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.

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 they'll probably have less armor/shields

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.

MTACs are tank slayers expect them you out run/maneuver tanks and to have weapons like ground troops not turrets. All this is assuming large MTACS, if MTACs turn out to be exosuits then expect them to be heavies with the HP of a LAV and more speed.

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?

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

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.

I like the concept of the MTACs as 'tank slayers'.

If they're implemented as such, I'd say current vehicles (including dropships this time please) should get a further bonus to HP, AV grenades should be weakened slightly, but MTAC weapons should devastate ground vehicles. (and possibly low flying dropships). I'm thinking shoulder-mounted swarm launchers, AV grenade mass drivers, and the ability to use judo on LAVs.

Why would you assume it moves slower than a tank, have less HP, AND do less DPS?
Seems like you're just looking for reasons to complain before they even exist with these baseless assumptions.

MTACs (Mechanized Torso-Actuated Chassis) are metal exoskeletons used for heavy duty mining work. They are armed with mining lasers and can be remote controlled or worn by miners.

MTACs make for effective emergency weapons in combat, as they are heavy, virtually immune to anti-personnel laser weapons, and have large, dangerous claws. Some have surface cling abilities that allow them to maneuver in zero gravity.

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

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.

I'd be inclined to think that MTACs might have their own special set of turrets (depending on size I guess). An MTAC with the maneuverability of large-ish person but with high-level small turret power would be ridiculously overpowered. I imagine MTAC turrets perhaps using vehicle skills (or a new MTAC turret skill), but existing in some in between area in between regular weapons and small turrets.

Of course, they could just give MTACs their own tree separate from dropsuits and vehicles. It would become a huge SP-sink. You'd wind-up with robot specialists I guess....

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.

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.

Mmmmmhmmm. I like this. Tanks push infantry into city, MTACs push infantry into tiny passages, heavies finish them off. Bamsis.