. It puts a focus on heavy AV, which really should be the go to AV weapons. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1902	Posted - 2015.01.15 07:46:00 - [6] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: So infantry would have no way of effectively fighting back against HAVs and would have to rely on tanks to deal with tanks? they can still use forge and proximity mines. the point is we will never see any balance on tank vs AV not while tanks can kill both infantry and av from a single vehicle and light av can do high damage to tanks. the solution is to separate them. have tanks balanced against tank and infantry against infantry. this suggestion means a AP tank will be strong against infantry but zero protection against other tanks meaning it will need tank support to protect it. at the same time players are not punished for bringing out tank av instead of infantry av by getting obliterated by light av. this will bring in the much needed balance on the field. remember thats 4 small turrets on the AP tank so thats a lot of cpu/pg meaning less tank for AV protection from other tanks but more survivability from light av. an ap tank would have little effort in dispatching a AP tank. what we will get is more mixed tank battles and a more integrated combat with tanks and infantry without 1 side obliterating the other like we currently have All Hail Legion
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6437	Posted - 2015.01.15 09:02:00 - [7] - Quote I have suggested things like this before but have to acknowledge a few problems. 1. While we have a lot of sentinel spam maybe one out of ten has forge guns really specced out. This would lead to teams getting facerolled by HAVs because they have the poor luck of not having an AV av fatty in the queue or an AV tanker In the queue. 2. Balancing light weapons for light AV and heavy for HAV would need to be done carefully. If not done just so it would mean sentinels pop dropships like zits. While I gave them crap about it dropships were and remain an expensive investment. Making them too fragile against any particular weapon seems off. 3. Anti infantry. HMG with aim assist. If it were just as I would have it, Heavy weapons would be able to do 100% vs vehicles and infantry without having to hit the 800-1000 DPS mark. You could tool light AV to do 50-80% vs. Medium vehicles and 100% vs light. While HAVs would be 30-50. Tje problem with this is very simple. How do you cope as infantry if you don't have an AV sentinel or an AV HAV driver? Perfect imbalance is a neat concept but unless you have enough people in each role the battles start getting lopsided fast. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1902	Posted - 2015.01.15 16:45:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I have suggested things like this before but have to acknowledge a few problems. 1. While we have a lot of sentinel spam maybe one out of ten has forge guns really specced out. This would lead to teams getting facerolled by HAVs because they have the poor luck of not having an AV av fatty in the queue or an AV tanker In the queue. 2. Balancing light weapons for light AV and heavy for HAV would need to be done carefully. If not done just so it would mean sentinels pop dropships like zits. While I gave them crap about it dropships were and remain an expensive investment. Making them too fragile against any particular weapon seems off. 3. Anti infantry. HMG with aim assist. If it were just as I would have it, Heavy weapons would be able to do 100% vs vehicles and infantry without having to hit the 800-1000 DPS mark. You could tool light AV to do 50-80% vs. Medium vehicles and 100% vs light. While HAVs would be 30-50. Tje problem with this is very simple. How do you cope as infantry if you don't have an AV sentinel or an AV HAV driver? Perfect imbalance is a neat concept but unless you have enough people in each role the battles start getting lopsided fast. the what if we don't have av argument is no different than what we have today. most av can swat dropships anyway. what this gives us is vehicles capable of taking over from light av but due to size leaving themselves open to forge and AV tanks. no more flying around a corner and being swarmed to death from someone you can't even see. tanks and infantry are completely different so will never be balanced in their current state. what can be balanced is making them strong in 1 aspect and weak in the other forcing players to make a choice. we will never get any tankers going AP if they can still be fluxed then 2 shot by virtually any light AV and you won't have any av on the ground if tanks get dps and ehp buffs. it leaves only 1 option. separate them both. balance in infantry is a choice of do i go killer or support but you cannot do both effectively. for a tank its not a choice to have high ehp/dps and be able to take on both infantry and vehicles. if i have a choice of pull out a rail tank to kill a blaster tank while avoiding light av which is the biggest threat or just pull out light av and take out the blaster the choice is obvious. AV tanks need to safely be able to take on other tanks (unless from another AV tank) with little threat from light AV in order to be viable playstyle. there also has to be incentive for players to risk being killed by these tanks hence the OP allowing them to kill infantry yet be weak to tanks. if light av is too strong we end up with no AP tanks leading to no AV tanks leading us back to the spiral of nerf/buff to light av and tanks alike and for another year 1 side gets gimped while the other gets buffed too much. there is no denying its out there but with a little time players would get used to it. All Hail Legion
