DUST Search - tanks with dampers...DAMPERS I TELL YOU!

Tak Kak wrote:

Grit Breather wrote:

vermacht Doe wrote:

Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment

Pardon me but you seem very narrow minded.
I hear this a lot from FPS gamers. I hear a lot of "We hate campers!" or "Campers should be banned!". Well they shouldn't. They are doing their jobs.
In a war there are snipers and there are lone tanks roaming the field. In WW2 the Russians had a tank roam around the German battlefield for a whole day before they managed to get a big enough gun behind it. The Russians had bigger tanks at the start of the war and they used them well.
So why should anything in Dust (My true claim is any FPS but we'll not go there) be limited by the devs? If it's useable, do it. If you can win, do it.
If your enemy can't counter it, shame on them. Even the most burrowed in sniper has a successful counter tactic. Use it.

The russians also used the common tactic of landing tanks on top buildings to suppress the germans from unattainable advantageous positions during the battle of Moscow. Unfortunately nine times out ten the planes lifting the tanks would either crash or the tanks would fall to the earth as dangerous metal hale.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.31 12:03:00 - [1] - Quote AND required about 3 years of number crunching just to get the trajectory right for a good landing.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.31 13:36:00 - [2] - Quote 4447 wrote: where do the drop ships come from? When the daddy dropship likes the mommy dropship...
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.31 13:52:00 - [3] - Quote KingBlade82 wrote: conservation of energy......energy cannot be created or destroyed and the weight of a tank would create a giant shockwave even with dampeners it would force the energy outside but can u use them on tanks? i think the logic is flawed if so Oh yes! Using tanks as space projectiles! Forget about planetary bombardment by an EVE player. Just toss those tanks out of the Battle Barge!
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.07.31 14:39:00 - [4] - Quote KingBlade82 wrote: 4447 wrote: KingBlade82 wrote: conservation of energy......energy cannot be created or destroyed and the weight of a tank would create a giant shockwave even with dampeners it would force the energy outside but can u use them on tanks? i think the logic is flawed if so you call in a tank it gets dropped from a ship. the tank itself is within a unit with first and second booster. the tank hits max velocity first booster kicks in, later the second boost kicks in, then the dampers kicks in at the end for the landing. doesnt that mean it is still being dropped off by a dropship? or r u saying they glide? He's saying they are shot from space in a 2 stage rocket. Kinda sound like the moon landing to me.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 11:27:00 - [5] - Quote Dewie Cheecham wrote: 4447 wrote: i just read a post about a spawning tanks on top of the towers and driving them off the edge. this got me thinking why do tanks need a drop ships to transport them to the ground. why can't tanks be drop out of a ship and then use dampers to land on the ground when you call a tank in? Better yet, prevent deployment of vehicles on the towers... No. That makes no sense in a physical world. Tanks are already limited on towers and are pretty much sitting ducks with a very limited firing angle. They are a problem in THIS map but not a problem in general. I'm strongly against nerfing of this kind. Tanks (or any vehicle) should be spawnable anywhere that makes physical sense at the discression of the field commander.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 11:42:00 - [6] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Grit Breather wrote: Dewie Cheecham wrote: 4447 wrote: i just read a post about a spawning tanks on top of the towers and driving them off the edge. this got me thinking why do tanks need a drop ships to transport them to the ground. why can't tanks be drop out of a ship and then use dampers to land on the ground when you call a tank in? Better yet, prevent deployment of vehicles on the towers... No. That makes no sense in a physical world. Tanks are already limited on towers and are pretty much sitting ducks with a very limited firing angle. They are a problem in THIS map but not a problem in general. I'm strongly against nerfing of this kind. Tanks (or any vehicle) should be spawnable anywhere that makes physical sense at the discression of the field commander. Dropped a tank on a building makes sense to you? I guess using an orbital bombardment on one militia also does to you You misunderstood me. I'm not saying it makes sense. It usually doesn't but not always. There are times where this will make sense. All I'm saying is that this should not be physically impossible in the game. The game mechanics shouldn't block this option. Whether or not to do it should be left to the discression of the field commander.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 11:42:00 - [7] - Quote 4447 wrote: you missed the point of this post. I'm taking about dropping tanks from space not a tower. You missed the fact that your post has been hijacked.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 11:59:00 - [8] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: And who are you to decide what should be allowed tower camper Nice of you to assume I'm a tower camper. Thanks? But on a more serious note, I'm not. I run around capturing objectives and fighting my way through the enemy ranks as much as anyone. When I'm in a dropship I tend to slam others off the towers. I shoot at tower snipers to get them off there when I'm in a turret and fly my turrets close to them when piloting. So now that we've gotten your misconceptions out of the way, let's move on. Towers are higher ground. Towers have a longer viewing range. Towers are strategic objectives. Feel free to ask any military personnel (officer or otherwise) about the advantage in height. Landing a tank on a tower should be physically possible but would usually be considered extremely stupid. The game should not block it. Your immediate commander should block the RDV request.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:05:00 - [9] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment Pardon me but you seem very narrow minded. I hear this a lot from FPS gamers. I hear a lot of "We hate campers!" or "Campers should be banned!". Well they shouldn't. They are doing their jobs. In a war there are snipers and there are lone tanks roaming the field. In WW2 the Russians had a tank roam around the German battlefield for a whole day before they managed to get a big enough gun behind it. The Russians had bigger tanks at the start of the war and they used them well. So why should anything in Dust (My true claim is any FPS but we'll not go there) be limited by the devs? If it's useable, do it. If you can win, do it. If your enemy can't counter it, shame on them. Even the most burrowed in sniper has a successful counter tactic. Use it.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:09:00 - [10] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: There's a differences between high ground and buildings that you obviously don't see There is an accepted agreement that the problem isn't the tower campers themselves. They should be dealt with by their chain of command. The problem is the limited draw distance in Dust. Once that is fixed anyone will be able to take down a sniper on a building. It's just a matter of picking up a gun and aiming at him. I too hate running around a dodging a rain of missiles from a tower. But that's part of being in a war. Do you really think anywhere is safe? Wait until artillery installations start getting deployed 400 meters past the red line. Are those also "unfair" and "campers"? How about orbital strikes? Will they also be "unfair"?

Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:13:00 - [11] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: There's a difference between sniping and camping. Also you think someone hiding in a corner with a shot gun is use full and dud i say i didn't use towers. Pff you not in any place to call someone narrow minded I don't understand where you're going with this. If you could, please try wording yourself better. As for your point, a merc with a shotgun hiding behind a corner is useful if his commander feels he is. It's a tactic with advantages and disadvantages. He's guarding that location but can still be hit from many other directions. He's also wasted as far as other immediate missions are concerned. If you want an example of something that should (and will be different in the next build) be changed it's spawn camping. That's deplorable and is truely a misuse of game physics. But that's the only example I accept of bad game physics. Anything else is tactics. Most of these tactics will go away once players get organised and start working with command structures. If your commander tells you to go capture an objective you damn well will or risk being booted from your corp or maybe even the battle.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:18:00 - [12] - Quote Tak Kak wrote: Grit Breather wrote: vermacht Doe wrote: Only the people who camp on towers accept tower campers and a person is one thing but a vehicle is another and the unfair eve things are mainly tactical not exploiting the environment Pardon me but you seem very narrow minded. I hear this a lot from FPS gamers. I hear a lot of "We hate campers!" or "Campers should be banned!". Well they shouldn't. They are doing their jobs. In a war there are snipers and there are lone tanks roaming the field. In WW2 the Russians had a tank roam around the German battlefield for a whole day before they managed to get a big enough gun behind it. The Russians had bigger tanks at the start of the war and they used them well. So why should anything in Dust (My true claim is any FPS but we'll not go there) be limited by the devs? If it's useable, do it. If you can win, do it. If your enemy can't counter it, shame on them. Even the most burrowed in sniper has a successful counter tactic. Use it. The russians also used the common tactic of landing tanks on top buildings to suppress the germans from unattainable advantageous positions during the battle of Moscow. Unfortunately nine times out ten the planes lifting the tanks would either crash or the tanks would fall to the earth as dangerous metal hale. Good point too. A real life example of the successful usage of tower camping tanks at a very high cost. The field commanders understood the costs but did it anyway for the advantages.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:23:00 - [13] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: I mean a kdr centered person only looking for more kills, someone no where near objectives I agree with you on that mostly. A person only going after KDR is useless in Dust. He will not be rewarded in the release phase as he will have no objectives or true victories to his name. There will be no contracts going his way and he will gain little SP compared to his objective minded player friends. But that shouldn't be blocked by the devs. The community should be allowed to handle those on its own. But sometimes you may view someone as a KDR ***** while in reality they are working for their team. They could either be following commands to do so or working to get the attention of the other team as a ruse. Not everything you think you see is actually happening.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:30:00 - [14] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Or someone randomly running around for kills that actually bring about more defenders So do you agree with me that running around shooting people could be considered a good tactic when used properly? Edit: With what seems to others like just plain KDR whoring.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:38:00 - [15] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Of course but it seems like most only look out for their kdr though that may be due to a lack of grouping I believe (and many others on the forums agree with this) that most, if not all, of these KDR players will either change their ways or just go away once grouping is introduced. At first you may have lots of groups with little organization and a KDR agenda but they will quickly fall to the objective based groups with a consolidated command structure. Just give it time. Dust will live up to its name (well, it won't be dusty but you get my drift).
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 12:57:00 - [16] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Add me on psn: mommy39 a good pilot is a valuable asset but to me a tank on a tower seems to be a waste of an expensive asset mommy39? I'm a terrible pilot/driver. I tend to try finding new tactics and figuring out how to best handle each vehicle. I'm far from being stable in my methods yet. I'm a decent LAV driver though. I managed to get a good feel for the delicate controls on that.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 13:03:00 - [17] - Quote Tak Kak wrote: Pro tip, as a tank driver refer to all infantry as 'crunchies'. Not quite true. I've read a lot of post about tank drivers not being able to run over anyone due to going too slow. Maybe if we go back to the OP and land a tank on someone.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 13:05:00 - [18] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Ok to clear somethings up im a guy and the name was probably karma Lav drivers are rare and i will happily follow you if you work with me in some corp infiltrating operations I don't mind you being a guy or girl. Either way would've been fine. I'll add you when I get back home later today.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 13:10:00 - [19] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: Grit Breather wrote: vermacht Doe wrote: Ok to clear somethings up im a guy and the name was probably karma Lav drivers are rare and i will happily follow you if you work with me in some corp infiltrating operations I don't mind you being a guy or girl. Either way would've been fine. I'll add you when I get back home later today. Good amd what about the offer to scam small corps Let's wait for grouping with that. Right now we can't even plan on ending in the same match together. Forget about being on the same side.
Grit Breather BetaMax. 660	Posted - 2012.08.01 13:15:00 - [20] - Quote vermacht Doe wrote: You gotta plan for the future eve style Alright. Let's do it. Edit: Everyone else just ignore this. Private message which doesn't concern you or your future corp. Nothing to see here... hums