|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
69
   |
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am skilled deeply into small turrets. If small turrets will no longer needed in order to fit a tank, I don't want them anymore. Can I have an SP refund? |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
You know what? I gave it some thought and I am really excited.
I think that with these changes, and the right application of skill points, I am finally going to be able to build my BRICK. A HAV with low offensive capabilities that's compensated for that by being nigh unkillable. I'll be able to provide cover fire and shielding for infantry and hold objectives. I'll hold the attention of my enemy, while my team kills them. For Tank V. tank engagements, the strategy will simply be to outlast their offensive burst and then attack or escape.
This is a really big deal, I'm stoked! A tank you can TANK in. That's what I've always wanted. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vespasian Andendare wrote:Our Deepest Regret wrote:I am skilled deeply into small turrets. If small turrets will no longer needed in order to fit a tank, I don't want them anymore. Can I have an SP refund? Why did you skill deeply into small turrets if you only wanted them "in order to fit a tank"?
I figured if I was going to be forced into having passengers on my ride, they should at least have decent weapons. The damage bonus was also nice for when I'm in another tanker's ride.
Well, now that we don't have to fit small turrets, no one will ever use them (myself included) making it the definitive example of a worthless talent. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bojo The Mighty wrote: Just because you don't want them doesn't mean that you can't use them
Surely you can use your SP in small turrets to spice up your fittings, to create more team oriented tanks, nes pas?
It sounds nice, but the extra PG you'd save from not using them could go towards upping survivability. I'd really have to see what proto vehicles were like before I'd consider making my HAV a team boat. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Kage Roth wrote:I still want a stasis webifier deployable to equip to infantry. Say it would slow vehicles down 60% for 60 seconds in an 8 meter radius when activated. Long enough to counter active mods. It would take luck to get the vehicle on top of it and coordination to let a squad take advantage of it, but that would finally put a stop to those HAVs that just run when they take any damage and then are back in two minutes. Or encourage them to have teammates nearby who can jump out and kill you while you are holding your webifier.
No passengers without small turrets! Tanks are going full lone wolf now. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
double post |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Our Deepest Regret wrote:Winsaucerer wrote:
This is not the impression I received, but without numbers it is hard to tell. I received the impression that being a tank you can TANK in is going to be harder...except for during a short window of time...so keep an eye on your exit route because you'll need to be retreating again soon. I would be interested to hear why you think these changes will make a tanky tank more viable than it is now.
I'm going by Wolfman's post: CCP Wolfman wrote:Active vs. Passive modules
WeGÇÖre rebuilding everything with the idea that active modules will allow a vehicle to survive a single encounter, while passive modules increase its long-term surviveability across multiple encounters. Active modules will provide very significant bonuses, but once used their long recharge times leave a lone vehicle vulnerable to any follow-up attacks. Passive modules on the other hand provide permanent bonuses that are comparatively small. The breakdown is as follows:
Active
Large, temporary bonuses
High PG/CPU costs
Single encounter surviveability
Passive
Small, persistent bonuses
Comparatively low PG/CPU costs
Multiple encounter surviveability What I'm taking from that is that damage oriented tanks will focus on active modules. Defensive oriented guys like me will load up on passive modules to maximize survivability over killing power. I'm all about dat defense. WASTE YOUR BULLETS! WAAAAASTE THEEEEEM!!!!
|
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lurchasaurus wrote: I didnt spec into tanks so someone else could use it
This guy gets it. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
D legendary hero wrote:
*single tire rolls down face* MY fellow piolots and I salute 07
When you're happy, you let people drive over your head?
You must be swedish. They're always doing that World's strongest man stuff. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Winsaucerer wrote: What I read that to mean is: be uber-tanky for a short time, and quite vulnerable for the rest, OR be middle-of-the-road tanky all the time.
That is, the active version will be much tankier than your passive fit for its brief active period. I don't see anything that would suggest that you will be able to tank any better (or worse) than you currently can).
Guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed then!
Hey, since we're in a vehicle thread, I'm curious about something in case anyone knows. Is it currently possible to fit a Madrugar to have three active hardeners and a rep? |
|
|
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 16:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:Wolfman, more thoughts:
Are there plans to change how Vehicle Recall works? Giving vehicles more EHP is great and all, but if it simply leads to more users just blowing cool downs, popping out, and near-instantly recalling their vehicle just because it's come under fire (A tactic already acknowledged by your staff in Feedback/Suggestions round up) you're going to have a mess on your hands.
