DUST Search - Give Tanks a weak spot.

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Give Tanks a weak spot.

» 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)
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 20:46:00 - [1] - Quote Before you go off whining about me whining, anyone who has deployed muraders against me know that it usually ends up fatal for them I can kill all tanks and any other vehicle as it is now. Essentially give them a spot where its more of a 'headshot' but for the tank instead. I say a small radiator spot underneath the top armor on the back side between the two treads where the body can protect it from attacks from above. The spot is slightly smaller than the gap between the Surya's treads on the rear. Traditionally in other games its always been the radaitor or engine in this area and its pertty much true in real life as well most mordern pure tanks have engines are located near this area (not sure about the half apc tanks I havent seen one close to examine) I would also like to further extend the vunerability to the entire underbelly, making it vunerable to RE's and AV mines/greandes. The damage effect would bonus damage both shields and armor layers as do headshots on infantry work. The reason why I dont want topside between the treads more vunerable is the perchances they're already used to the idea of being attacked from above from fighters/bombers/dropships and cannot angle the gun enough that simply unable to fire back at right above areal targets is more than enough of a weakness. Also dust 514 has way too many oppertunties to get high places and further reducing the ease of acutally hitting such spot with normal AV means such as long range forge guns hitting it is not that likely, less intentional, and more luck. I want the spot small enough to prevent most AV users from scoring a good hit with thier standard AV weapons. This would also give a higher function for the rear gunner to cover the back end of the tank to ensure that somone doesnt get back there and start blowing up the powerplant up. Also this encourages teamwork with the tank as well to require infantry to support it and keep its backside clear this also increases pilot tactical mindedness making the sacrifice of having a facing direction where it goes fast going forward and slower going backward and having your rear end exposed could prove a problem. Ultimately it punishes stupid tank pilots that go off trying to be solo heros who dont have co tank support, infantry support, and get too far behind enemy lines. Or those pilots which choose a speedier retreate over a safer less exposed one. The amount of bonus damage shouldnt allow a single assault rifle magazine to kill a tank off and would probably take more of a squad to do so. However the damage should be high will put a dent in the hp levels significantly vs the shruggable current amounts of damage. Even a forge gun will not one shot kill the tank hitting this spot but it will do significantly more damage than nomral if it ever hits this small spot (would amost require being point blank and still not missing) To add to the top of this I would also like to see possibly modules that reduces the vunerability of the weak spot but the fact you fitted a module and it could penalize the soon to be included capacitor of the vehicle it will be a design decision left to players to self balance against. Also if they do add a weak spot I am all for an overall HP buff for all tanks to compensate the fact there is a vunerability.
Rend Tulmane Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2012.07.27 21:30:00 - [2] - Quote I disagree, respectfully. Remote explosives seem to work fairly well at taking out HAV's. I think there needs to be better systems for squad communication to coordinate attacks on objectives and obstacles. I think it's more rewarding to creatively overcome an enemy's advantage than to simply exploit a weak point.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.07.27 21:49:00 - [3] - Quote Tanks should not be solo able by anyone using equal equipment. No weakspot, also this would make shield tanking even better as armor tanking would have a "weak" spot
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 21:57:00 - [4] - Quote Rend Tulmane wrote: I disagree, respectfully. Remote explosives seem to work fairly well at taking out HAV's. I think there needs to be better systems for squad communication to coordinate attacks on objectives and obstacles. I think it's more rewarding to creatively overcome an enemy's advantage than to simply exploit a weak point. I has a sargaris and maugder laugh at my RE's all 5 of them. barely took a chunk of shields out on both of them, they're not effective AV tools as you think they are and with the nerfs inbound they're going to be even far less effective with 2 max.