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15067	Posted - 2015.01.15 16:47:00 - [9] - Quote I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6453	Posted - 2015.01.15 16:53:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. Unfortunately there's really no way to get around this statement. Light vehicles and medium vehicles are neither prolific enough, nor more available than HAVs and dropships except by circumstance of BPO. Then of course, there's the problem of making swarms less effective against heavier vehicles but retaining their gimpiness vs. infantry. I've suggested it before, but I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. the downsides outweigh any advantage. As it stands swarms have the highest DPS, lowest alpha. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16598	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:42:00 - [11] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Atiim wrote: I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. Unfortunately there's really no way to get around this statement. Light vehicles and medium vehicles are neither prolific enough, nor more available than HAVs and dropships except by circumstance of BPO. Then of course, there's the problem of making swarms less effective against heavier vehicles but retaining their gimpiness vs. infantry. I've suggested it before, but I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. the downsides outweigh any advantage. As it stands swarms have the highest DPS, lowest alpha. I could attempt to explain why swarm launchers would be inferior in terms of penetrative power to a forge gun by way of real work technologies....but I don't think that would do much of ease the situation. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6459	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:45:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Atiim wrote: I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. Unfortunately there's really no way to get around this statement. Light vehicles and medium vehicles are neither prolific enough, nor more available than HAVs and dropships except by circumstance of BPO. Then of course, there's the problem of making swarms less effective against heavier vehicles but retaining their gimpiness vs. infantry. I've suggested it before, but I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. the downsides outweigh any advantage. As it stands swarms have the highest DPS, lowest alpha. I could attempt to explain why swarm launchers would be inferior in terms of penetrative power to a forge gun by way of real work technologies....but I don't think that would do much of ease the situation. unfortunately, until Light vehicles are used as more than cheap, expendable transport by more than a handful of people it's really hard to justify. Therein lies the problem. Nevermind it's EVE where Caldari engineers figured out how to deliver a kinetic shockwave through vacuum. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16598	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:54:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Atiim wrote: I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. Unfortunately there's really no way to get around this statement. Light vehicles and medium vehicles are neither prolific enough, nor more available than HAVs and dropships except by circumstance of BPO. Then of course, there's the problem of making swarms less effective against heavier vehicles but retaining their gimpiness vs. infantry. I've suggested it before, but I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. the downsides outweigh any advantage. As it stands swarms have the highest DPS, lowest alpha. I could attempt to explain why swarm launchers would be inferior in terms of penetrative power to a forge gun by way of real work technologies....but I don't think that would do much of ease the situation. unfortunately, until Light vehicles are used as more than cheap, expendable transport by more than a handful of people it's really hard to justify. Therein lies the problem. Nevermind it's EVE where Caldari engineers figured out how to deliver a kinetic shockwave through vacuum. I was thinking more..... since Swarms have simple AI and plough right on in there instead of detonating over the top of the vehicle. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6460	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:56:00 - [14] - Quote also depends on what kind of warheads are in play. But now we're getting into esotera. It's not a really bad idea, the problem is... it entirely eliminates the functional usefulness of the swarm launcher on the battlefield. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 477	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:07:00 - [15] - Quote 1. Vehicles again go back to having no purpose
Hector Carson G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 142	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:09:00 - [16] - Quote I think what he is trying to say is making a new set of turrets that are specifically for Vehicle vs Vehicle thus keeping the skies and ground clear of vehicles if need be, but make them more expensive then the normal ones. Suggested names: Dual Rail Launcher Mounted Rocket Launcher Dual Blaster Assault c.k0 Proto Tankers
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16598	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:13:00 - [17] - Quote Hector Carson wrote: I think what he is trying to say is making a new set of turrets that are specifically for Vehicle vs Vehicle thus keeping the skies and ground clear of vehicles if need be, but make them more expensive then the normal ones. Suggested names: Dual Rail Launcher Mounted Rocket Launcher Dual Blaster He's describing the fundamental role of the tank...... we should be doing this anyway. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Hector Carson G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 142	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:17:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Hector Carson wrote: I think what he is trying to say is making a new set of turrets that are specifically for Vehicle vs Vehicle thus keeping the skies and ground clear of vehicles if need be, but make them more expensive then the normal ones. Suggested names: Dual Rail Launcher Mounted Rocket Launcher Dual Blaster He's describing the fundamental role of the tank...... we should be doing this anyway. ah ok, but it would be cool to have a Dual Rail Launcher instead of a lame Railgun Assault c.k0 Proto Tankers
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 487	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:34:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Hector Carson wrote: I think what he is trying to say is making a new set of turrets that are specifically for Vehicle vs Vehicle thus keeping the skies and ground clear of vehicles if need be, but make them more expensive then the normal ones. Suggested names: Dual Rail Launcher Mounted Rocket Launcher Dual Blaster He's describing the fundamental role of the tank...... we should be doing this anyway. 1. To be a tank and not a paper mache monster
