|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
sullen maximus
Deadspace Knights
14
   |
Posted - 2016.01.06 22:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
I love reading the "i should be able to take out a tank by myself!" arguments from infantry only players. If anything this game needs a massive buff to the low end tanks considering their value. The lowest level milita tanks will cost easily 40% of everything you make in a game IF you win the game. Even building a standard issue tank will cost more than all the winnings of a single battle. Losing a single 'enhanced' tank will take you the rest of your night to recoup should you lose it. This means if you lose even a single tank you better start walking with the other infantry cause you're already in the hole.
Given the stupid amount of SP required to even use tanks effectively it's pretty disheartening to even attempt to consistently use them. I've been playing since the beta and planed to be a vehicle primary from the get go. Looking back now it's disheartening to see how much SP is essentially wasted in vehicle skills that I may get to utilized 1 - 2 times a night.
To flip the tables. I would love to see how you would react if you dumped millions upon millions of SP into your infantry suit and then after a single lost were negated to doing nothing but being a side turret on a vehicle.....
If anything. They should reduce the cost of all tanks, but also reduce the initial hp for all of them. To counter this skills should do 2x the benefit they currently do. That way not every joe can just hop into a soma and do damage, but someone who truly committed to vehicles can be a serious contender. |
sullen maximus
Rawdy Horde
15
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 18:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I've done it a lot.
It's just by and large not worth the effort.
Shield tanks are too easy, madrugars are a chore, not a challenge.
IMO madrugars are too hard to hit infantry with, too resilient if you use the cookie cutter fits.
Gunnlogis are too squishy and the railguns involve more luck. When they had splash damage versus sentinel splash resistance things were more interesting.
But i wouldn't call av/v interactions fun.
One side thinks tanks should be invulnerable to skilled gunners.
The other side thinks that having a swarm launcher means a tank should always die.
Those of us in the middle get conflated with the morons on both extreme.
This all is a common problem among games which allow instantaneous load out modification. It's been a problem I refer to as the "battlefield" problem. I call it that because of the battlefield series which has always struggled between balance when it came to anti vehicle weapons. Where is the balance when any player at any time can respawn with vehicle killing noob canons? Make it too powerful and any group with 2 players knowing what they're doing can effectively shut down the enemy teams vehicles. Too weak and anything short of half the team focusing fire will make the vehicle invincible. Battlefield controlled this to some extent by regulating vehicle respawns. Halo did it by regulating the vehicles AND anti vehicle weapons to respawn timers. Dust has neither and adds a level of complexity by having different levels of the same tanks. TBH i'm not quite sure how the developers can fix this. So long as it's simply an n+1 of both the tanks and anti-tanks you will always have the problem of low end tanks being worthless to high end anti-tank and low end anti-tank being pointless to use.
To compare in eve, when getting better ships of the same type (tech 2 or tech 3) generally the ships have additional special features which are the real benefit. What I would have preferred to see is something where enhanced and proto anti-tank weapons have 'other' characteristics to make them more desirable aside from simply a n+1 damage scenario. For example enhanced could have the effect of being able to lock on through buildings, or retain locks withouth line of sight. Proto could then further this by having semi smart missiles that are capable of following around buildings and obstacles to some extent. With this model you could then lower the proto damage and raise the basic anti vehicles to a closer margin. The same could then be done with tanks to similar effect with the higher tanks get more 'extra features' from the lower. things like built in cru, semi-auto small turrets, etc. There are lots of options. With this model the over all hp of the high tanks could be significantly lowered along with there costs. |
sullen maximus
Rawdy Horde
15
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 22:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Medical Crash wrote:
Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???)
Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm.
AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine.
What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks.
Taste of their own medicine? Let me ask you how many times is it Proto tanks which you are having an issue destroying vs the militia, standard, and enhanced? Other than the proto the other types get rofl raped by AV weapons in the game currently. Seriously stop the "i have AV therefore I should be able to single handedly take out tanks mentality" |
|
|
| |
|