DUST Search - Skills Needed to Use Turrets and Vehicles

Phoenix Archer 128 wrote:

So, this got touched on in another thread (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=504756#post504756), but got me thinking; should someone have the skills trained for vehicles and turrets in order to use them?

Now, IMO, if you require one to need skills (popular consensus would be vehicles) the other should require them as well; after all, you can't use a weapon you don't have the skills for, so why should you be able to use a turret or vehicle you don't have skills for? Side-note: I wonder what would it be like if you had the option to pick-up an enemy's weapon after killing them? Would you need the skill to use it, as if placing it in your loadout, or would you be able to use it regardless of requirements?

Now, requiring skills for these, turrets especially, will change the game dramatically. Vehicle drivers won't be able to equip any turrets over standard and expect to have people help them out (after all, level 1 skills are relatively easy to spec into on the side), unless you've made a squad specifically to use the vehicle to its fullest extent (one person with vehicle skills, one with turret skills). Is more specialization in this way a good thing?
This will, however, prevent Blue-Dots from taking your vehicles (especially after they realize they can't just jack a teammate's good vehicle, they'll most likely stop trying for militia as well), and from having them take up a turret slot you meant to give a squadmate who has the skills and uses turrets well.

Now, why not just let vehicles have the skill requirement and not turrets? Well, why should turrets (the weapons on the vehicle) be "skill-free" for a user, but everything else has a "skill-use" requirement? The team-play is the biggest reason to keep turrets "skill-use"-free, as this will limit the use of all but the worst turrets on all vehicles.

So, what do you guys think? I'm leaning more towards leaving vehicles and turrets as they are (no skill requirements for use when they're on the field already, skills are a requirement to call-in), but I can see a need for having a requirement for all use.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Phoenix Archer 128 Better Hide R Die 89	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:16:00 - [1] - Quote So, this got touched on in another thread (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=504756#post504756), but got me thinking; should someone have the skills trained for vehicles and turrets in order to use them? Now, IMO, if you require one to need skills (popular consensus would be vehicles) the other should require them as well; after all, you can't use a weapon you don't have the skills for, so why should you be able to use a turret or vehicle you don't have skills for? Side-note: I wonder what would it be like if you had the option to pick-up an enemy's weapon after killing them? Would you need the skill to use it, as if placing it in your loadout, or would you be able to use it regardless of requirements? Now, requiring skills for these, turrets especially, will change the game dramatically. Vehicle drivers won't be able to equip any turrets over standard and expect to have people help them out (after all, level 1 skills are relatively easy to spec into on the side), unless you've made a squad specifically to use the vehicle to its fullest extent (one person with vehicle skills, one with turret skills). Is more specialization in this way a good thing? This will, however, prevent Blue-Dots from taking your vehicles (especially after they realize they can't just jack a teammate's good vehicle, they'll most likely stop trying for militia as well), and from having them take up a turret slot you meant to give a squadmate who has the skills and uses turrets well. Now, why not just let vehicles have the skill requirement and not turrets? Well, why should turrets (the weapons on the vehicle) be "skill-free" for a user, but everything else has a "skill-use" requirement? The team-play is the biggest reason to keep turrets "skill-use"-free, as this will limit the use of all but the worst turrets on all vehicles. So, what do you guys think? I'm leaning more towards leaving vehicles and turrets as they are (no skill requirements for use when they're on the field already, skills are a requirement to call-in), but I can see a need for having a requirement for all use.
Icy Tiger Universal Allies Inc. 1026	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:18:00 - [2] - Quote I'd say no. It would push off newer players even more and add too much complexity and speration. As it is, you can already gain an advantage by skilling up into turrets. Also, I remember you from Star hawk. Sadly, the game was destroyed by constant QQ.
PsychoLogiKal PsyDrei Burnwall Industries 5	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:21:00 - [3] - Quote Phoenix Archer 128 wrote: So, this got touched on in another thread (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=504756#post504756), but got me thinking; should someone have the skills trained for vehicles and turrets in order to use them? Now, IMO, if you require one to need skills (popular consensus would be vehicles) the other should require them as well; after all, you can't use a weapon you don't have the skills for, so why should you be able to use a turret or vehicle you don't have skills for? Side-note: I wonder what would it be like if you had the option to pick-up an enemy's weapon after killing them? Would you need the skill to use it, as if placing it in your loadout, or would you be able to use it regardless of requirements? Now, requiring skills for these, turrets especially, will change the game dramatically. Vehicle drivers won't be able to equip any turrets over standard and expect to have people help them out (after all, level 1 skills are relatively easy to spec into on the side), unless you've made a squad specifically to use the vehicle to its fullest extent (one person with vehicle skills, one with turret skills). Is more specialization in this way a good thing? This will, however, prevent Blue-Dots from taking your vehicles (especially after they realize they can't just jack a teammate's good vehicle, they'll most likely stop trying for militia as well), and from having them take up a turret slot you meant to give a squadmate who has the skills and uses turrets well. Now, why not just let vehicles have the skill requirement and not turrets? Well, why should turrets (the weapons on the vehicle) be "skill-free" for a user, but everything else has a "skill-use" requirement? The team-play is the biggest reason to keep turrets "skill-use"-free, as this will limit the use of all but the worst turrets on all vehicles. So, what do you guys think? I'm leaning more towards leaving vehicles and turrets as they are (no skill requirements for use when they're on the field already, skills are a requirement to call-in), but I can see a need for having a requirement for all use. I agree with the vehicle use requiring the skill to use, or perhaps having the option to lock the vehicle down so that only squad members can hop in a turret. On a side-note also what was brought up in the other thread was, when you hack a vehicle it should end up in your inventory after the match is over if you managed to keep it alive for the rest of the match :)
Phoenix Archer 128 Better Hide R Die 89	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:27:00 - [4] - Quote Unless it gets added as Salvage, no, it shouldn't be given to you. You may have hacked it to be used by you, but you probably didn't hack it to transfer ownership to you (if its even possible to do so, and if it is it would probably take a lot longer than to change user permissions. Maybe a separate skill, or a 10x time penalty to hack it to make yourself the owner)
semperfi1999 Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 317	Posted - 2013.01.29 19:42:00 - [5] - Quote I think that unless you get to keep a vehicle you hack you should be able to drive anything on the field.
Phoenix Archer 128 Better Hide R Die 89	Posted - 2013.01.29 20:28:00 - [6] - Quote semperfi1999 wrote: I think that unless you get to keep a vehicle you hack you should be able to drive anything on the field. That would be an interesting compromise.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]