Carilito Algintal Core Gallente Federation 345	Posted - 2012.07.27 21:58:00 - [5] - Quote Its called a forge gun or swarm launcher
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:01:00 - [6] - Quote Avenger 245 wrote: Tanks should not be solo able by anyone using equal equipment. No weakspot, also this would make shield tanking even better as armor tanking would have a "weak" spot This should critically hurt shields too btw as a power reactors emmissions could interfer with the energy barrier waveform. Also currently tanks are taken out with special equipment its called Anti-vehcile weapons and currenlty any vehicle is soloable by this equipment. Rarely would an assasult rifle kill a tank nor just about any other non AV grenade, swarm launcher or forge gun weapons. Also I picked this small spot as a hard to place hit, with a forge gun afar it be a lucky hit and would almost require to be really close to get a shot underneath into this area. Swarm Launchers will never hit this area unless the guy was underneath the tank as swarm launchers have a nice habbit of flying up then diving down on the target. AV Grenades and possibly other tanks are the only two that can 'reliably' hit this sweet spot easily.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:04:00 - [7] - Quote Carilito wrote: Its called a forge gun or swarm launcher I am an avid forge gun user btw, Bad Furry can attest to that at the annoyance I cause him. I would just like a small area on the back end on the bottom side of the tank where possibly a non AV weapon could cause serious damage such as a shotgun to an unattentive tank. This should also increase the need or want to have infantry support while using the HAV to keep people from attacking its rear it would further enhance teamwork.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:08:00 - [8] - Quote Shot hurting a tank realy? Do you known what shot is? If you are ina advanced tank going up against a proto gear is solo able. However a proto tank vs proto av should not be solo able
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:19:00 - [9] - Quote Avenger 245 wrote: Shot hurting a tank realy? Do you known what shot is? If you are ina advanced tank going up against a proto gear is solo able. However a proto tank vs proto av should not be solo able English please? Because I didnt understand what you meant there.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:50:00 - [10] - Quote A shot gun fires shot(all the pellets) or slugs (solid ammo). Even eve future version of a shotgun plasma shot would get though armor plates, or even frame work and structure.

Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 22:53:00 - [11] - Quote So what makes you think that shooting a tank's reactor would magically make it immune to plasma shotguns?
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.07.27 23:00:00 - [12] - Quote Because a tanks reactor wouldnt be on the outside, and I would hope the engineers learned from starwars a didnt builda direct path to it. Also the casing for a reactor would be thick, thick enough to ignore 3 or 4 blast from a Anti Infintry weapon, designed to kill soft targets.
Asno Masamang Odd Shadows Inc 122	Posted - 2012.07.27 23:07:00 - [13] - Quote Greetings, While I think it does make sense to have a weakness, I think we should prolly wait til damage types are released. My reasoning is simple, it is too easy right now for a Sniper to exploit it. I can't do it, but I see a lot of snipers who can hit a target on the move. These Snipers would be too powerful.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 23:07:00 - [14] - Quote Here is the problem with reactors though, they generate heat as a by product it has to vent somehwere. Also 'encasing' recactors dont work like you think it would, its not like armoring computer or a magazine, fuel has to come in, coolant has to come in, emmissions and electricty has to leave the reactor. Look at the mordern ambrams tank its engine is in the location I describe and its probably the most venerable spot on the entire tank. The problem hitting this spot is its nearly impossible to get behind an entire pack of abrams without getting blown to bits first.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.27 23:10:00 - [15] - Quote Asno Masamang wrote: Greetings, While I think it does make sense to have a weakness, I think we should prolly wait til damage types are released. My reasoning is simple, it is too easy right now for a Sniper to exploit it. I can't do it, but I see a lot of snipers who can hit a target on the move. These Snipers would be too powerful. well hopefully putting it underneath the top plate makes it more difficult to shoot at because look at the back end of the tank the location would require normal infantry to actually aim further down. Also I suspect that damage types are already out just not fully detailed and understood.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.07.27 23:16:00 - [16] - Quote I would hope eve engineers were smart enough to not leave a such a obvious flaw in a tank. Plus I just dont think anti infintry guy should be able.to threaten a vehicle, and forge guns would beable to kill a tank in two or three shots rather than 4 or 5
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.28 02:19:00 - [17] - Quote Avenger 245 wrote: I would hope eve engineers were smart enough to not leave a such a obvious flaw in a tank. Plus I just dont think anti infintry guy should be able.to threaten a vehicle, and forge guns would beable to kill a tank in two or three shots rather than 4 or 5 Well it would only amplify the damage of the weapons so a full assault rifel clip may only take off a quater of the shields/armor so to say on a murader not barely scratch the shields. It would almost take an entire squad to overly threaten the tank from this direction.
Icy Tiger 496	Posted - 2012.07.28 03:52:00 - [18] - Quote I agree with you, but this should only be for a Sagaris or Surya. The lesser tanks are useless most of the time as it is, and the Sagarais almost never gets taken out in most battles. A weak spot would be helpful, even if it only was visible say every 7-10 seconds, ensuring balance and a solid weakness.