Perhaps extending the time needed to recall? Denying recall if the vehicle has recently been engaged in combat(I.E. a Crimewatch-like system, such as EVE has)? Denying vehicle recall if modules are active or on cool down? I can imagine a hundred other systems to prevent tankers from abusing the vehicle recall system, and limiting it to it's intended purpose - a tactical option for tankers to adapt to changes in battlefield conditions(And not a 'get out of jail free' card the moment an AV player starts pinging them).
Vehicle recall is fine the way it is. If anything, it could stand to be a little faster. Sorry if someone has got a chubby for blowing up a ride, but if the pilot is reduced to removing it from the field, that's just as good. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nguruthos IX wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:crazy space 1 wrote:shooting a tank should interrupt it's recall ... **** off Such a bad idea,i bet you are one of the players who wants shield regen to stop when someone fires an AR at it Not going to have a mechanic where 1 sniper bullet stops shield regen or a recall But is it kinda bs when im spamming direct hit proto small missiles at a tank and it still recalls at 20%
You drove it off. Congrats, you caused the tanker to dismiss his ride thus clearing the field of a mechanized monstrosity. In the words of Don Cheadle/Captain Planet, "The power is YOURS!"
Oh wait, you're upset because you really wanted to blow up that tank.
...so? |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 21:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:crazy space 1 wrote:shooting a tank should interrupt it's recall ... **** off Such a bad idea,i bet you are one of the players who wants shield regen to stop when someone fires an AR at it Not going to have a mechanic where 1 sniper bullet stops shield regen or a recall what game lets you teleport and not get interrupted. if you are smart can never lose a tank by recalling them under heavy fire. Once people catch on no one will lose a tank ever.
Depends squarely on the tank. I've lost a couple amidst recall attempts. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 23:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Is it true that Vehicles have had their PG boosted for 1.4? |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
118
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 16:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
I think the ability to map active modules on the radial dial to face buttons on the controller would be a huge quality of life improvement for vehicles. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
226
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 05:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Temba Fusrodah wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Temba Fusrodah wrote: I do not know of any tank that would be impervious to a sustained barrage of .50 caliber armor piercing rounds fired into it, or an even lower tech level barrage of Molotov Cocktails tossed against it.
Show me video of tanks being destroyed by the M2 and Molotov cocktails. Then I could consider your reply a serious one. Yes, I was being entirely serious. I remember destroying a LAV with a shotgun a long time ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igHX3JOGwJ8the relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 05:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M57-gg_J1Jwthe relevant footage and commentary in regard to molotov cocktail attack is around 06:45 A wise man reflects on history as lessons already learned.
It's an interesting video Temba. I have a couple of points to make, however:
1. Modern tank armor is far more resilient. M1 Abrams deployed in the middle-east have survived ambush attacks relatively unscathed.
Example 1.
Example 2.
Example 3
Example 4
Which isn't to say that Abrams haven't been destroyed or disabled by rocket fire, they aren't indestructible. But it's been continuous fire from multiple attackers in a strong concerted effort that did the trick. Insurgent attackers were as obsessed with destroying tanks in real life, as blueberries in our silly game, only they didn't get the benefits of cloning technology to compensate them for their stupidity.
2. The molotov cocktail was dropped into the tiger tank through an open hatch from above, burning it from the inside out. It's doubtful it would have gotten through the armor. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
226
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 05:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Speaker, the tank with the grenade being tossed down its barrel was a T72. To answer your question, yes it's a cheap piece of outdated crap. The Soviet Union made millions selling those lemons to various Middle Eastern countries throughout the seventies and eighties. They're lightweight tanks designed with mobility in mind, the theory behind their design being that they could defeat American tanks through sheer speed. After all why pack on explosive resistant thick armor, when those silly American buggers would be too slow to even hit them?
this is why. Nine Abrams destroyed twenty-one T72's in three frickin' hours. The fact that they're still being deployed twenty years after the greatest armor rout in military history tells you more about a despotic Nation's economy, then it does about the skill of its resistance groups. |
Our Deepest Regret
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
267
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 21:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
Man, this is annoying. One guy the Monday before last said that starting this week, there'd be information released on vehicle balancing for feedback or whatever. We're creeping up on two weeks later. Yeesh. |
|
|
| |
|