DUST Search - Discussion on tank speed.

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Derpty Derp wrote:

Godin Thekiller wrote:

Derpty Derp wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now.

Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me."

Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy.

Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover.

Positioning falls apart when both units are moving to dodge each other. Having HAV's that can weave around very well allows for turrets with range profiles to make much more sense within their profiles tbh. A rail at range works much better at range because it can still easily track the HAV at range, but up close the rail won't do so well, because it can't track it.

If your issue is that you can't track something up close with a rail, but the blaster can track you, well, why in the **** are you using a rail up close?

Quite the opposite, a rail Gunnlogi can easily pirouette to keep someone in their sights, making movement pointless. Better just to have both tanks sit still and see who has the better build.

A Madrugar can easily outspeed the turnrate of the Gunnlogi, and if Madrugars could turn better, it would do it even easier.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2805	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:10:00 - [1] - Quote Currently we are hearing lots about armor tanks, specifically dual hardened dual repped tanks being OP. I believe the issue is actually a separate problem: tanks are far too maneuverable. Let's look at the M1A1 Abrams. Top speed is 45 mph, or about 72 km/h. Since speed on protofits is measured in m/s, converting an Abrams to this unit of measurement becomes 20.11 m/s. A Madrugar has a top speed of 22.5 m/s. These numbers are actually close. However, for the Abrams it assumes a flat paved road long enough to build to that top speed. Over cross-country terrain, that number drops to 30 mph, which when we convert becomes 13.41 m/s. Notice how much lower this is. And we are still assuming perfectly level terrain. Add in a 10-¦ angle, and the Abrams top speed becomes 20 mph, which is 8.9 m/s. This is incredibly slower than the top speed under ideal conditions. Why is this? It's because the Abrams weighs 63 tons. It's incredible how much weight affects maneuverability. Now we cannot expect Dust to perfectly emulate real life. However, we can look at real life for some inspiration. I do not know what Maddies and Gunnlogis are set at for acceleration, but the M1A1 Abrams acceleration is 0 to 20 mph in 7 seconds. After converting, we get an acceleration of 1.28 m/s-¦. This assumes ideal conditions. Since I don't have the numbers in front of me I cannot confirm, but I would speculate that Maddies and Gunnlogis are acceleration to their top speed much, much faster than 1.28 m/s-¦. and this acceleration is only to half of top speed for the Abrams. Acceleration to top speed would take far longer. Specs on Abrams tanks Now, let's look at Dust. People complain that armor HAVs are OP because they are invincible while dual hardeners are up, and then zip off to the redline when hardeners are down. Now personally, I believe HAVs being nigh unkillable when hardeners are up to be a good thing. The entire purpose of the hardener is to resist AV. What's the point of them if they don't do their job? That's why they were nearly unused since they were nerfed a few months ago. I think hardener function, at least for armor, is close to perfect. However, the second part of that statement is what I believe is imbalanced. Tanks are escaping destruction far too easily. It is easy to reach your top speed in a handful of seconds as it is, and a fuel injector allows you to reach over your normal maximum speed in about 1-2 seconds. So when your hardeners turn off, it is a simple matter to quickly escape to a safe location to wait for the hardeners to come off cooldown to do it all again. This is where I think things are imbalanced; a tank should be a fortress when it's hardeners are up. It shouldn't be zipping around when it needs to retreat. A tank should be about "stand-and-deliver" gameplay. They are slow behemoths that are tough to crack, but if caught are difficult to evade or retreat with. Currently they seem to behave more similar to how LAVs should do combat, zipping away quickly once they are weakened. My proposal is thus: Let's slightly increase turn speed, especially on the Madrugars. Then, let's nerf top speed some, say to 16 m/s for the Madrugar, and 14 m/s for the Gunnlogi. This is about 30 mph for both, give or take. Then let's severely reduce their acceleration to that top speed. What this does is make a tank have great damage dealing capabilities and great ehp. But tht comes at a sacrifice: a tremendous loss in maneuverability. A tank now need infantry support to make up for this loss of maneuverability. Instead of zipping away from danger like a forge or swarmer instead it relies on infantry to clear out those threats for it so it can continue. A tank caught without support will survive until it's hardeners come off cooldown. Then it will be extremely vulnerable to even a solo AV player, and now it won't be able to easily escape destruction like they can now. In all, this change to tanks makes them closer to what they should be: a mobile staging point for an attack. Infantry rely on the tank to provide cover and to destroy/deter enemy vehicles, and the infantry support the tank by eliminating AV threats that the tank cannot easily escape from once its hardeners expire. Having gunners will be more useful than they are now, since the ability to quickly deploy 2 infantry to engage AV could tip the balance in tank/AV engagements. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 208	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:15:00 - [2] - Quote Perfectly said. =ƒæÅ=ƒæÅ=ƒæÅ+1 48th Special Operations Force. Twitter- @48SOF
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 208	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:17:00 - [3] - Quote That will mostly solve the op-ness of Madrugars but will affect Gunnlogis even more as, currently, if not fitted well, they are instapopped. 48th Special Operations Force. Twitter- @48SOF
Text Grant PIanet Express Smart Deploy 393	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:23:00 - [4] - Quote +1 Do one for the flying tanks next