Beta Phish Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2012.07.28 03:56:00 - [19] - Quote its called Reducing their Shield Regen. is how they would have a Weak spot. seeing how that CCP Precussor AV strategy is nowhere near Viable & all it did is encourage trash players to abuse Scout suits. No wonder Balance in Dust is a complete joke. See you in the Next build
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.28 04:09:00 - [20] - Quote It's already been mentioned, but tanks already have a weak point. it's called "wherever the Forge Gun hits them"

BAD FURRY Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 247	Posted - 2012.07.28 04:53:00 - [21] - Quote yes give tanks a week spot so snipers like me can one hit them from over 3 mil,s a way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRYwMrsaLxs and for the wine-o,s that dont think you cant blow up the fule tank with a round http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxKgOPz5R0
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.07.28 04:58:00 - [22] - Quote Honestly, I agree with this on one condition: The belly. The belly is the holy grail of anti-tank weapons the world around, because armoring the belly just adds wait without really helping defense, so that's one of the most vulnerable areas on a tank. So, RE may be getting a nerf, but if the tanks had a realistically soft belly, RE could actually be more useful against them than it used to be. What HAV's really need is percentage based damage multipliers relative to whether your hitting it in the sides, or from the top or bottom, where the plating is weaker. So that tank sitting up on the cliff behind that tower that overlooks B? Put one forge round into the belly with it's shield down and it should go up like a firecracker.
BAD FURRY Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 247	Posted - 2012.07.28 05:07:00 - [23] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Honestly, I agree with this on one condition: The belly. The belly is the holy grail of anti-tank weapons the world around, because armoring the belly just adds wait without really helping defense, so that's one of the most vulnerable areas on a tank. So, RE may be getting a nerf, but if the tanks had a realistically soft belly, RE could actually be more useful against them than it used to be. What HAV's really need is percentage based damage multipliers relative to whether your hitting it in the sides, or from the top or bottom, where the plating is weaker. So that tank sitting up on the cliff behind that tower that overlooks B? Put one forge round into the belly with it's shield down and it should go up like a firecracker. thats unless your in a GIJOE truck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_%28armored_vehicle%29 then all you have to **** your self over about is roll overs and EFP.s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.29 01:45:00 - [24] - Quote The entire belly I can live with its rare for that to ever be exposed. I would also like to see modules or tank variants that reduce this vunerability as well. For example shielded reactor module prevents the damage bonus to the weak spot but reduces capaictor recharge rate. And Heavy tanks with defended bellies that move a bit slower but REs/Mines dont bother them as much.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:21:00 - [25] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: The entire belly I can live with its rare for that to ever be exposed. I would also like to see modules or tank variants that reduce this vunerability as well. For example shielded reactor module prevents the damage bonus to the weak spot but reduces capaictor recharge rate. And Heavy tanks with defended bellies that move a bit slower but REs/Mines dont bother them as much. The aspect of having to worry about your belly adds another dimension to tank operation. Personally, I'd also like the driver and main gunner to be two separate functions within the tank, but I realize that's probably unlikely given how most of the gaming community is used to tanks as a one-man force-multiplier.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:26:00 - [26] - Quote That would be neat if gunners would manage electronic warfares as well enabling the pilot to focus on driving while gunners manage offensive or defensive warfares.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:31:00 - [27] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: That would be neat if gunners would manage electronic warfares as well enabling the pilot to focus on driving while gunners manage offensive or defensive warfares. See, that's an excellent idea! It also helps mitigate some of the complaints about the whole "lone-wolf" thing, as HAVs would require teamwork just like real tanks. EDIT: Actually, that should also be the way LLVs work, as I mentioned in another thread. Since the passenger currently does nothing, have the driver drive, the passenger handle the rep modules, and the gunner gun. Then the passenger is actually useful.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:36:00 - [28] - Quote I'm not sure I trust the idea of footing the entire bill of my HAV to have some not-on-coms goofball gunner put my life in his hands. If my 90K Main Gun is no longer in my direct control which serves the entire purpose of my 300K ISK HAV, then I demand that HAV pilots have perfect control in enabling or locking out potential gunners from their vehicles. Real life Tanks only operate correctly because the entire crew is on comms with each other.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:41:00 - [29] - Quote Acutally its going to be more like 1.2 million isk but I think its something to be experimented with to be honest to see how it works out with most randoms, now in corporate envrionment where you can better encourage teamwork you can easily manage having the gunner being serpate from pilot. I understand your fustartion I had picked up bad gunners in my dropship several times.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.07.29 03:46:00 - [30] - Quote When grouping comes into play, I'll likely focus on Dropships again as I do enjoy playing as a Dropship pilot the most, ferrying people from one objective to the next, just the random gunners kind of "soured" it for me.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.