DUST Search - Game Design and Tanks

General Rian wrote:

Telcontar Dunedain wrote:

General Rian wrote:

Telcontar Dunedain wrote:

General Rian wrote:

It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield.

Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle...
Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf".

So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks...

No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases?

I don't really have much to talk to you about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance

Games are about having interesting and fun things happening, not ISK to win. Have fun in whatever game you end up in.

The entire premise of this game is that we are mercenaries for hire. We work for corporations and are hired by corporations to get the mission done. This game isn't like all those other COD clone games out there were everyone is on an equal playing field. Don't get me wrong; everyone has every opportunity to do as well as anyone else... But the cold hard truth is, this game isn't about "even teams". The corporation willing to bring more firepower (bought with more isk) to a battle will win more often than not. Obviously teams made up of squads that work incredibly well together will be able to get the mission done with less invested based entirely on their skill...

You pretending that this game isn't about "ISK to win" is laughably ignorant and completely denial stricken. The team with the better gear *should* win. The team with more tanks on the field *should* win. That's as plain as I can make it. All CCP is doing balance-wise is to ensure that one thing doesn't dominate the battlefield and is the only thing used... They could care less if one team absolutely destroys another because they bring in 5 marauders while the other team sticks strictly to cheap infantry fits.

Edit- A direct quote from the very wiki article you linked me... "Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair."