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2764	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:43:00 - [20] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: seems getting the balance between effective infantry killing and effective AV killing on a vehicle versus the infantry versions is always going to be off. i think what we need is to separate the infantry killing tanks from the tank killing tanks and then give the av role back to the tankers and reduce light av to killing light vehicles. in doing this we will get a much better balance on the field which doesn't require infantry to stop doing everything to clear out tankers. my suggestion is make all current tank turrets av only. dont worry they will have reduced damage from all forms of light weapon av and remotes (excluding proximity mines or forge) so not going to be weak against infantry. now create a new turret mount which takes the main weapon slot. equip this turret and it will allow you to fit 2-4 small turrets to it depending on level. skills for this turret mount will increase effectiveness of small turrets in all ways. these small turrets will be very weak to tanks but great for anti infantry and light vehicles. rails mount 2-4 would essentially become AA guns (can look straight up 90 degrees from forward but not down,long range) missile mount 2-4 would become light vehicle av (fast tracking short range) blaster mount 2-4 would become anti infantry guns (medium range, medium tracking) with this tanks have no worry from infantry av yet to go anti infantry they will be weak to av tanks. imagine a squad of tanks covering all roles with infantry in between in with the vehicles fighting away. 1 tank to do all tasks is not going to get any reasonable balance with infantry. A non-pilot talking about turrets. Maybe I should start commenting on infantry. Oh wait.... I have Gk0 assault, scout and logi; Amarr sentinel; Min scout. PRO AR, shotgun, knives, HMG. So I actually can say how infantry should work. 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. 2765	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:44:00 - [21] - Quote Shotgun-style turret for anti-infantry work. Semi-auto, does quite a bit of damage. 6 or 8 rounds before having to reload; longer refire time due to no overheat. 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. 2765	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:57:00 - [22] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: So infantry would have no way of effectively fighting back against HAVs and would have to rely on tanks to deal with tanks? Rattati's first proposed idea has tanks being a great counter to other tanks. I don't see a problem with it. That's how it worked during Chrome, and it was great. Every match I was in, there were at least 3 pilots on each team. 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. 2765	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:58:00 - [23] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the point is we will never see any balance on tank vs AV not while tanks can kill both infantry and av from a single vehicle and Complains that pilots have good aim, gets the ability to aim nerfed. 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. 2765	Posted - 2015.01.15 20:59:00 - [24] - Quote Atiim wrote: I fail to see why Light AV Weapons should be inferior to Heavy AV Weapons. Because they're so easy to use, a child can do it with deadly proficiency. 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. 2770	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:00:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I was thinking more..... since Swarms have simple AI and plough right on in there instead of detonating over the top of the vehicle. Going around 3 corners, ignoring obstacles and terrain is simple AI? Sounds more like a full, almost sentient AI to me for each missile. 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 16600	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:51:00 - [26] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I was thinking more..... since Swarms have simple AI and plough right on in there instead of detonating over the top of the vehicle. Going around 3 corners, ignoring obstacles and terrain is simple AI? Sounds more like a full, almost sentient AI to me for each missile. Phasing through things is down to the poor mechanics not intelligent AI. 3 Corners? I've seen swarms pull 90 degree turns but never fly around three corners. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2490	Posted - 2015.01.15 21:57:00 - [27] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: I was thinking more..... since Swarms have simple AI and plough right on in there instead of detonating over the top of the vehicle. Going around 3 corners, ignoring obstacles and terrain is simple AI? Sounds more like a full, almost sentient AI to me for each missile. I'm going to need some video of these swarms before I believe it. Never seen them make more than one turn. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2490	Posted - 2015.01.15 22:05:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I have suggested things like this before but have to acknowledge a few problems. 1. While we have a lot of sentinel spam maybe one out of ten has forge guns really specced out. This would lead to teams getting facerolled by HAVs because they have the poor luck of not having an AV av fatty in the queue or an AV tanker In the queue. 2. Balancing light weapons for light AV and heavy for HAV would need to be done carefully. If not done just so it would mean sentinels pop dropships like zits. While I gave them crap about it dropships were and remain an expensive investment. Making them too fragile against any particular weapon seems off. 3. Anti infantry. HMG with aim assist. If it were just as I would have it, Heavy weapons would be able to do 100% vs vehicles and infantry without having to hit the 800-1000 DPS mark. You could tool light AV to do 50-80% vs. Medium vehicles and 100% vs light. While HAVs would be 30-50. Tje problem with this is very simple. How do you cope as infantry if you don't have an AV sentinel or an AV HAV driver? Perfect imbalance is a neat concept but unless you have enough people in each role the battles start getting lopsided fast. You cannot balance over what might or might-not be in a given battle. That's part of bringing in a balanced team. If there is no AV, vehicles should be wrecking everything. That's the point of AV, to stop the vehicles from wrecking. If we balance around the chance of not having AV, then why bother having AV at all? Although I will say thatwe need to make AV more accessible at the militia level. the militia forge is just laughable in its current state. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1902	Posted - 2015.01.15 23:15:00 - [29] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Complains that pilots have good aim, gets the ability to aim nerfed. what the hell are you talking about. i said nothing like that also ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the point is we will never see any balance on tank vs AV not while tanks can kill both infantry and av from a single vehicle and light av can do high damage to tanks. as always you take everything out of context to make a point. i have zero problem with tanks killing infantry. i have zero problem with tanks killing tanks. i do have a problem with tanks killing everything in sight with the 1 turret and light av destroying most vehicles easily. unlike your spkr i actually want to see a balance to this game that everyone on both sides can live with. i'm trying here to give alternatives that can be balanced while people like you only care about the return of god mode tanks which will never be balanced All Hail Legion
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1902	Posted - 2015.01.15 23:16:00 - [30] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: seems getting the balance between effective infantry killing and effective AV killing on a vehicle versus the infantry versions is always going to be off. i think what we need is to separate the infantry killing tanks from the tank killing tanks and then give the av role back to the tankers and reduce light av to killing light vehicles. in doing this we will get a much better balance on the field which doesn't require infantry to stop doing everything to clear out tankers. my suggestion is make all current tank turrets av only. dont worry they will have reduced damage from all forms of light weapon av and remotes (excluding proximity mines or forge) so not going to be weak against infantry. now create a new turret mount which takes the main weapon slot. equip this turret and it will allow you to fit 2-4 small turrets to it depending on level. skills for this turret mount will increase effectiveness of small turrets in all ways. these small turrets will be very weak to tanks but great for anti infantry and light vehicles. rails mount 2-4 would essentially become AA guns (can look straight up 90 degrees from forward but not down,long range) missile mount 2-4 would become light vehicle av (fast tracking short range) blaster mount 2-4 would become anti infantry guns (medium range, medium tracking) with this tanks have no worry from infantry av yet to go anti infantry they will be weak to av tanks. imagine a squad of tanks covering all roles with infantry in between in with the vehicles fighting away. 1 tank to do all tasks is not going to get any reasonable balance with infantry. A non-pilot talking about turrets. Maybe I should start commenting on infantry. Oh wait.... I have Gk0 assault, scout and logi; Amarr sentinel; Min scout. PRO AR, shotgun, knives, HMG. So I actually can say how infantry should work. only thing is you are no good at any of those roles including the tank All Hail Legion

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16606	Posted - 2015.01.15 23:58:00 - [31] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Complains that pilots have good aim, gets the ability to aim nerfed. what the hell are you talking about. i said nothing like that also ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the point is we will never see any balance on tank vs AV not while tanks can kill both infantry and av from a single vehicle and light av can do high damage to tanks. as always you take everything out of context to make a point. i have zero problem with tanks killing infantry. i have zero problem with tanks killing tanks. i do have a problem with tanks killing everything in sight with the 1 turret and light av destroying most vehicles easily. unlike your spkr i actually want to see a balance to this game that everyone on both sides can live with. i'm trying here to give alternatives that can be balanced while people like you only care about the return of god mode tanks which will never be balanced If tanks do kill infantry I would rather they do it in a manner that doesn't wholly undermine the current infantry dynamics. When a Blaster tank is on the field infantry currently have to drop everything and constantly be aware of that tank. If they do no run they die simple as that caught between enemy infantry fire and Anti Infantry Tank fire. I fully believe that with specific changes to the tanks main guns to make them more powerful, and by that I mean make them feel more powerful with recoil, AoE, and alpha damage, and less fundamentally likely to undermine the efforts of infantrymen requiring aim to hit the target with the round or splash. I have a suggestion in the works for the redesign of all the main tanks guns introducing 3 Main Battle Cannon variants of each turret one standard, one AP, and one HE. Under the Model we have Charged Ion Cannon (SPACE MURRICUH!) - Which fires simultaneously from three barrels a grouping of accelerated plasma charges containing a variety of suspended atoms in a plasma state. 150mm Carbide Railgun - A simple mass accelerating railgun capable of firing single hybrid charges at a high muzzle velocity using either Tungsten Felechettes or Superdense Iridium Discarding Sabot rounds. Dual Focused Pulse Lasers - A Double Barreled Pulse Laser Turret that fires multi-frequency beams at targets in rapid succession using specially designed pulse lasers to adjust the frequency of the pulses and the heat focused into the beams. Unlike other turrets Pulse Lasers have no splash damage values, no projectile falloff, and no ammunition stores. 200mm Artillery Cannon - A conventional long barrelled cannon that uses simple technologies designed to project a a variety of HEAT or APFSDS rounds at hard targets. Given the advanced ballistic warhead technologies involved in its design the 200mm "Thunderclap" Artillery Cannon possessed the most devastating fire available to a tank crew in New Eden. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.