|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
490
   |
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Alright, let's assume we'll get MTACs this year. I think it's safe to say they'll require vehicle skills, use small turrets, move slower than tanks, and have less HP than tanks.
How is a vehicle that moves slower than a tank and that has less DPS going to survive against current AV and even tanks? |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
490
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:For one, it might be small enough to fit inside of structures.
But yea, those are some pretty pessimistic and unfounded assumptions.
OK, then let's assume they're good. What happens to vehicles that are combat effective- nerf once they get over 10:0 in a pub match and ppl start to QQ. It you think they'll be any good, your blind. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
491
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jax Saurian wrote:MTACs don't even exist yet, not even concept art and you're complaining?
1. they are vehicles of COURSE they'll need vehicle skills
2. who's to say they don't get a single large turret or a small turret on both arms (two small turrets can be quite effective)
3. Where'd you get this information from? How do you know they'll move slower?
4. okay yeah probably
and to Void Echo,
Do you even know what the enforcers are meant for? rail tanking, they're weaker so they can be destroyed while they RAIL TANK in the red line they aren't meant for the front lines and they aren't a nerf they are a variant of HAVs.
Enforcers suck and anyone who thinks otherwise does not tank. I've never been killed by one. Madrugars are the only tanks worth anything.
Any vehicle worth anything with be nerfed- look at the LLAV- the one vehicle left that is truly powerful and it'll soon be nerfed BC infantry can't stand vehicles being powerful. This is why MTACs will fail. They're other gold on release and nerfed, or they come pre-nerfed like the enforcer. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
491
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Syther Shadows wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:Alright, let's assume we'll get MTACs this year. I think it's safe to say they'll require vehicle skills, use small turrets, move slower than tanks, and have less HP than tanks.
How is a vehicle that moves slower than a tank and that has less DPS going to survive against current AV and even tanks? who uses av on a map that a tank has no room to fit and honestly if some one shoots a swarm at you move behind cover if you see a forge gunner gtfo and kill any one before they can get close enough to av you simple
You clearly don't use vehicle so don't speak here. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
491
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:For one, it might be small enough to fit inside of structures.
But yea, those are some pretty pessimistic and unfounded assumptions. Agreed. Personally, I envision them as the Tech-III ships of Dust. A medium weight-class vehicle with multiple subsystems that you assemble together into the specialization you want. I also suggested a while back that they use infantry Heavy weapons to balance out what I imagine would be greater mobility and smaller size, thus making them a smaller and harder to hit target.
OK, so something with the HP of a Saga and the speed of a scout with kinetic katalyzers. It is not surviveable. Any vehicle user will tell you that if they know anything at all. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
491
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:For one, it might be small enough to fit inside of structures.
But yea, those are some pretty pessimistic and unfounded assumptions. OK, then let's assume they're good. What happens to vehicles that are combat effective- nerf once they get over 10:0 in a pub match and ppl start to QQ. It you think they'll be any good, your blind. And for you to assume that they're going to be terrible is just ignorant. Larger vehicles will continue to dominate the large open fields, while MTACS could be a miniaturized version designed for CQC. Besides, we have 0 information on what these will actually be. Will they be GIGANTIC JAPANESE FIGHTING ROBOTS, PS2's MAX suits, or very erotic and revealing leather suits with whips (female operators only), we won't know until later.
I'm hoping for giant fighting robots, secretly. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
495
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 04:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:For one, it might be small enough to fit inside of structures.
But yea, those are some pretty pessimistic and unfounded assumptions. OK, then let's assume they're good. What happens to vehicles that are combat effective- nerf once they get over 10:0 in a pub match and ppl start to QQ. It you think they'll be any good, your blind. And for you to assume that they're going to be terrible is just ignorant. Larger vehicles will continue to dominate the large open fields, while MTACS could be a miniaturized version designed for CQC. Besides, we have 0 information on what these will actually be. Will they be GIGANTIC JAPANESE FIGHTING ROBOTS, PS2's MAX suits, or very erotic and revealing leather suits with whips (female operators only)? We won't know until later. Option 3 please.
No! Giant fighting robots" |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
495
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 04:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Am I the only one that wants thrusters and a big ass plasma blade with my MTAC? 
No or not :)
I really hope they don't nerf these BC they have so much potential. Imagine a team of two jumping ontop of a tank and ripping it apart with melee or gunning down infantry at close range with 30mm cannons for the minmitar versions. If they became the swiss army knives of dust I'd be pretty happy. Problem would be AV grenades that are carried by everyone so jump packs are a must. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
499
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 08:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
As long as they're too SP intensive for anyone but people who are still tankers to use, I'm happy. I don't want the infantry trying to play with our new toys. I mean, either way, they have potential. If they were like super fast, high HP, high dmg heavies that could kill tanks and infantry, I'd be very happy and would be able to deal with a 2500 EHP, but any less than that is too weak to survive the battlefield. It's simply non-negotiable- especially for an armor-tanked one.