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.08.31 18:48:00 - [1] - Quote Right now we are having a very flawed conversation about AV vs Tank balance. Somehow CCP game design has decided that Tanks are a solo vehicle. They don't need rearming (infantry needs nanohives). They don't need logibros. They don't need infantry to kill the dangerous AV people after them. This is broken. Tanks should be fragile expensive items that require the resources and WORK of a squad+. Tankers instead of being willing to bring out a tank in ambush maps, should be totally unwilling to bring a tank out unless they have a full squad to support them. Tankers should be having conversations like "are you guys willing to squad my tank? I need a logibro, I need some assault to pick off AV and clear obstacles/turrets, I need a gunner, I need someone with a swarm in case one of those AV dropships finds us and ok chip in on the cost please" LAV need a separate gunner but HAV don't? Hmmm. It should also be a big hit to the corp fielding it for a tank to die. Solo tanks need to go away it's bad game design and robs us of what would be a lot more fun in supporting tanks.
DUST Fiend Immobile Infantry 1904	Posted - 2012.08.31 18:51:00 - [2] - Quote I've always found this amusing. AV guys need to be incredibly coordinated and well fit, and must always be in communication with each other in order to take down all but the crappiest of tanks. Tanks? Uhh, gee guys, shoot da stuffs while I dryve in sircles and kill stuffs guys, gee thanks kbye
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2283	Posted - 2012.08.31 18:52:00 - [3] - Quote drivers should b able to man main gun the AV nerf was ******** tbqh also why even nerf AV when we still dont have caps and ewar yet? idk wtf CCP is thinkin tbh
kalahari ilkeston Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 51	Posted - 2012.08.31 21:32:00 - [4] - Quote Tanks should still be powerful but unlimited ammo in all vehicles is a bit wrong Even in an LAV, pick a good spot and just start blasting away continuously, anyone gets close or you see the obvious swarm missile launcher, immediately drive away
Ignatius Crumwald Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 475	Posted - 2012.08.31 22:21:00 - [5] - Quote Guys, this just in: TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS TANKS\ TANKS TANKS TANKS This has been a message from our sponsor: Tanks.
kalahari ilkeston Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 51	Posted - 2012.08.31 22:41:00 - [6] - Quote All hail the TANK
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.09.07 20:13:00 - [7] - Quote IRL tanks have serpage gunners and drivers. Dust 514 should be the same way. Maybe have the tank default aim straight and still fire without a main gunner if the driver is the only operator.
Patches The Hyena 204	Posted - 2012.09.07 20:24:00 - [8] - Quote Great post op. I fully endorse this message However if CCP is determined to keep tanks as the "solo pwn mobile" (cr. ironwolf) then they need to point my dropship's guns forward so I can do strafing runs.
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 789	Posted - 2012.09.07 21:00:00 - [9] - Quote Anyone who thinks a tank without support is going to survive is pretty delusional. Even on IRC, Telc deflates his own arguement. When suggested he fit proto swarms his response was : "But then I am harmless against enemy infantry" or something along those lines. What do you think the enemy infantry is? Support for your tank. A shield tank gets into armor? He definitely needs a logibro or the fire on his hull will kill him even if he escapes. An armor tank has a logibro following him? (Which is pretty common) His tank gets that much beefier. I've seen people run setups where their secondary gunner was also a logi bro, so he could get out and repair or revive the guy following if he died. Pretty much everything you complain about in a tank already exists, Tanks are not immortal solo vehicles. They just appear that way to someone who doesn't drive them, because they don't know the effort a driver has to do to keep them alive. With a reasonably intelligent driver sure they are pretty hard to kill. But it's a tank, not an oversized jeep. They're built to withstand punishment. Before you go on about how "BLAH BLAH I WANT TO KEEP MY OP TANK": Keep in mind that it was prominent tank drivers who proposed half the upcoming nerfs to tanks. We told them turrets were wtfbroken, we told them tanks were too fast at cruising speeds. We told them it was too easy to escape from an OB and that an OB couldn't even kill a tank if it didn't move. Even right now with the current state of AV, a single person in a good spot can put a tank at bay with prototype swarms and make them flee or even kill it. Those things -hurt- tanks like you would not believe. Each volley takes away like 18% of my shield from a person with decent swarms. Part of the problem is that most people only use militia swarms. Not only is their damage terrible, but the two shot + reload makes their DPS a joke. It's been suggested that they get buffed tothe normal four shot clip. People use the militia and then figure the swarm launcher is not worth training... it definitely is. Even the standard launcher puts some decent DPS on a tank. Ask people like Jessie Jayne, the dark cloud, and Hell... Even Zionshad (No offense Zion but I consider you at best an average FPS player, but even you put the hurt on my tank! I'm using you as an example to show that anyone can do it because you're a prominent name that most people should know.. I hope we can still be chums!) Ask them about how they fit their AV suits and what they do. Each one of those three people I have noted on several occasions singlehandedly putting my tank at risk of death or forcing me to flee. When they work in a squad? I've had a tank almost instantly from full health killed by four people syncing up their swarm launches leaving me unable to react. The first volley pretty much obliterated my shield, and the second was already in the air before I even knew the first was coming. This particular 4 man squad was on the tower in plataeu's. Sure, it's tricky to get into these good spots as an AV guy. I won't deny that. A large part of the problem as well is the fact that we instantly know where you are due to lolpassive scanning (More detailed thread on that here.) But passive scanning is one of the largest contributers for 'immortal' tanks because it tells us exactly where AV dudes are no matter how they try to hide. This is obviously bad.
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.09.07 22:19:00 - [10] - Quote You took my quote from irc out of context. The ground environment is extremely lethal to AV and nothing to do with the hypothetical squad of yours that 99% of tankers do not run with or care about as they solo circlestrafe the map. It's great that some of the better AV players "singlehandedly putting my tank at risk of death or forcing me to flee." but I notice no mention of actually killing you? It's good to know that 4 perfectly coordinated AV people (and safe from infantry on the tower) can kill you though. Speaking of someone "deflates his own arguement"? My real issue with HAV is that unlike LAV and Dropships (which have other issues), Tanks are effectively solo vehicles now. There is no reason for a tanker to actually need a "tank squad" at this point in the game. What would a tank squad look like? Would people enjoy roles as part of a tank squad (beyond just farming newbs)? While this next cycle of nerfs might make tanks less annoying to the rest of us playing the game with you, I'm not sure they will achieve what I'm actually asking for, and that's a tank that is fun for more than the single person driving it. Breaking up the gunner/driver roles would probably be the best first step towards that. So I endorse this thread https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34747&find=unread