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2809	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:27:00 - [5] - Quote We can buff tank health if we need to, and buff shield modules as well. But the tank shouldn't be maneuverable. They should stand and deliver, emphasis on stand. Hard to kill solo (save for by other tanks) but once its modules are down, it is vulnerable to counterattack by AV, need I g Infantry support to clear out AV so I can safely advance. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 160	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:28:00 - [6] - Quote I'm not a tanker, but I think this is a good idea. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5583	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:50:00 - [7] - Quote I have some qualms about nerfing turn speed specifically. At the very least on the Madrugar, the turn speed already feels incredibly clunky which is partially due to poor turn speed and the fact that the control scheme on controllers for HAVs is.....well utter **. Essentially on the controller, it's impossible to turn at 100% speed due to the nature of how the controller works and often doesn't work properly if you try to push the threshold of turning which means you often take turns even slower. My point is, the clunky turning of HAVs is really bad as it is, and I would absolutely hate if it was even worse. If Rattati wants to mess with an HAV's ability to escape, change acceleration, top speed, and inertia, but not turn speed. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2810	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:52:00 - [8] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I have some qualms about nerfing turn speed specifically. At the very least on the Madrugar, the turn speed already feels incredibly clunky which is partially due to poor turn speed and the fact that the control scheme on controllers for HAVs is.....well utter ****. Essentially on the controller, it's impossible to turn at 100% speed due to the nature of how the controller works and often doesn't work properly if you try to push the threshold of turning which means you often take turns even slower. My point is, the clunky turning of HAVs is really bad as it is, and I would absolutely hate if it was even worse. If Rattati wants to mess with an HAV's ability to escape, change acceleration, top speed, and inertia, but not turn speed. I actually meant meantmeant to mean buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 160	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:04:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I have some qualms about nerfing turn speed specifically. At the very least on the Madrugar, the turn speed already feels incredibly clunky which is partially due to poor turn speed and the fact that the control scheme on controllers for HAVs is.....well utter ****. Essentially on the controller, it's impossible to turn at 100% speed due to the nature of how the controller works and often doesn't work properly if you try to push the threshold of turning which means you often take turns even slower. My point is, the clunky turning of HAVs is really bad as it is, and I would absolutely hate if it was even worse. If Rattati wants to mess with an HAV's ability to escape, change acceleration, top speed, and inertia, but not turn speed. I actually meant meantmeant to mean buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. The few times I hopped into a HAV, the thing I hated more than anything was the awful turning. Most of my issues with it stem from the control scheme. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5583	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:33:00 - [10] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I have some qualms about nerfing turn speed specifically. At the very least on the Madrugar, the turn speed already feels incredibly clunky which is partially due to poor turn speed and the fact that the control scheme on controllers for HAVs is.....well utter **. Essentially on the controller, it's impossible to turn at 100% speed due to the nature of how the controller works and often doesn't work properly if you try to push the threshold of turning which means you often take turns even slower. My point is, the clunky turning of HAVs is really bad as it is, and I would absolutely hate if it was even worse. If Rattati wants to mess with an HAV's ability to escape, change acceleration, top speed, and inertia, but not turn speed. I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Ah, ok. ^_^ Yeah I would much love handling to be smoother, turning in place is a freaking nightmare for HAVs, particularly armor. Thing is you can get around the crappy controls by using a M&K but for people like me who's in-home setup doesn't really allow for that, I'm kind of stuck with a controller. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2998	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:48:00 - [11] - Quote The top speed doesn't need reducing, the speeds are fine for them. It's the acceleration that needs nerfing. It should take around 5-10 seconds to get to max speed, not 1, and slightly lower (3-5 seconds) for nitro. Regardless, there would need to be a slight HP buff to compensate. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 943	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:54:00 - [12] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me." Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy. Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2999	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:37:00 - [13] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me." Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy. Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover. Positioning falls apart when both units are moving to dodge each other. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4395	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:09:00 - [14] - Quote If you expect me to be slow then i expect 180plates back, buff to extenders and plates, buff to small turrets to they can actually kill, buff to base HP, working boosters and active armor reps etc. So 3 Lai dai can deal 5.5k in less than 3seconds, swarms can easily deal 5k damage per clip if not more, AFG a good 4k in a clip, PLC slower but 1500 i think? RE being 3k from a scout or easily 10k+ from a JLAV So in a worst case scenario my HAV needs to have about 25k EHP at least when warmed up and really needs 15k when cold at a base minmium. Ye i can't see AV liking that. Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3001	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:32:00 - [15] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If you expect me to be slow then i expect 180plates back, buff to extenders and plates, buff to small turrets to they can actually kill, buff to base HP, working boosters and active armor reps etc. So 3 Lai dai can deal 5.5k in less than 3seconds, swarms can easily deal 5k damage per clip if not more, AFG a good 4k in a clip, PLC slower but 1500 i think? RE being 3k from a scout or easily 10k+ from a JLAV So in a worst case scenario my HAV needs to have about 25k EHP at least when warmed up and really needs 15k when cold at a base minmium. Ye i can't see AV liking that. Disclaimer: The above post is respectful, contains no ranting, contains no personal attacks, contains no trolling, contains no racism, contains no discrimination, contains no profanity, contains no spamming. This post is an opinion and is related to DUST514 lol click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:35:00 - [16] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me." Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy. Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover. Positioning falls apart when both units are moving to dodge each other. Having HAV's that can weave around very well allows for turrets with range profiles to make much more sense within their profiles tbh. A rail at range works much better at range because it can still easily track the HAV at range, but up close the rail won't do so well, because it can't track it. If your issue is that you can't track something up close with a rail, but the blaster can track you, well, why in the **** are you using a rail up close? Quite the opposite, a rail Gunnlogi can easily pirouette to keep someone in their sights, making movement pointless. Better just to have both tanks sit still and see who has the better build.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3005	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:43:00 - [17] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me." Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy. Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover. Positioning falls apart when both units are moving to dodge each other. Having HAV's that can weave around very well allows for turrets with range profiles to make much more sense within their profiles tbh. A rail at range works much better at range because it can still easily track the HAV at range, but up close the rail won't do so well, because it can't track it. If your issue is that you can't track something up close with a rail, but the blaster can track you, well, why in the **** are you using a rail up close? Quite the opposite, a rail Gunnlogi can easily pirouette to keep someone in their sights, making movement pointless. Better just to have both tanks sit still and see who has the better build. A Madrugar can easily outspeed the turnrate of the Gunnlogi, and if Madrugars could turn better, it would do it even easier. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:59:00 - [18] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: A Madrugar can easily outspeed the turnrate of the Gunnlogi, and if Madrugars could turn better, it would do it even easier. Video or it didn't happen... Seriously, the Gunni turns faster and even that can't outdo the slowest turret fitted on another Gunni. The only viable option is to go through the other tank, then they either have to reverse or turn, buying you a little time... Though this does nothing if the other tank just moves with you, keeping you infront. Tracking is too easy, thanks to turn speed... At least a Madruga can't buff it's turret turn speed enough to track with the 2 slower turrets at close range.
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2814	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:09:00 - [19] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I actually meant to buff the turn speed. Editing OP now. Turn speed + turret turn speed = boring tank fights where everyone can shoot anything no matter how fast it turns... If anything the Gunni's turn speed should be nerfed to that of the Maddi... So that positioning actually counts for something in close combat, rather than "my turret hits more than yours and is always pointing at you, no matter how fast you go around me." Could just drop the turn speed of large turrets, then tracking infantry would be hell with it, making it less easy. Make a tanky tank that can turn fast, but not run away fast, you will just end up with it soaking up damage while it blaps everything around it that isn't permanently in cover. Positioning falls apart when both units are moving to dodge each other. Having HAV's that can weave around very well allows for turrets with range profiles to make much more sense within their profiles tbh. A rail at range works much better at range because it can still easily track the HAV at range, but up close the rail won't do so well, because it can't track it. If your issue is that you can't track something up close with a rail, but the blaster can track you, well, why in the **** are you using a rail up close? Quite the opposite, a rail Gunnlogi can easily pirouette to keep someone in their sights, making movement pointless. Better just to have both tanks sit still and see who has the better build. A Madrugar can easily outspeed the turnrate of the Gunnlogi, and if Madrugars could turn better, it would do it even easier. The only time I have seen a Maddy do this is with a fuel injector Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 943	Posted - 2015.03.26 06:43:00 - [20] - Quote All that would happen with a change like the op suggests is it would make tankers change their engagement range. Even without a fuel injector I can get away in a maddy. If I couldn't, then I'd wear an assault suit while tanking and pop my hardeners then hop out and kill his ass. Not running away would only make me shoot at range from near cover. The other thing that would happen is suicide jeeps would become more of a problem, for noobs, if tank mobility was reduced. If infantry av is good at forcing a tank to leave. Of you want proper defense, or simply want to keep tanks away for longer periods, then use proxi explosives

WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars 316	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:35:00 - [21] - Quote You could introduce tank turn speed acceleration and very high deceleration rotation (not turret turn speed/rotation) and thus make sure the shield tanks cant track too easily at close ranges. This would prevent players using large rail turrets up close at 50m tank engagements because of combined turret and tank rotation speeds.
Text Grant PIanet Express Smart Deploy 397	Posted - 2015.03.30 17:47:00 - [22] - Quote This should happen
Text Grant PIanet Express Smart Deploy 397	Posted - 2015.03.30 18:04:00 - [23] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: All that would happen with a change like the op suggests is it would make tankers change their engagement range. Even without a fuel injector I can get away in a maddy. If I couldn't, then I'd wear an assault suit while tanking and pop my hardeners then hop out and kill his ass. Not running away would only make me shoot at range from near cover. The other thing that would happen is suicide jeeps would become more of a problem, for noobs, if tank mobility was reduced. If infantry av is good at forcing a tank to leave. Of you want proper defense, or simply want to keep tanks away for longer periods, then use proxi explosives A great reason to introduce pilot suits, and to deactivate all modules upon the driver leaving his seat


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