| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
VicBoss
Militaires-Sans-Frontieres
135
   |
Posted - 2012.11.07 16:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ok so if we buff tanks armor/shields slightly, make missles and blasters less effective against tanks, and buff railgun damage slightly then tanks will be balanced. Here is why, If this happens then tanks will be more likely to use railguns to defend against other tanks. This was the infantry shredding missles blasters will be destroyed by a tank with a railgun, which are much less effective against infantry. this way the main AV, will be a railgun tank. Anti infantry tanks with missile and blasters will be used less as they will be destroyed by railgun tanks and thus wont be pulled out as much. then that actually makes Swarm launchers and forge guns more effective as they will more often be facing railgun tanks.
.02 isk |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'd be fine with this. I like the idea of the vehicles having a more specific role, so that tanks, no matter what, can't be excellent vs. literally everything, as they currently are. Having LAVs designed to be more anti-infantry, and tanks more anti-armor, would be an okay move. Even something as simple as modifying the fire rate and blast radius of turrets based on the vehicle chassis they're attached to would be enough.
But, yeah, regarding your own suggestion, that's okay too. Making missiles/blasters do less damage to vehicles, such that you're ****** if you bring out a missile/blaster tank vs. a railgun tank, while also making railguns have a lower fire rate and essentially no blast radius, that'd do a lot to improve the situation as well. |
ugg reset
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
234
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 20:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
could work. all tanks still have two small turret hard points so they aren't defenseless. |
RedRebelCork
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
37
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 21:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Makes some sense. This early of heavies being able to go toe-to-toe with a tank is a bit silly. Something that has 10 times the mass is going to be packing 10 times the armour, shields and armament. Traditionally without airpower (that we lack in a manner comparable with the real-world) then using armour to take on armour has been the preferred methods. Infantry anti-tank weapons are assassination weapons, not duelling pistols.
I don't play armour and haven't had much experience in the latest patch but I would imagine there is or should be a dedicated anti-armour turret that is relatively ineffective against infantry? High velocity armour piercing gauss cannons or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
Another factor to keep in mind though is player limits and map size relating to armoured warfare. Right now there are relatively few tanks in games (that I've played) , to specialise in anti-armour limits you to one or 2 targets and makes you mostly ineffective against other players. Perhaps with larger battles armour will begin to focus more on mechanised action rather than squashing meatbags. |
Governor Odius
Doomheim
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 22:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
By "armor" do you mean the health type or "armored fighting vehicles", sometimes referred to as "armor"?
Because the anti-armor turret is actually the missile turret right now. It gets a 30% damage bonus against armor, and a 30% penalty against shields. At present the only AV weapon which is better against shields than armor is the flux grenade, and I'm not actually sure how well that works against vehicles. Looking forward to laser turrets. They're sure to have a damage bonus against shields.
As far as a turret that's best against killing other HAVs, however, I'm not sure there is one. Maybe the rail, since it has better range than the blaster and, as far as I know, better single-target DPS (ignoring efficiencies) than missiles. |
Oxskull Duncarino
Shadow Company HQ
165
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 22:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Great idea. As it stands the rocket turrets are great against both armour and infantry, which is a pile of, you know what. Going by the present understanding of weapons and their design, if something is good for one then it is generally bad for another. Shaped charge rounds or sabot rounds are bad against infantry and blast/shrapnel/incendiary rounds are bad verses armour. If we could get a similar setup in DUST it would make my day. Having people having to spec their vehicle for a bit more specific roles would just add so much more to the game. A anti armour setup would need infantry support to guard it and vice verse. |
Ten-Sidhe
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 00:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
If the missile are to keep there daul role, the splash damage needs reduced. Keep the radius the same. This is mainly a problem with dropship fired missiles, so it could be attached to them, -x% splash damage. Probably both, so missile suppress infantry well, but don't slaughter them.
The blaster is not meant as anti-infantry. It's a short range high damage weapon, close in a blaster should have the edge vs a rail tank. It is just easier to kill infantry with it right now then with a rail.
|
RedRebelCork
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Legacy Rising
37
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 09:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Oxskull Duncarino wrote:Great idea. As it stands the rocket turrets are great against both armour and infantry, which is a pile of, you know what. Going by the present understanding of weapons and their design, if something is good for one then it is generally bad for another. Shaped charge rounds or sabot rounds are bad against infantry and blast/shrapnel/incendiary rounds are bad verses armour. If we could get a similar setup in DUST it would make my day. Having people having to spec their vehicle for a bit more specific roles would just add so much more to the game. A anti armour setup would need infantry support to guard it and vice verse.
Bingo |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |