DUST Search - Impracticality of MTACs

Charlotte O'Dell wrote:

Canari Elphus wrote:

If we want this game to be anywhere realistic towards when you would use certain vehicles, we first need to look at where they would be used.

I really liked Charlotte's idea of buffing tanks but more diversity in environments to make them specialized.

HAV - would now become open area enforcement. They are about limiting the movement of your opponent.

DS - would now become essential for moving over open terrain as they give a protected vehicle for transport (would be buffed as well)

MAV - (specualation) would be a mobile pillbox that could help extend the front line towards enemy objectives

MTAC - would be sort of a hybrid. They could survive someone in open ground but would have some access to CQC environments. They are meant to pin troops in certain areas

LAA - these would be the primary anti vehicle choice to even out the battlefield. They would be fast, maneuverable, pack a punch but have low HP

Plain and simple, vehicles should dominate in open spaces but ground troops should dominate in CQC

The Post In Question


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 126	Posted - 2013.06.16 13:12:00 - [1] - Quote If we want this game to be anywhere realistic towards when you would use certain vehicles, we first need to look at where they would be used. I really liked Charlotte's idea of buffing tanks but more diversity in environments to make them specialized. HAV - would now become open area enforcement. They are about limiting the movement of your opponent. DS - would now become essential for moving over open terrain as they give a protected vehicle for transport (would be buffed as well) MAV - (specualation) would be a mobile pillbox that could help extend the front line towards enemy objectives MTAC - would be sort of a hybrid. They could survive someone in open ground but would have some access to CQC environments. They are meant to pin troops in certain areas LAA - these would be the primary anti vehicle choice to even out the battlefield. They would be fast, maneuverable, pack a punch but have low HP Plain and simple, vehicles should dominate in open spaces but ground troops should dominate in CQC
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 129	Posted - 2013.06.16 13:59:00 - [2] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: I hate that I'm going to miss out on this because I hate HAVs, and dropships are ***** **. Seriously, just thinking about having to respec to avoid punching myself in the face makes me want to delete DUST Im waiting for fighters. Any SP I have going forward is just going to sit there. That way, in two or three years when CCP finally puts them in the game, I can max them out from the get go.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 136	Posted - 2013.06.18 03:24:00 - [3] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: If we want this game to be anywhere realistic towards when you would use certain vehicles, we first need to look at where they would be used. I really liked Charlotte's idea of buffing tanks but more diversity in environments to make them specialized. HAV - would now become open area enforcement. They are about limiting the movement of your opponent. DS - would now become essential for moving over open terrain as they give a protected vehicle for transport (would be buffed as well) MAV - (specualation) would be a mobile pillbox that could help extend the front line towards enemy objectives MTAC - would be sort of a hybrid. They could survive someone in open ground but would have some access to CQC environments. They are meant to pin troops in certain areas LAA - these would be the primary anti vehicle choice to even out the battlefield. They would be fast, maneuverable, pack a punch but have low HP Plain and simple, vehicles should dominate in open spaces but ground troops should dominate in CQC The Post In Question Exactly. Vehicles should be somewhat OP because that is the way they are in real life. Its not going to change in the 'future'. However, they are specialized to certain environments and fail in others. You balance vehicles with other vehicles and not troops. The only counter should be a possible buff to the vehicle prox mines to help defend certain areas. But, on the same hand, I would like to see destructible environments so that tanks can provide artillery support.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 136	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:02:00 - [4] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Wait, is this a thread about underpowered MTACs when we don't even have them let alone know what their stats are? OP, you need to lay off the pipe. There is a difference between impracticality and underpowered. The DEVs probably wont listen but its good to debate about their role/purpose before they actually get implemented than QQing about them after. Diversity means nothing if you dont have a complex battlefield. The whole reason new technology is developed is to meet a need that is not already addressed. Just throwing a MTAC onto the battlefield will do nothing but make another useless skill sink. The MTAC should be somewhere in between a heavy and a tank. It has the agility for city environments but cannot go in buildings. Its meant to pin enemies in to a choke just like tanks are meant to keep infantry in the city.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 137	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:45:00 - [5] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Wait, is this a thread about underpowered MTACs when we don't even have them let alone know what their stats are? OP, you need to lay off the pipe. There is a difference between impracticality and underpowered. The DEVs probably wont listen but its good to debate about their role/purpose before they actually get implemented than QQing about them after. Diversity means nothing if you dont have a complex battlefield. The whole reason new technology is developed is to meet a need that is not already addressed. Just throwing a MTAC onto the battlefield will do nothing but make another useless skill sink. The MTAC should be somewhere in between a heavy and a tank. It has the agility for city environments but cannot go in buildings. Its meant to pin enemies in to a choke just like tanks are meant to keep infantry in the city. Mmmmmhmmm. I like this. Tanks push infantry into city, MTACs push infantry into tiny passages, heavies finish them off. Bamsis. Yep, exactly... there needs to be more strategy to this game than running from objective to objective. This would be great for Skirmish 1.0 Tanks are the first advance. They soften up the defenses and help to push forward. MTACs would be next as the environment gets tighter Infantry would be the final push to capture the objective in tight spaces
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis 137	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:48:00 - [6] - Quote Disturbingly Bored wrote: [quote=BL4CKST4R] As a whiny heavy, I endorse this pre-emptive whine/nerf MTAC thread! We are totally equipped to judge the balance of something that doesn't exist yet. Still more fun than playing the game ;)