|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
   |
Posted - 2015.09.01 02:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Devadander wrote:
PS. Blaster is a huge assault rifle, already plasma... Why does everyone want to make it a freaking PLC? That needs to be a whole new turret or not at all. PLC = artillery/mortar turret.
Because the "Automatic Rifle' Archetype is not suitable for a Tank and is in keeping with the fundamental design tenets of the weapons platform.
All Large Turrets should be large calibre, high explosive, medium to long range weapons firing single or small numbers of rounds. What we have in Dust is a poor representation of armoured warfare.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 04:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Devadander wrote:
PS. Blaster is a huge assault rifle, already plasma... Why does everyone want to make it a freaking PLC? That needs to be a whole new turret or not at all. PLC = artillery/mortar turret.
Because the "Automatic Rifle' Archetype is not suitable for a Tank and is in keeping with the fundamental design tenets of the weapons platform. All Large Turrets should be large calibre, high explosive, medium to long range weapons firing single or small numbers of rounds. What we have in Dust is a poor representation of armoured warfare. Automatic firing on a tank is fine, we just need more choice in the matter. Players should be able to choose how their plasma (or rail etc.) turret fires. Whether that be in automatic bursts, or single shot blasts. Definitely don't agree that 'all turrets should fire a certain way'. More customization is always better
As an avid player of War Thunder and various other Tank simulators as well as a huge history buff on the development of the Tank as a war fighting vehicle I wholly disagree. HAV in Dust are fundamentally flawed and barely operate as tanks should.
More turret options will not fix this issue, nor is the idea that tank main cannon should operate in a specific manner as limiting as people would believe.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 00:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Talos Vagheitan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Devadander wrote:
PS. Blaster is a huge assault rifle, already plasma... Why does everyone want to make it a freaking PLC? That needs to be a whole new turret or not at all. PLC = artillery/mortar turret.
Because the "Automatic Rifle' Archetype is not suitable for a Tank and is in keeping with the fundamental design tenets of the weapons platform. All Large Turrets should be large calibre, high explosive, medium to long range weapons firing single or small numbers of rounds. What we have in Dust is a poor representation of armoured warfare. Automatic firing on a tank is fine, we just need more choice in the matter. Players should be able to choose how their plasma (or rail etc.) turret fires. Whether that be in automatic bursts, or single shot blasts. Definitely don't agree that 'all turrets should fire a certain way'. More customization is always better As an avid player of War Thunder and various other Tank simulators as well as a huge history buff on the development of the Tank as a war fighting vehicle I wholly disagree. HAV in Dust are fundamentally flawed and barely operate as tanks should. More turret options will not fix this issue, nor is the idea that tank main cannon should operate in a specific manner as limiting as people would believe. You really don't want to go down the road of using real life comparisons to base things in Dust off of. You'll eventually come to realize conventional modern ground warfare is an anachronism in a sci-fi universe. It's basically WW2 style combat but with lasers. End of the day there is no reason to limit customization. Remember the Golden rule: gameplay>realism
Sure and right now our HAV game play is abominable. It's not fun, its not realistic, and it doesn't work. I suggest we have both relative realism and gameplay.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 21:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Sure and right now our HAV game play is abominable. It's not fun, its not realistic, and it doesn't work. I suggest we have both relative realism and gameplay.
Well I think that's a bit dramatic, but ok. On a side note, what exactly are you suggesting then? Or just complaining in general?
A simple shift away from the existing turret types we have which can be defined as rapid firing or assault turrets towards turrets that better represent their size, power, and the forces at work that are used to activate them. Additionally so that HAV will have a real role on the battlefield as heavily armoured vehicles with powerful main cannon that requires infantry support.
The ideal I'd be shooting for is that all turrets make a shift towards powerful single shot weapons with varying reload speeds, range, and damage values which adhere to the racial archetypes and define the weapons role.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 00:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
Megaman Trigger wrote:True Adamance wrote:Talos Vagheitan wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Sure and right now our HAV game play is abominable. It's not fun, its not realistic, and it doesn't work. I suggest we have both relative realism and gameplay.
Well I think that's a bit dramatic, but ok. On a side note, what exactly are you suggesting then? Or just complaining in general? A simple shift away from the existing turret types we have which can be defined as rapid firing or assault turrets towards turrets that better represent their size, power, and the forces at work that are used to activate them. Additionally so that HAV will have a real role on the battlefield as heavily armoured vehicles with powerful main cannon that requires infantry support. The ideal I'd be shooting for is that all turrets make a shift towards powerful single shot weapons with varying reload speeds, range, and damage values which adhere to the racial archetypes and define the weapons role. Add a large Laser turret akin to a slow charge-then-fire Lascannon?
I'm more enamoured with the idea of MWO Large ERM Lasers. Two second duration beams that deal a set damage over the course of the beam firing.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
| |
|