DUST Search - MTACs -- are we SURE it's gonna be a vehicle?

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

Avenger 245 wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them.

Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits,

Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea.
Light - LAV anti-infantry trype.
Heavy -Tank Destroyer.

I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile
I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank.

Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank?

I think getting into size classes and such might lead to BFR syndrome (Planetside players know what I mean).
As an example, here is a mining MTAC from the EVE Chronicle "In The Pits".
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/1/18/InthePits.jpg
I imagine that's the size we'll be dealing with.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.11 18:34:00 - [1] - Quote I would rather it be a vehicle. Making it a type of dropsuit would kinda make the heavy suit obsolete. However I do think there should be light and heavy version of the MTAC avaible. Also the MTAC isnt like a super tank its more like half a tank it doesnt half to be as powerful as a regular tank or have full sized turrents, the mtac should be used for heavy urban support and urban defense breaking in place where their less mobile but tougher brother the tank cant go. Got to remember MTAC would be weaker than a regualer tank but make up for it in mobilty.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.11 23:51:00 - [2] - Quote Or Dont spawn right were their spawn camping, and come to them with the MTAC As for size I think they should be about or a little bigger than the LAV in terms of mass but not a little bigger than the heavy and not bigger than the tank around LAV size is good
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.12 21:24:00 - [3] - Quote funny i just read the op. um wow thats alot of fire power when i think of the mtac i think of something about as big a LAV sat straight up not a walking tank. 2 light turrents or both arms and a few modules slots would do. the mtac a urban combat vehicle not a anti tank vehicle a tank should still dominate the battlefield
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.13 14:57:00 - [4] - Quote When I think MTAC I think large mobile heavy firepower built to deal with urban enviroments, not a super tank that can rasly rival a tank, MTAC would fill the one role a tank is ill suited for urban combat, a small MTAC about the size of a upfirght LAV would be perfect for urban combat, capabal of bring firepower against strong points and to tank damage. That would be the MTAC niche. The tank on the other hand is fast moving and power able to breach strong points and tank enemy damage but lacks the mobility to be hood in urban combat. Those are the two niche is see tanks and MTAC filling in combat and is why I think MTAC should be smaller than tanks and have the same amount of mass as a upright LAV, not be a large walker. If a vehicle or weapon fills the same niche as another it will cause the weaker of the two to become disued. Which is why a MTAC should be a smaller weaker but more mobile tank for urban combat and ahould not be able to take down a tank in direct 1 on 1. Of course if a skillful MTAC pilot finds a stupid tank then the MTAC will have more than enough firepower to threaten that tank.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.13 21:17:00 - [5] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them. Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits, Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea. Light - LAV anti-infantry trype. Heavy -Tank Destroyer. I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank. Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank?
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.13 21:46:00 - [6] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Avenger 245 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: MTACs also double up as hazard humaniods so do expect some maps possibly 'requiring' MTACs at basic gear to get even the simplest things done but also expect the facilites to scale up with them. Maybe there will be various mtac classes like there are dropsuits, Hazard - Basically similar to the dropsuit idea. Light - LAV anti-infantry trype. Heavy -Tank Destroyer. I think light should be more of a basic MTAC that os very general role very mobile I think heavy should have more firepower more armor and less speed but it shouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a tank. Think about it like this the light will be for general squad support and the heavy will be for urban defense breaching. Tanks would still be able to blast a MTAC apart except in a urban combat a tank wont be able to follow or go were a mtac can or even keep up which is where its streagth would be. I dont like the idea of a mtac being able to 1 on 1 a tank, because then whats the point of a tank? I think getting into size classes and such might lead to BFR syndrome (Planetside players know what I mean). As an example, here is a mining MTAC from the EVE Chronicle "In The Pits". http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/images/1/18/InthePits.jpg I imagine that's the size we'll be dealing with. That looks like a good size maybe a little shorter but wider and long enough to fit a person.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.14 04:43:00 - [7] - Quote I wouldnt want the to be like the dreadnought from warhammer or like any powerful tank crushing machine. I would rather them be a important but not powerful part of the battle were player should be on the look out for them but shouldnt think of them as instoppable warmachines. It would be far better for the game if they were a simple light vehcile design to bring firepower and limited tanking ability to places where tanks couldnt go rather than some tank destory monster. I think they would fit into the game better as a part of urban warfare rather than as a endgame destroyer. So I support smaller urban MTAC and am complete against Large tank destorying MTAC because thwy would mess up the games battle layout. Mechs and dreadnought like MTAC are great for games like 40k were extremes are good but would be akward in a more organic and realistic battlefield.
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.14 05:27:00 - [8] - Quote Hey gm I know you guys are so talkative and love answer strange post directed towards yall. But since you atleast know or have seen the devs in person can we have a vaguely less criptic answer as to which one were getting or can we have a poll. Speaking of poll I vote invetween lav and hav rather than bigger than hav, Tally so far small 1 large 0 lol
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.14 15:12:00 - [9] - Quote Nu11u5 wrote: I would be all for quick-time combos for tearing turrets off of tanks with an MTAC's manipulators. Interruptable when taking sufficient damage. MTACs should be a vehicle, and only one size class. Progression could be done through variants and specializations. So which way do you vote small vehicle thats smaller and weaker than a hav or large dreadnoight like thats bigger than a hav?
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.08.15 06:10:00 - [10] - Quote So small vehicle like 2 large endgame powerhouse 2 the race is on more support people vote