|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
51
   |
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
+1, also if you ever played BF3-4 or whenever there was an attack helicopter, you'll know that it can very good to be the gunner, also another +1 because I like the tanker perspective of having to rely more on gunners and moving and modules, makes for more required teamwork and makes for more attentive gameplay and less crying since the main tank gunner can be shooting while looking behind itself without hitting any obstacles, because their separate seat's, plenty of time I shot and killed a tank with swarm's because they ran into the terrain trying to get away from me.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
51
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Just so we're clear, i'll always hate vehicles in this game, just like in any other game, i'm a sniper, that's simply who I am. But in no mean's would I ever want it to be unfair, for other's especially vehicle user's, i've played enough VG's to understand how vehicles work's, of course i've never delved into vehicles (save for the militia vehicles) in this game, but in other's I see very common similarities, the only thing that separates me from them, is the modules and EHP, plenty of time's if they were using the same vehicle fits as me, it would come down to more ambushing and maneuvering just like in CoD:WaW, and the battlefield 3-4. With that I put down my pen and pencil, just wanting to state fact's that there's no hard feelings. (Since many seem to get very defensive of their role's, especially when they feel threatened of it being taken away from them, your still gonna be getting more WP's than ever, it'll make mobile cru's on tank's more useful and hey, CCP may even let tank driver squad leader's call in Warbarges from within the driver seat's with this idea, possibilities!).
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote:your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing. No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants. Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun. This is why dropships usually slow down before firing.
In which case, i'm willing to let a nerf to the SL slide, give and take bra, give and take.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless.
So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Zan Azikuchi wrote:Void Echo wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote:With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen.
And if it turn's out far better than you thought it would? What then?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:This idea has been shot down by all pilots, HAV, drop ships and LAVs, not to mention some of the infantry community, lots of people know that this will without a doubt kill tanking immediately.
Didn't see any infatry or LAV driver's come here and chat about it, so that's a bit invalid... (also apologies for the double post  )
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 23:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod.
So, with the way this game is going, your willing to just let this game play as is? Player's have already lost incentive because AV simply blow's them up, warbarges kill them while their looking into the mini map, where's the incentive if your too busy doing 1 thing to notice the other? This game dies because your not willing to look the other way for 1-3 month's over something that may save the game or rather vehicles, in-fact, how do I know your not simply fighting against vehicles at this point?
Mobius is trying to improve yet you constantly decide no, old way thinking is dying faster than the japanese art of blacksmithing, we need new method's, new gameplay, unique gameplay, something to set this game apart from all the rest out there. And Cod? Seriously? Are you an 8 year old screaming into the mic trying to troll some other 8 year old kid?
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Operative 1174 Uuali wrote:I like HAVs and ADS. I like to be able to play solo with them. EVE ships also offer solo play hence CCP supports this one player, one vehicle concept.
There are better ways to balance vehicles. I was thinking about running for CPM too. I'll detail that in a CPM post if so. I've mentioned balance ideas before though.
I like the idea of offering multiple players to control vehicles. That should be a force multiplier though and that would mean OP mode for vehicles.
But it would be appropriate since it's 3-4 people operating one vehicle (1 driver, 1 main tank gunner, optional 2 side gunner's). In BF4 there's always reliance on a teammate when vehicles involved, and with the proper knowledge, both driver and pilot (unless somehow shot out of the vehicle) will naturally go 10+/0- because the two of them actually know what their doing, + this idea also limits HAV usage and spam as well, which is another +.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
Zan Azikuchi
G.R.A.V.E
The Ditanian Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 22:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Perhaps, allow swarm's to be shot down, more often, by small turret's and give the top small turret more damage VS aerial vehicles and the bottom one more damage versus infantry? Seem's, also give blasters increased range, and give it back it's accuracy, that inverted dispersal isn't balancing the weapon, and it's more in-line with MIN weapon's, like the HMG. Just my 2 isk.
Also because i'm a gunner not a vehicle specialist all the weapon's are made to function horribly and need to be re-thought of, or perhaps add variant's that give the turrets more capability in reduction of damage, so that 1 turret may be best against vehicles and another vs infantry, but small turret variant's would be mixed, they'd have the same damage to vehicles that they do infantry, but the variant's would be more, well, variable, fully auto small rocket shooter, charge variant small turret for major damage to vehicles and infantry, but may be best vs vehicles given their size, but like the CSR would 1 shot (the charge sniper rifle would 1 shot headshot anything with an EHP of 1.2k+) most individuals with an ehp below 600, and a burst ion blaster with blast radius.
Once more i'd like to state I hate vehicle pilot's/driver's, their haughty attitude and self belief that their entitled to always be right when their clearly wrong, irritates me beyond measure, but naturally fairness is what I want to strive for, both for infantry and vehicles, also here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2807246#post2807246 a point about vehicle's vs swarms were made, be sure to read it,
And Echo, if this was COD, vehicles would be easy mode, jump right in and be unstoppable (like back in chromosome), I truly despise your ignorance over this fact, and you would know if you ever played a COD game that vehicles would be an unstoppable force with hardly anyway to actually kill them, this game relates more to BF3-4 in terms of where vehicles are, not too hard, not too easy, which is the way I prefer. And I swear to god echo if you only read 1 part of this I would disown you of even being a tanker and see you as an out right troll.
G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
|
|
|
| |
|