Whispercrow Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 102	Posted - 2012.09.07 23:57:00 - [11] - Quote View it from the other side. LAV's are not designed to be combat vehicles. They HAVE a turret, but their primary advantages are being able to carry troops at high speed and get behind enemy lines. The turret is a bonus, but not the main purpose of the vehicle. Even if you just have the driver, it's still a very useful machine. Or even if you don't see it that way, with a single person it still has MULTIPLE USES. What is the purpose of a tank? To destroy. If you seperate driver and gunner roles, it literally has NO purpose whatsoever if only one person uses it. It's too slow and restricted by terrain. If someone brings up the 'dropship should have gun+driver role too', please note that the Dropship's purpose is in its name. To DROP troops. It already ignores terrain, is effectively the fastest vehicle in the game, and can approach from angles which most static defenses and vehicles can not track. It's meant to haul people, not to blow stuff up directly. Even the side guns are meant for support.
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 173	Posted - 2012.09.08 00:00:00 - [12] - Quote tanks should be fragile expensive items? fragile? really?
Avenger 245 Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2012.09.08 00:14:00 - [13] - Quote tanks should have limited ammo and should requires 4 guys to run it. This AV nerf was temporary, as in not going to remain it was to test tank on tank warfare(of course CCP didnt tell us what we were suppose to be testing so no one tested it) Once we get E war, and more equipment tanks wont be as much of a threat But the above two limits should be added
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.08 01:26:00 - [14] - Quote HAVs should require a separate driver and gunner. Now that you can form a squad with people you trust, there's no longer any credence to the "but its my money and I want to shoot!" argument. A tank should be a cooperative vehicle, not a one-man force multiplier. EDIT: By the way, this is coming from someone who rolled HAVs almost exclusively in the last build. I'm not one of those people screaming about OP vehicles because I can't instagib them with my Militia Swarm Launcher, or anything like that.
Captain-Awesome 38	Posted - 2012.09.11 18:17:00 - [15] - Quote I await the "vehicles should be corp assets and therefore funded by the corp" thread. I'm neither for or against that notion, but it looks like funding of the tank is getting to be an issue here. nova - tanks are op this build, everyone knows there's a 25% nerf on AV, I don't care personally but you can't say they aren't op because the counter measures have all been nerfed. Technically yes, they've not been "buff op'd" but everything around it has been nerfed. anyway time for popcorn.
Scholar Him Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 29	Posted - 2012.09.11 19:01:00 - [16] - Quote It's obvious that tanks are OP right now. In fact, my character build is an anti-tank heavy that I'm trying to counter the obvious problem with having nearly invincible individuals on the battlefield. How is it going? Very poor. For every tank I take out, I probably have died over 10 times. So, 1 vs. 1: 1/10. Considering my class is suppose to counter tanks, that is an incredibly poor result. Let me ask you this: If they expect us to team up and have about 4 heavy anti-tank players to take out 1 tank, should they allow a tank to function with only 1 character? How is that fair? If a tank can run with 1 person, then 1 anti-tank character should be able to kill it, considering they are playing smart.
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.09.11 22:48:00 - [17] - Quote Captain-Awesome wrote: I await the "vehicles should be corp assets and therefore funded by the corp" thread. I'm neither for or against that notion, but it looks like funding of the tank is getting to be an issue here. Yes (as I alluded too in my OP) tanks are too cheap, especially with corporate resources behind them, as they are now.
Shiro Mokuzan 220	Posted - 2012.09.11 23:08:00 - [18] - Quote Patches The Hyena wrote: Great post op. I fully endorse this message However if CCP is determined to keep tanks as the "solo pwn mobile" (cr. ironwolf) then they need to point my dropship's guns forward so I can do strafing runs. Ironwolf did not create "solopwnmobile". Thats an old EVE term. I think CCP actually created it for describing what they didn't want any ship to be.
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.11 23:29:00 - [19] - Quote I can't disagree with what you're saying more... first off, 1 person sitting in a tank is infinitely less effective than 3 people. I personally have a mobile spawner in one of my highslots just so that I won't run the risk of only have 1 person. 1 person in a tank is also not invincible and most certainly isn't guaranteed to get tons of tons of kills. The main problem right now is that people aren't approaching a tank in the proper way. I can't tell you how many games I've played driving a tank where only one guy switches to something remotely AV. If a team isn't willing to adapt to a changing battlefield, then they absolutely deserve to get destroyed. Even just a squad (4 people) of people using decent (i.e. not militia garbage) swarm launchers and/or forge guns can make quick work of a tank if the driver isn't careful about how he drives. Not even 10 minutes ago I was in a game with a squad just like that. 2 people with swarm launchers and 1 guy with a forge gun dropped me from full health to dead before I could even get up to speed to leave the area... What people also fail to do is counter a tank with a... can anyone guess?... a tank of their own. It becomes even more important to counter in this way when the enemy team is willing to commit 2, 3, or even 4 tanks to a fight. It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf".
Paran Tadec Imperfects Negative-Feedback 902	Posted - 2012.09.12 00:08:00 - [20] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: IRL tanks have serpage gunners and drivers. Dust 514 should be the same way. Maybe have the tank default aim straight and still fire without a main gunner if the driver is the only operator. Yet somehow a pilot in a pod can accurately fire 8 railguns over 150 km and hit targets consistently, just by thinking about it. I hope we all get what you winers want, a separate gunner and tank driver, cause it'll make the tanks 10x as deadly.

Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.09.12 00:36:00 - [21] - Quote General Rian wrote: It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks...
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.12 00:45:00 - [22] - Quote Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases?
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.09.12 02:49:00 - [23] - Quote General Rian wrote: Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases? I don't really have much to talk to you about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance Games are about having interesting and fun things happening, not ISK to win. Have fun in whatever game you end up in.
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.12 03:36:00 - [24] - Quote Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases? I don't really have much to talk to you about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance Games are about having interesting and fun things happening, not ISK to win. Have fun in whatever game you end up in. The entire premise of this game is that we are mercenaries for hire. We work for corporations and are hired by corporations to get the mission done. This game isn't like all those other COD clone games out there were everyone is on an equal playing field. Don't get me wrong; everyone has every opportunity to do as well as anyone else... But the cold hard truth is, this game isn't about "even teams". The corporation willing to bring more firepower (bought with more isk) to a battle will win more often than not. Obviously teams made up of squads that work incredibly well together will be able to get the mission done with less invested based entirely on their skill... You pretending that this game isn't about "ISK to win" is laughably ignorant and completely denial stricken. The team with the better gear should win. The team with more tanks on the field should win. That's as plain as I can make it. All CCP is doing balance-wise is to ensure that one thing doesn't dominate the battlefield and is the only thing used... They could care less if one team absolutely destroys another because they bring in 5 marauders while the other team sticks strictly to cheap infantry fits. Edit- A direct quote from the very wiki article you linked me... "Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair."
victor coolbreeze Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 5	Posted - 2012.09.12 08:28:00 - [25] - Quote I have to think as the game is and the way eve online is as the story goes we are merc's.. I do believe at this stage of game development tanks are over kill.. They should not be in game.. If CCP add player station and boarding captial ship actions maps, how can you use veh in these area's??? merc units are mobile armed gound pounders.. tanks are a heavy unit, requiring fuel, ammo, and repair support. a crew of 4 to run them maybe 3 if you have auto loaders.. but Driver, Loader, Gunner, and crew commander .... If you have them in game min required to run one should be 2 maybe three game members... in certain mission type maps I can see a use for them, but in large the game should have light veh's that are in game right now and require min a driver and a gunner to operate.. as the game will support 24 vs 24 mini games, I would thing focusing more on ligh veh's and ground pounders would be a better.. unless we are talking about combine arm units and assault engagements using veh on veh.. you will end up with with to many people running tanks and aircraft and no one on foot to grab objectives.. example look at battlefield 3 everyone wants to fly a jet or heli, few take tanks but you find very few people wanting to be on foot to grab objectives.. they don't care they get rewarded for doing that even though they lose the game for not grabing and controling obectives...
Telcontar Dunedain Imperfects Negative-Feedback 328	Posted - 2012.09.12 19:12:00 - [26] - Quote General Rian wrote: Edit- A direct quote from the very wiki article you linked me... "Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair." So you managed to read only the first sentence? and after posting at that... A few lines further -- """In these cases balancing is instead the management of unfair scenarios, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that all of the strategies which the game intends to support are viable.[2] The extent to which those strategies are equal to one another defines the character of the game in question.""" For further reading I suggest my OP, if you had read it you would realize its not really about nerfs and buffs.