Here would be my desires for the entire field
Heavy MTAC:
-Your typical giant fighting robot (Like the mechs in Avatar)
-One large turret equipped as a main gun (think Titan Fall or Avatar), about 20ft tall (making it an easy target)
-STD having 7000 HP when full fit
-Moves 21mph
-Sidearm is a small turret
Light MTAC:
-Somewhere between the MAX suits of PS2 and the mechs of Avatar
-Equips two small turrets to each arm
-3000 HP on a STD model when fully fit
-Moves at 32mph
-Has a jump pack to leap 3 stories up, but it drains the capacitor
New MTAC-specific weapons
-Plasma blade: it hacks down tanks, infantry and just about anything. Like nova knives...but claymore-like.
-All turrets are modified to work with MTACs- large turrets become very large rifles, and small turrets are equipped like wrist-mounted weapons. No skill point investment necessary
Ultimately, they'd be swiss army knives, able to work as infantry or vehicle roles, but still carrying the inherent weakness to AV that all vehicles have. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
502
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 11:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Another Heavy SOB wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:As long as they're too SP intensive for anyone but people who are still tankers to use, I'm happy. I don't want the infantry trying to play with our new toys. I mean, either way, they have potential. If they were like super fast, high HP, high dmg heavies that could kill tanks and infantry, I'd be very happy and would be able to deal with a 2500 EHP, but any less than that is too weak to survive the battlefield. It's simply non-negotiable- especially for an armor-tanked one.
Here would be my desires for the entire field
Heavy MTAC:
-Your typical giant fighting robot (Like the mechs in Avatar)
-One large turret equipped as a main gun (think Titan Fall or Avatar), about 20ft tall (making it an easy target)
-STD having 7000 HP when full fit
-Moves 21mph
-Sidearm is a small turret
Light MTAC:
-Somewhere between the MAX suits of PS2 and the mechs of Avatar
-Equips two small turrets to each arm
-3000 HP on a STD model when fully fit
-Moves at 32mph
-Has a jump pack to leap 3 stories up, but it drains the capacitor
New MTAC-specific weapons
-Plasma blade: it hacks down tanks, infantry and just about anything. Like nova knives...but claymore-like.
-All turrets are modified to work with MTACs- large turrets become very large rifles, and small turrets are equipped like wrist-mounted weapons. No skill point investment necessary
Ultimately, they'd be swiss army knives, able to work as infantry or vehicle roles, but still carrying the inherent weakness to AV that all vehicles have. I like the Light MTAC, But I'd rather Akimbo HMGs. Or Forge guns, maybe one of each lol.
no, bc then it is a dropsuit and not a vehicle. Sure, it'd be way better, but I don't want infantry touching my new toys.
|
|
|
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
503
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 11:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kane Fyea wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:Another Heavy SOB wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:As long as they're too SP intensive for anyone but people who are still tankers to use, I'm happy. I don't want the infantry trying to play with our new toys. I mean, either way, they have potential. If they were like super fast, high HP, high dmg heavies that could kill tanks and infantry, I'd be very happy and would be able to deal with a 2500 EHP, but any less than that is too weak to survive the battlefield. It's simply non-negotiable- especially for an armor-tanked one.
Here would be my desires for the entire field
Heavy MTAC:
-Your typical giant fighting robot (Like the mechs in Avatar)
-One large turret equipped as a main gun (think Titan Fall or Avatar), about 20ft tall (making it an easy target)
-STD having 7000 HP when full fit
-Moves 21mph
-Sidearm is a small turret
Light MTAC:
-Somewhere between the MAX suits of PS2 and the mechs of Avatar
-Equips two small turrets to each arm
-3000 HP on a STD model when fully fit
-Moves at 32mph
-Has a jump pack to leap 3 stories up, but it drains the capacitor
New MTAC-specific weapons
-Plasma blade: it hacks down tanks, infantry and just about anything. Like nova knives...but claymore-like.
-All turrets are modified to work with MTACs- large turrets become very large rifles, and small turrets are equipped like wrist-mounted weapons. No skill point investment necessary
Ultimately, they'd be swiss army knives, able to work as infantry or vehicle roles, but still carrying the inherent weakness to AV that all vehicles have. I like the Light MTAC, But I'd rather Akimbo HMGs. Or Forge guns, maybe one of each lol. no, bc then it is a dropsuit and not a vehicle. Sure, it'd be way better, but I don't want infantry touching my new toys. I think they will make MTACs a separate tree from the LAVs/HAVs.
The vehicle skills, yes, but all the turrets and modules will be the same.
|
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
507
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 08:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
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 |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
529
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 04:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
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. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
529
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 04:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Disturbingly Bored wrote:BL4CKST4R wrote:
It will probably be anti infantry not anti vehicle, and it will probably move faster than a tank.
I'm picturing a Heavy, except wielding two HMGs, same speed or faster, more HP, and can't be one-hit-killed by an LAV. So...yeah. There goes all my allocated SP.  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.
NO MTAC FOR INFANTRY! ONLY VEHICLE USERS GET MTACS BECAUSE THEYRE VEHICLES! |
|
|
| |
|