This would give DS a purpose
they could be used to travel SAFETLY between different locations in the upper part of the map, where the tanks are and LAVS can afford to go beacuse it would be insta death for them
They might get some buff too
along with missiles and turrets

Your idea could literally fix any kind of problem with have ever had with vehicles

Yeah, I'm not keen on it if we CAN'T go take our AV out and beat on tanks and jeeps.

Also, in this world, it's going to be REALLY difficult to make a living as a sniper. CQC is no place for a sniper rifle

I think the installations are positioned so that they aren't too "all seeing" as it would be hard to imagine them always being blocked by accident.

OP this community needs more brains like yours
soo...
Get to a cloning station and clone yourself 1000 times then go to CCP head quarters and tell them your
freaking BRILLIANT ideas, and if they dont listen clone yourself more times and kidnapp them or something like that

Frankly,
initial thought: Terrible


But afterwards: good idea. Open areas CAN be vehicles domination area while in cities they have absolutely no part, many areas they even cannot enter.

I was thinking about this before in the context of the idea of raiding the inside of a Titan (or another ship really). They seem to prefer maps where vehicle people have something to do, but there are map possibilities that you couldn't realistically call a vehicle in.

I wonder if they feel like all maps need to be setup so people can call in vehicles. I can appreciate that specializing in vehicles is expensive in SP, but it shouldn't limit map/gameplay options. Maybe indoor/spaceship-breach maps could have special roles for vehicle people - like indoor security systems that require tank/ds/lav skills to operate or lockdown.

+1

As far as I understand from Logicloop's last dev-block they're already considering the interaction of infantry and vehicles when designing the maps. That's why all maps except Manus Peak have some area where infantry is at an advantage and some area where it isn't.

That said the distinction could be clearer. And Manus Peak is really infuriating.

No current AV could touch the buffed tanks. How is a tank going to be pushed into a corner by weapons that barely scratch it? All 16 mercs could run proto forge and one of odells super tanks would still be safe.

I just read the OP. The idea is flawed, we know you are a tanker and seem to want an untouchable tank. Why exactly would a 50000 hp tank suck in a city? How would AV heavies be relevant? Again I reiterate, your idea is biased to your play style and its not good.

Hiding the problem doesn't fix the problem.
This is just separating them.

Although I feel like the main problem is the player base. I feel that infantry should only be needed for covert ops, hacking, and fighting only where vehicles won't go.
The playerbase seems to believe that vehicles are some killstreak to rarely support infantry.

I like the idea of environmental OPness. Vehicles own this, infantry that, and everyone has SOMEWHERE they're good at. This guy needs as much attention as possible until CCP has this idea burned into their brains forever. +1

Also, I'd like to see destructability in these maps. Granted that a tank can't level a whole city in five minutes, but don't expect to have a whole team camp in one room. I just feel like tanks should be demolition, destroying installations, cover, everything. Not so much anti infantry.

Well, it's more or less close that that already, imo. The area around objectives aren't exactly easy to squeeze a vehicle into. And if you manage it, it's very dangerous.

bumping the crap out if this post

Alot of undercover/indoor areas means close quarters with tanking. From my experience CQC with tanks means tankie go bye bye

Ok kill all tanks immediatly?

Whats the point of tanking?

+1

Every weapon, dropsuit & vehicle needs to have at least 1 situation / environment where they are not matched by anything else. Except for ARs they ought to be the average at everything bad at nothing kind of deal.