DUST Search - Things that must to be fixed for CPM to have value to u?

Prius Vecht wrote:

Takahiro Kashuken these ideas are pretty bad, your reasons support why we actually need the change.

1. I agree u should have the ability to store extra ammo. it should also take up a lot of cpu/pg like a nanohive does. but u whine about not being able to be self sufficient and about having to depend on others. just like the heavy, powerful assets on the battlefield that are totally self contained fortresses is poor design. vehicles need finite ammo for the same reason heavies cant carry equip.

2. everyone support vehicle locks. they will be here sooner than later. ejecting probably coming soon too.

3. theyve already confirmed logi lavs and these could easily resupply tanks.

4. logi lavs same as nanohives. when unlimited vehicle ammo taken away imo tanks should be able to use nanohives.

5. dumb question. the solo av guy dies 10x trying to kill a tank and does it maybe 10% of the time. u lose credibility when u complain about stuff like this.

6. no, it doesnt make vehicles weaker it makes them balanced. 90% of the time supply depot get destroyed its by tanks! why? because they could care less since they have unlimited ammo! and vehicles shouldnt have to reload imo.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 255	Posted - 2013.04.20 11:00:00 - [1] - Quote [quote=Tolen Rosas vehicle finite ammo [/quote] No - I will explain my reasons why 1. Vehicles have no cargohold - I want the ability to store at least 10k of rounds and not just have 40 and then have to rely on either a supply depot (which can be blown up), a blueberry which wont carry a vehicle nanohive or even one of my squad because if he gets out to put the nanohive down a blueberry may take his seat 2. No squad lock for vehicles - My squad member gets out to put down a vehicle nanohive, blueberry either way nicks his seat so he cannot get back in or takes the top turret which he was using to watch my back, thus my tank is weaker and i will then spend all my time at the back not moving hoping that the blueberry gtfo 2a. Due to no squad lock it also means johnny bluedot whill spam my small turret ammo all over the place and not even at enemy meaning he is wasting my ammo and ISK and i cannot do anything about it 2b. No ejecting system - Someone nips in my squadmates turret because squad lock isnt in the game, well i cant eject his ass out either because i dont even have that option 3. Supply depot go boom - Easily, if i dont do it normally a turret works or an enemy tank thus if you are out of ammo you are screwed more so than infantry because they have nanohives and vehicles do not 4. No vehicle nanohives - So make it all reliant on the supply depot which can go boom and then the tank is roling empty making it a non factor 5. It creates teamwork - Where is the teamwork for the solo AV guy? 6. Makes vehicles weaker - We dont have squad lock or the ability to eject ppl out of the turret seats, we have no vehicle nanohives making it all relient on the supply depot which goes boom easily, we dont even know how much ammo would be in a clip for railguns and blasters and we dont have a reload function to reload with a fresh clip so that we dont go into a situation with less than half ammo and end up having to wait 10sec to reload and in that time the enemy may have defended or taken the objective
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 255	Posted - 2013.04.20 13:24:00 - [2] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Takahiro Kashuken these ideas are pretty bad, your reasons support why we actually need the change. 1. I agree u should have the ability to store extra ammo. it should also take up a lot of cpu/pg like a nanohive does. but u whine about not being able to be self sufficient and about having to depend on others. just like the heavy, powerful assets on the battlefield that are totally self contained fortresses is poor design. vehicles need finite ammo for the same reason heavies cant carry equip. 2. everyone support vehicle locks. they will be here sooner than later. ejecting probably coming soon too. 3. theyve already confirmed logi lavs and these could easily resupply tanks. 4. logi lavs same as nanohives. when unlimited vehicle ammo taken away imo tanks should be able to use nanohives. 5. dumb question. the solo av guy dies 10x trying to kill a tank and does it maybe 10% of the time. u lose credibility when u complain about stuff like this. 6. no, it doesnt make vehicles weaker it makes them balanced. 90% of the time supply depot get destroyed its by tanks! why? because they could care less since they have unlimited ammo! and vehicles shouldnt have to reload imo. 1. Wrong - A cargohold does not take any PG/CPU, it is a space in any vehicle to store loot and ammo in general in EVE, plus its a vehicle what car or plane doesnt have room to hold extra ammo? 3. Logi LAVs are weak to any kind of AV, to rely on a bluedot to give me ammo no, to rely on a squad member or member of the same corp/alliance i could get behind but LAVs need to be better in general 5. Wrong - i have solo'd many tanks and done it the 1st time, i rarely need 10tries to do it and i can just keep pinned behind ther redline instead 6. It makes them weaker because we dont have several mechanisms in place so bluedots will waste ammo, relying on bluedots is even worse and we dont even have a vehicle nanohive or LAV vehicle nanohive mod or whatever Until locking and eject mechanisms and cargoholds are in place for all vehicles then i wont support it because i cannot control who is in my vehicle and its pure BS that i cannot stack up on ammo in my bay