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation CRONOS. 191	Posted - 2012.09.12 19:36:00 - [27] - Quote In the last build we had the same thing, everybody skilled for tanks. Then: 1) Everyone started whining that tank are op. 2) Smart people skilled proto swarm launcher/forgeguns. 3) Tank drivers started whining that theyr marauders exploded too easyly. So PLEASE stop those "tanks are op" threads and skill for proto AV. THEN if Marauders can tank a full squad of proto forge they will need a nerf. I really want this game to be full of awesomsauce and balanced.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2012.09.12 19:56:00 - [28] - Quote General Rian wrote: Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: Telcontar Dunedain wrote: General Rian wrote: It's mindnumbingly baffling to hear people moan and complain about tanks, but are not willing to put one of their own on the battlefield. Learn to counter... learn to adapt... learn when it's time to commit more isk to a battle... Or learn to lose without screaming "nerf". So wait the "counter" to tanks is more tanks... No, the only counter to tanks is not tanks. But it's a perfectly viable way to combat them. People just become absolutely unwilling to commit a tank(s) of their own onto the battlefield when the enemy seems perfectly willing to. Why should an inferior opponent be expected to win in most cases? I don't really have much to talk to you about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance Games are about having interesting and fun things happening, not ISK to win. Have fun in whatever game you end up in. The entire premise of this game is that we are mercenaries for hire. We work for corporations and are hired by corporations to get the mission done. This game isn't like all those other COD clone games out there were everyone is on an equal playing field. Don't get me wrong; everyone has every opportunity to do as well as anyone else... But the cold hard truth is, this game isn't about "even teams". The corporation willing to bring more firepower (bought with more isk) to a battle will win more often than not. Obviously teams made up of squads that work incredibly well together will be able to get the mission done with less invested based entirely on their skill... You pretending that this game isn't about "ISK to win" is laughably ignorant and completely denial stricken. The team with the better gear should win. The team with more tanks on the field should win. That's as plain as I can make it. All CCP is doing balance-wise is to ensure that one thing doesn't dominate the battlefield and is the only thing used... They could care less if one team absolutely destroys another because they bring in 5 marauders while the other team sticks strictly to cheap infantry fits. Edit- A direct quote from the very wiki article you linked me... "Balancing does not necessarily mean making a game fair." But you're simply using in-game dogma to justify bad game design. Currently, the way to win a match is MORE TANKS. That's it. There are no alternatives. It's not about more ISK, or better strategy, tanks are the undeniable top dog in all circumstances. They excel at everything. They have the most HP by far, the do the most damage by far, and they are extremely fast. There is no good strategy currently in Dust that can paper-rock-scissors a tank. Instead we're playing a game of rock-rock-rock, where rock=tank. There needs to be multiple different strategies that result in wins at any given ISK level. If your team brings out 6 million ISK in tanks, my team should have 6 million ISK options that can shut your tanks down... without also having to use tanks. Otherwise, any match with decent players will simply be tank vs. tank battles, and that's pretty much the opposite of deep or intellectually stimulating gameplay.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 811	Posted - 2012.09.12 20:07:00 - [29] - Quote Martin0 Brancaleone wrote: In the last build we had the same thing, everybody skilled for tanks. Then: 1) Everyone started whining that tank are op. 2) Smart people skilled proto swarm launcher/forgeguns. 3) Tank drivers started whining that theyr marauders exploded too easyly. So PLEASE stop those "tanks are op" threads and skill for proto AV. THEN if Marauders can tank a full squad of proto forge they will need a nerf. I really want this game to be full of awesomsauce and balanced. A full squad of proto AV will not be able to drop an even halfway decent tank squad on most of the current maps. The proto gear doesn't do enough damage/have enough range to put sustained damage on a tank to take it down. They are so fast they can just run out of range at the first sign of trouble and heal themselves. I've spent entire matches trying to take out a sarg with a full AV squad on the circular map with the hills and all a tank driver has to do is drive in circles around the edge of the map and a full proto squad has almost ZERO hope in taking the thing down. Don't even get me started on "spider tanking". Was in a squad on that same map in two under 300k fit tanks spider-tanking and we went 79-1 as a squad against a constant onslaught of AV. 4 guys, 600k ISK (which was never lost), 79-1...and we were giggling and not really having to even take the match seriously. Zero worries of death.


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