These vehicles have gunner requirements slightly lower than the Rhinos yet the driver need considerably more VHC skill for these than the Rhino which I can't see the justification for.
Printable View
These vehicles have gunner requirements slightly lower than the Rhinos yet the driver need considerably more VHC skill for these than the Rhino which I can't see the justification for.
probably because they fly?
This, they are not to be confused with Hovertech bikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasore
The problem with that train of thought is that the Observer glider (no weapons, driver and passenger) has about the same skill requirement as the Chaincraft which (ignoring the separate gunner) is driver and passenger (unfortunately there isn't a perfect parallel for comparison).
I'm not convinced that 'flying' in and of itself justifies the massive skill increase over the Rhino
mhh probably because chaincraft can shoot?
Let me think about this for a moment..Quote:
Originally Posted by 5150
The Rhino is a big cumbersome slow and somewhat heavily armored ground vehicle. Given its mass it would take an experienced driver to get it from point A to point B with any semblance of safety. Also it has one big-ass gun, hence the gunner needs a lot H-C.
The hoverbomber or carrier, however, is also big and heavily armored - and also somewhat cumbersome... much like the Rhino. But beyond that they are also VTOL vehicles, whereas observer etc. are mere gliders. As you can imagine it is much easier to fly a glider than it is to balance a bowling ball on a needle's point, which is essentially what flying a VTOL comes down to.
As for the gun, both bomber and carrier are armed with a 20mm cannon, which is a significantly smaller caliber than the tank gun. Hence less H-C requirements for gunners.
So from a logical point of view the increased VHC requirements for those two vehicles is entirely justified. And yes, I am using both of them myself and I'm okay with it.
The subskill requirement maybe, but a much bigger issue is the mainskill requirement for STR for combat VHC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morekai
Especially not in a friggin future scenario... Really, as if the turret was turned or the gun fired by muscle power in the 28th century...
Its obvious that its just a gatekeeping mechanism, just a really crappy one.
Yea, I never understood why gunning vehicles has a strength requirement when I first started playing. I made the mistake of thinking about it logically, we don't turn turrets by hand now so why would we in this futuristic setting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachenpaladin
It's clear it's just about reserving the gunning of some vehicles for tanks only, the strength requirement was just the simplest way of doing it, I guess.
That seems pretty accurate. however, this mechanism also keeps at bay something else: Without it characters would be able to use high-TL weapons way earlier than intended. As a result we would have plenty of tanks hunting cyclops with CS or things of the like - just because they had enough points in subskills accumulated to unlock it. However, due to Combat Rank they would get little if any exp out of it. But the more intended prey for that tier of weapons such as warbots or fire mobs are still way too powerful for such low-Lv characters. So the way it is now we do have a steadier progression through the arsenal of weapons - which in turn makes sure traders such as myself are always in demand for a greater variety of products.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatmankh
Oh, I wasn't talking about regular weapons, I was just talking about the STR requirement on gunning vehicles. I think everyone here is in agreement with the need for mainskill requirements on weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morekai
No one's coming for your tradeskiller. :p Except to gank them