|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vallud Eadesso
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
230
   |
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
4447 wrote:Like the title says...
Little bit of info for you all, if tanks had ammo they would have to decide to keep the ammo depot or destroy them.
I was under the impression they were giving them ammo counts when they also get around to adding capacitor? Something to do with balance, I dunno. Fanfest was a crazy event.
(On an unrelated note, that's probably why we don't have Amarr tanks yet, as lasers draw off cap for ammo) |
Vallud Eadesso
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
231
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Ammo: Nerf to effectiveness and eliminates more than half of their usefulness in all truth.
Weaker armour at the back of the tank, Stronger at the front: this is a present day earth feature, this is a galaxy on the other side of the universe 20000 years from now
Tanks need logistics, LAVs repairing me: they can already do this, its called remote shield transporter and remote armor repair
better map lay out so tanks could do what the are built for and push lines: they can barely do this now, but yeah it would be good to get better maps, this one I agree with.
I apologize for the sarcasm in the other post.
Apology accepted, though while i'm not fussed about either side of this debate i'll throw my ore in all the same:
Ammo: The starships in space still use ammo so I imagine the vehicles will still need it. To be honest, this will be a balance issue considered (most likely) when they add Amarr vehicles, which are reliant on Capacitor for everything, including shooting (Assuming they continue the tradition of lasers in EVE taking cap rather than ammo)
Armour: This is a balance issue. If we make it so tanks die quicker to rear shots, make side shots about as powerful as they are now, but make glacias shots do almost nothing, i'd say that's fair! Tankers might have to learn the art of Hull Down then (I keep banging on about this...)
Logistics: There is indeed a LAV that can perform logistics. Wish you saw em more as a LOGISTICS vehicle and not a f*cking bumper car instead.
Map design: Eh. Right now I don't think tanks SHOULD be able to push lines. They should be able to SUPPORT a push but they should not BE the push. Though bigger maps would always be nice. |
Vallud Eadesso
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
231
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 02:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
4447 wrote:
first statement, 20000 years from now tanks will have no use on the battle of the future. If you read up about tanks now they are coming to the end of their life cycle.
An unfortunate truth :( Tanks are rumored to be phased out and in the next 10-20 years the British Army won't even HAVE tanks.
But then again this debate comes up every 10 years or so apparently and every time tanks have prooven they have a place. Just the idea of a massive armored box and huge cannon being called a tank may not exist, the class of 'heavy support' most certainly will. (Stryker with 120m for example) |
Vallud Eadesso
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
231
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
Ammo: this would only be effective if there was a module that gave us more ammo that we can equipped onto the vehicles so that we are not screwed when the enemy has control or im in the middle of a fire fight. plus this is not eve, its an extension of eve for console. while some things from eve would benefit dust 514, other things would not
Armour: we already have tons of **** to worry about in battles and this will just add to them, it wont make things better, itl add to the stress of tanking and make in more undesirable, plus there is already a soft spot on the tanks, I don't know where it is so youl have to look it up
Logistics: that a player issue, not a mechanic issue, plus I don't care about lavs, there just another moving target for me.
Map design: tanks are not meant for support, if youl read they are for plowing through infantry opening a way for your team to take control.
Ammo: That's probably not needed. I hate to bring it up but Planetside 2 had a very clever solution to this: another vehicle brings the ammo. A LAV roaming behind you not only reparing you but restocking you in the same way Nanohives work for infantry is perfectly viable. Also CCP go for a certain level of consistency and realisim across their universe (Hence the hundreds of 'Chronicles' stories). While it's true they may scrimp on some things for the sake of gameplay, only CCP can say that. Time will tell!
Armour: That's the joys of being a tanker, i'm afraid. If CCP don't want to add armour facing then all I can say is you're going to have to settle for them dying as quickly as they do now. Can't have it both ways~
Logistics: Well the fact they're used as bumper cars is a mechanics issue. it shows their design is not meeting their intended role. A logi who hangs back in a safe spot and keeps tanks patched who fall back to him up would be incredibly valuable in larger scale tank engagements. Something we admittedly don't have yet. Shame.
Map: Tanks are nothing BUT support. Tanks are very much supposed to stay out in open areas and use concealment of terrain to mask them, they shouldn't rely on their armour and they certainly should't be pushing a front line. Tanks are not battering rams, they're heavy support for infantry. The fact this is not 100% true in Dust is down to poor implementation, not intention, and will likely change in time. |
|
|
| |
|